Film processing help

steve_k · 07-13-2018, 11:21 AM

I had an opportunity to pick up a Super Program with an A 50mm F1.4 for a price I could not refuse. Because the lens alone is worth more than what I paid for both. I have not shot film in over 30 years. From reading the forums I have learned that when you send film out for processing that they provide you with a CD/DVD with the image files. I checked a couple of stores that sell film and provide film processing services. I asked what format the files are jpeg or raw. I got the look of what are you talking about. They then called the lab that does their processing and their support person did not know either. So I guess I won’t be using them.

I am guessing here that the default file format for most scanned images would be jpeg. Am I guessing correctly? I also assume that there are labs that will provide scans that are in raw format. I would like to have the images scanned to raw so that I can have the ability to process them in Lightroom?

Are there labs that can do this? Also as I am a beginner again with film I assume that Kodak color iso 200 is a good all around film? I always read about people using brands I have never heard of but I don’t think I am ready for advanced film photography yet.

Any help, pointers or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

**twilhelm** · 07-13-2018, 12:02 PM - **1 Like**

The images will be jpg format. Some of the better labs may be able to provide images in Tiff format, but I don’t know right off-hand any providing raw images.

**AstroDave** · 07-13-2018, 12:09 PM - **1 Like**

There is not exactly an equivalent of "RAW" for scanning. Once the film has been developed, it is what it is.

How it is scanned then, though, does make a difference. What you want (it seems to me) is to ask for something like a TIF (or other lossless compression) file format, which will have as much of the scanning details as it is possible to have. Ask them about how many pixels you get in a scan and what the dynamic range is. As you already put it - if they have no idea what you are talking about, you should keep looking!

You can still play with such a file in e.g. Photoshop to get your final results.

Ontarian50 · 07-13-2018, 12:09 PM - **1 Like**

Raw format really only applies to output from digital cameras. Each and every digital camera has its own "language" that the image processor has to translate into something useful and visible. Saving that raw data allows you to use your desktop computer to do the processing.

But on its own, a raw file is essentially useless.

While film scanners may have their own internal "language" and raw data, the software turns it into a useful file for you. JPEG is the universal standard format as most computers, tablets, phones, etc. can make use of it. However, JPEG is a compression format. At high quality levels it's virtually indistinguishable from uncompressed. Higher compression makes for better use of storage, but quality can suffer.

If you're super fussy, your lab can give you a TIFF file format from your scans. It's uncompressed, and files are large, and mainly of use in an image editing program like Photoshop. However, a top quality JPEG is virtually indistinguishable.

However, TIFF has one advantage in that it can store 16-bit data, whereas the JPEG standard is limited to 8-bit. Files are doubled in size, but colour depth goes way up.

But yes, asking a lab for "raw" scans is going to get you funny looks.

Swift1 · 07-13-2018, 12:35 PM - **1 Like**

"RAW" isn't really an image format. It's a term used for the unmodified data coming straight off a digital imaging sensor. Film scanners don't really output to a RAW type format, although some scanning software will output RAW type files.
A jpeg file will be perfectly editable in Lightroom, you are just limited to the 8 bits/channel data. A 16 bit TIFF file is more like a digital camera RAW file at 16 bit/channel.
If you are paying for lab scanning, in a way you get what you pay for. The more common inexpensive digital mini labs will give you fairly low resolution jpeg scans of varying quality. You can sometimes pay extra for higher resolution scans from these labs.
Labs that specialize in film processing and scanning, like The Darkroom and FIND Lab, will cost more but will give very high quality scans, and let you choose a range of output options.

Kodak 200 is a good film, especially to start with. Another inexpensive option is Fujicolor C200.

**twilhelm** · 07-13-2018, 12:38 PM - **1 Like**

If you get into scanning your own software, you will have different options, dependent on the software as mentioned. I scan my own, and do so as Tif format. Silverfast allows files to be saved as Tif or jpg. Viewscan also allows a raw format, but I’ve never used it as Tif works good and has rather large files.

**Alex645** · 07-13-2018, 12:45 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by steve_k

I am guessing here that the default file format for most scanned images would be jpeg. Am I guessing correctly? I also assume that there are labs that will provide scans that are in raw format.
Are there labs that can do this? Also as I am a beginner again with film I assume that Kodak color iso 200 is a good all around film? I always read about people using brands I have never heard of but I don’t think I am ready for advanced film photography yet.

a) Yes, the default file format for most lab scans are jpegs. Some will offer 'basic' and 'high quality' and that usually is referring to the quality of the jpeg and size.

b) Yes, there are labs that will offer you an uncompressed format. It's not really "RAW" because it's not digital native. But they can save it to a DNG or TIFF. Some labs that do this include TheFindLab and Richard's Photo Lab.
Film Services
Richard Photo Lab

c) For a 'beginner' Kodak Gold 200 is fine as it is cheap at around $3/roll, fairly forgiving of exposure errors, and is a decent compromise. However, I'd recommend two other films that have their own pros and cons.
1) Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400. This film is about the same price as the Kodak Gold 200, but is more forgiving in terms of exposure latitude (the ability to over and under expose intentionally or not, but to keep details in the highlights and shadows).
2) Kodak Ektar 100. This is the exact opposite approach, with a film that is around $7.50/roll, and for a color neg emulsion, will show you the effects (good and bad) of any amount of over and under exposure. It's a demanding film that will show you best (if you're taking notes) what you're doing right and wrong. Any slide film will be even more demanding, but then your costs just went way up. Ektar 100 is extremely fine grain, which will allow you to crop a bit more and it scans beautifully.

There is no right way to approach this. On one hand using the same Kodak Gold 200 eliminates the film as a variable from your learning. You may want to try different labs as you will see some are consistently good while others are inconsistently mediocre.

But on the other hand, getting a sampler of different films will also expose you to differences in emulsions and you will develop a preference due to quality, convenience, or price. Just stick to one lab at that point, as mixing films and labs too much can lead to confusion. My general advice if you do not have a film preference? If the lab runs Kodak chems, shoot Kodak. If the lab runs Fujifilm, shoot Fujicolor.

steve_k · 07-13-2018, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by AstroDave

There is not exactly an equivalent of "RAW" for scanning. Once the film has been developed, it is what it is.

How it is scanned then, though, does make a difference. What you want (it seems to me) is to ask for something like a TIF (or other lossless compression) file format, which will have as much of the scanning details as it is possible to have. Ask them about how many pixels you get in a scan and what the dynamic range is. As you already put it - if they have no idea what you are talking about, you should keep looking!

You can still play with such a file in e.g. Photoshop to get your final results.

AstroDave

Thank you for your response. I believe that is what I am after. I am assuming that I can do more editing a tiff file than a jpeg. Also the pixels and the dynamic range is something I would not have thought off.

Steve

---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 01:43 PM ----------

Ontarian50 and Swift1,

Thank You for your responses. As you can tell I knew absolutely zilch about scanning or the formats that are used. I am definitely interested in being able to edit the photos in Photoshop or Topaz studios if they require it. Also thank you very much for the film suggestions

---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 01:53 PM ----------

Originally posted by twilhelm

If you get into scanning your own software, you will have different options, dependent on the software as mentioned. I scan my own, and do so as Tif format. Silverfast allows files to be saved as Tif or jpg. Viewscan also allows a raw format, but I’ve never used it as Tif works good and has rather large files.

Twilhelm,

Thank you for your responses. If it turns out that I enjoy shooting film I will definitely want to get into scanning my own and also possibly developing my own. I developed some black & white back in High School and thought it was pretty cool. But that is a long way off I think. ;-)

Though scanning might come sooner as I have many old photos that I have not looked at in years. And it might be interesting to digitize them.

Steve

---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 02:13 PM ----------

Originally posted by Alex645

a) Yes, the default file format for most lab scans are jpegs. Some will offer 'basic' and 'high quality' and that usually is referring to the quality of the jpeg and size.

b) Yes, there are labs that will offer you an uncompressed format. It's not really "RAW" because it's not digital native. But they can save it to a DNG or TIFF. Some labs that do this include TheFindLab and Richard's Photo Lab.
Film Services
Richard Photo Lab

c) For a 'beginner' Kodak Gold 200 is fine as it is cheap at around $3/roll, fairly forgiving of exposure errors, and is a decent compromise. However, I'd recommend two other films that have their own pros and cons.
1) Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400. This film is about the same price as the Kodak Gold 200, but is more forgiving in terms of exposure latitude (the ability to over and under expose intentionally or not, but to keep details in the highlights and shadows).
2) Kodak Ektar 100. This is the exact opposite approach, with a film that is around $7.50/roll, and for a color neg emulsion, will show you the effects (good and bad) of any amount of over and under exposure. It's a demanding film that will show you best (if you're taking notes) what you're doing right and wrong. Any slide film will be even more demanding, but then your costs just went way up. Ektar 100 is extremely fine grain, which will allow you to crop a bit more and it scans beautifully.

There is no right way to approach this. On one hand using the same Kodak Gold 200 eliminates the film as a variable from your learning. You may want to try different labs as you will see some are consistently good while others are inconsistently mediocre.

But on the other hand, getting a sampler of different films will also expose you to differences in emulsions and you will develop a preference due to quality, convenience, or price. Just stick to one lab at that point, as mixing films and labs too much can lead to confusion. My general advice if you do not have a film preference? If the lab runs Kodak chems, shoot Kodak. If the lab runs Fujifilm, shoot Fujicolor.

Alex,

Thank you for your very detailed response. You have provided me with a lot of very useful info. The info and explanation of the films you mentioned are very much appreciated. The main reason I am interested in the different file types is for editing purposes and also for printing large wall art if I so choose. Everything I learned from digital was to always shoot Raw rather than jpeg. I assume that a tiff file contains more info and you can do more editing a tiff fthan a jpeg. Or am I completely wrong about this? Either way I want the best image files that I can get.

Steve

tuco · 07-13-2018, 03:36 PM

There is a "raw" file in scanning. It is scanner/software dependent. It saves the scanning information so you only have to scan a negative once. You can re-open this file as many times as you want and re-export it from the scanning software as if you just scanned it to make changes. (e.g. VueScan, FlexColor and ColorPerfect). If you scan, make adjustments and export to a final file, you have to rescan it to make changes if you closed the scanning software. Of course you can make changes in post with an image editor but you should export to an editable file, use a wide color space, 48bit color/16bit BW color depth and scan to grab max density off the negative and edit the contrast curve in post.

**Alex645** · 07-13-2018, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

I assume that a tiff file contains more info and you can do more editing a tiff fthan a jpeg. Or am I completely wrong about this? Either way I want the best image files that I can get.

Steve

Steve, yes, a TIFF is uncompressed and is usually a 16-bit file that has more data for editing than an 8-bit jpeg.

steve_k · 07-13-2018, 04:44 PM

I happened upon this site that does developing and scanning. As I’ve been told that jpeg and tiff are the standards. This site offers 4000x6000 pixel dng files. I am wondering if there is anything to be concerned about?

Simple Film Lab – Adrian Bacon

---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 04:45 PM ----------

Originally posted by Alex645

Steve, yes, a TIFF is uncompressed and is usually a 16-bit file that has more data for editing than an 8-bit jpeg.

Thank you Alex.

---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 04:51 PM ----------

Originally posted by tuco

There is a "raw" file in scanning. It is scanner/software dependent. It saves the scanning information so you only have to scan a negative once. You can re-open this file as many times as you want and re-export it from the scanning software as if you just scanned it to make changes. (e.g. VueScan, FlexColor and ColorPerfect). If you scan, make adjustments and export to a final file, you have to rescan it to make changes if you closed the scanning software. Of course you can make changes in post with an image editor but you should export to an editable file, use a wide color space, 48bit color/16bit BW color depth and scan to grab max density off the negative and edit the contrast curve in post.

Thank You Tuco,

Is there a particular scanner that you would recommend. That would work with the software packages you listed. I have hundreds of old photos that I may want to digitize someday. Possibly even this winter.

Steve

tuco · 07-13-2018, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

Thank You Tuco,

Is there a particular scanner that you would recommend. That would work with the software packages you listed. I have hundreds of old photos that I may want to digitize someday. Possibly even this winter.

Steve

I know a Nikon CoolScan can produce a raw file with VueScan and for ColorPerfect. And I'm sure many other scanners that VueScan supports will output a VueScan raw file. It's a check box option in VueScan's file output. I don't know off hand what is a good batch scanner. The ones I've owned don't do that many at once. Maybe paying for a service to scan your files would be the fastest method of getting them done. IIRC, there are some past threads on that subject.

Russell W. Barnes · 07-14-2018, 02:14 AM

I ran a Kodak Gold through my ME Super and decided to try a lab-scan as well as just the negs. But I only asked for 4.5k TIFF files and I was disappointed. You CAN get hi-res files but the cost is far greater compared to what it was just a few years ago.

I have an old Acer Scanwit 2720S which can output as colour neg or slide or B&W with a few film-type preset options, or as a RAW output which I use and save as PSD files. I use a combination of Lightroom 3 and Photoshop 7 for processing. When I say 'RAW' it's a case of what you see is what you get - but ALL the correction settings for other options have to be disabled. This gives me way better results than the 4.5k TIFF lab scan. The company I use has a Noritsu scanner (UK-based).

Trouble is, it's a SCSI scanner and I have to keep my old desktop PC alive running WinME to drive it. The MiraFoto interface is clunky and very 1990s, but works. Unfortunately I can't find a VueScan or Silverlight driver to work that old. Unless someone can point me to one?

steve_k · 07-14-2018, 06:30 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by tuco

I know a Nikon CoolScan can produce a raw file with VueScan and for ColorPerfect. And I'm sure many other scanners that VueScan supports will output a VueScan raw file. It's a check box option in VueScan's file output. I don't know off hand what is a good batch scanner. The ones I've owned don't do that many at once. Maybe paying for a service to scan your files would be the fastest method of getting them done. IIRC, there are some past threads on that subject.

Tuco,

Thank you again for your response. Now I know that there are scanners capable of batch processing. Also thanks for specificks on the Nikon scanner. It provides me with a starting point. When I started this thread I thought it would be a relatively simple answer. Instead it seems more like a journey down the rabbit hole.

---------- Post added 07-14-18 at 07:04 AM ----------

Originally posted by Russell W. Barnes

I ran a Kodak Gold through my ME Super and decided to try a lab-scan as well as just the negs. But I only asked for 4.5k TIFF files and I was disappointed. You CAN get hi-res files but the cost is far greater compared to what it was just a few years ago.

I have an old Acer Scanwit 2720S which can output as colour neg or slide or B&W with a few film-type preset options, or as a RAW output which I use and save as PSD files. I use a combination of Lightroom 3 and Photoshop 7 for processing. When I say 'RAW' it's a case of what you see is what you get - but ALL the correction settings for other options have to be disabled. This gives me way better results than the 4.5k TIFF lab scan. The company I use has a Noritsu scanner (UK-based).

Trouble is, it's a SCSI scanner and I have to keep my old desktop PC alive running WinME to drive it. The MiraFoto interface is clunky and very 1990s, but works. Unfortunately I can't find a VueScan or Silverlight driver to work that old. Unless someone can point me to one?

Russell,

Thank You for your response. I love hearing about people’s experiences dealing with the labs. I think I have found one that I am going to give a try. It looks like it is a very small operation in California. For $15 US he will develop and scan the files to a 6000x4000 dng file that you then download. He will then mail the negatives back to you. Worse case scenario is I’m out $15.

Simple Film Lab – Adrian Bacon

I also like your hardware. A man after my own heart. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Still have an XP computer because my wife hates change. Also I get blamed because I didn’t tell Microsoft to leave the interface unchanged. :-).

Thanks
Steve

**twilhelm** · 07-14-2018, 07:18 AM - **1 Like**

For inexpensive scanning at home, I can recommend the Epson V550 and V600. They will batch scan up to 12 negatives. I use the V600 with Vuescan for this reason. My cost for scanner and software was around $260. I also have an Opticfilm 7500i running Silverfast. That setup cost me about $600 and while it does not do batch scans, I have a lot of working latitude with my scans and can create huge files to work with. With it I have recently scanned some Ilford Pan F+ and printed at 13x19 which looked great.

07-13-2018, 11:21 AM	#1
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708	Film processing help I had an opportunity to pick up a Super Program with an A 50mm F1.4 for a price I could not refuse. Because the lens alone is worth more than what I paid for both. I have not shot film in over 30 years. From reading the forums I have learned that when you send film out for processing that they provide you with a CD/DVD with the image files. I checked a couple of stores that sell film and provide film processing services. I asked what format the files are jpeg or raw. I got the look of what are you talking about. They then called the lab that does their processing and their support person did not know either. So I guess I won’t be using them. I am guessing here that the default file format for most scanned images would be jpeg. Am I guessing correctly? I also assume that there are labs that will provide scans that are in raw format. I would like to have the images scanned to raw so that I can have the ability to process them in Lightroom? Are there labs that can do this? Also as I am a beginner again with film I assume that Kodak color iso 200 is a good all around film? I always read about people using brands I have never heard of but I don’t think I am ready for advanced film photography yet. Any help, pointers or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

07-13-2018, 03:36 PM	#9
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	There is a "raw" file in scanning. It is scanner/software dependent. It saves the scanning information so you only have to scan a negative once. You can re-open this file as many times as you want and re-export it from the scanning software as if you just scanned it to make changes. (e.g. VueScan, FlexColor and ColorPerfect). If you scan, make adjustments and export to a final file, you have to rescan it to make changes if you closed the scanning software. Of course you can make changes in post with an image editor but you should export to an editable file, use a wide color space, 48bit color/16bit BW color depth and scan to grab max density off the negative and edit the contrast curve in post. Last edited by tuco; 07-13-2018 at 03:55 PM. Reason: fix info

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic Post-Processing Post Processing Challenge #258 - Harvard	tuggie76	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	11	05-24-2018 12:39 PM
processing a forgotten film from 1970's(?) ! Help :)	aurele	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	28	09-05-2013 08:31 AM
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?)	ADHWJC	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	11-29-2010 08:11 PM
Need help with B&W negative film processing...	theperception2008	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	15	04-16-2010 04:45 AM

07-13-2018, 12:02 PM - 1 Like	#2
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	The images will be jpg format. Some of the better labs may be able to provide images in Tiff format, but I don’t know right off-hand any providing raw images.

07-13-2018, 12:09 PM - 1 Like	#3
AstroDave Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 1,644	There is not exactly an equivalent of "RAW" for scanning. Once the film has been developed, it is what it is. How it is scanned then, though, does make a difference. What you want (it seems to me) is to ask for something like a TIF (or other lossless compression) file format, which will have as much of the scanning details as it is possible to have. Ask them about how many pixels you get in a scan and what the dynamic range is. As you already put it - if they have no idea what you are talking about, you should keep looking! You can still play with such a file in e.g. Photoshop to get your final results.

07-13-2018, 12:09 PM - 1 Like	#4
Ontarian50 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 530	Raw format really only applies to output from digital cameras. Each and every digital camera has its own "language" that the image processor has to translate into something useful and visible. Saving that raw data allows you to use your desktop computer to do the processing. But on its own, a raw file is essentially useless. While film scanners may have their own internal "language" and raw data, the software turns it into a useful file for you. JPEG is the universal standard format as most computers, tablets, phones, etc. can make use of it. However, JPEG is a compression format. At high quality levels it's virtually indistinguishable from uncompressed. Higher compression makes for better use of storage, but quality can suffer. If you're super fussy, your lab can give you a TIFF file format from your scans. It's uncompressed, and files are large, and mainly of use in an image editing program like Photoshop. However, a top quality JPEG is virtually indistinguishable. However, TIFF has one advantage in that it can store 16-bit data, whereas the JPEG standard is limited to 8-bit. Files are doubled in size, but colour depth goes way up. But yes, asking a lab for "raw" scans is going to get you funny looks.

07-13-2018, 12:35 PM - 1 Like	#5
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	"RAW" isn't really an image format. It's a term used for the unmodified data coming straight off a digital imaging sensor. Film scanners don't really output to a RAW type format, although some scanning software will output RAW type files. A jpeg file will be perfectly editable in Lightroom, you are just limited to the 8 bits/channel data. A 16 bit TIFF file is more like a digital camera RAW file at 16 bit/channel. If you are paying for lab scanning, in a way you get what you pay for. The more common inexpensive digital mini labs will give you fairly low resolution jpeg scans of varying quality. You can sometimes pay extra for higher resolution scans from these labs. Labs that specialize in film processing and scanning, like The Darkroom and FIND Lab, will cost more but will give very high quality scans, and let you choose a range of output options. Kodak 200 is a good film, especially to start with. Another inexpensive option is Fujicolor C200.

07-13-2018, 12:38 PM - 1 Like	#6
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	If you get into scanning your own software, you will have different options, dependent on the software as mentioned. I scan my own, and do so as Tif format. Silverfast allows files to be saved as Tif or jpg. Viewscan also allows a raw format, but I’ve never used it as Tif works good and has rather large files.

07-13-2018, 12:45 PM - 1 Like	#7
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by steve_k I am guessing here that the default file format for most scanned images would be jpeg. Am I guessing correctly? I also assume that there are labs that will provide scans that are in raw format. Are there labs that can do this? Also as I am a beginner again with film I assume that Kodak color iso 200 is a good all around film? I always read about people using brands I have never heard of but I don’t think I am ready for advanced film photography yet. a) Yes, the default file format for most lab scans are jpegs. Some will offer 'basic' and 'high quality' and that usually is referring to the quality of the jpeg and size. b) Yes, there are labs that will offer you an uncompressed format. It's not really "RAW" because it's not digital native. But they can save it to a DNG or TIFF. Some labs that do this include TheFindLab and Richard's Photo Lab. Film Services Richard Photo Lab c) For a 'beginner' Kodak Gold 200 is fine as it is cheap at around $3/roll, fairly forgiving of exposure errors, and is a decent compromise. However, I'd recommend two other films that have their own pros and cons. 1) Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400. This film is about the same price as the Kodak Gold 200, but is more forgiving in terms of exposure latitude (the ability to over and under expose intentionally or not, but to keep details in the highlights and shadows). 2) Kodak Ektar 100. This is the exact opposite approach, with a film that is around $7.50/roll, and for a color neg emulsion, will show you the effects (good and bad) of any amount of over and under exposure. It's a demanding film that will show you best (if you're taking notes) what you're doing right and wrong. Any slide film will be even more demanding, but then your costs just went way up. Ektar 100 is extremely fine grain, which will allow you to crop a bit more and it scans beautifully. There is no right way to approach this. On one hand using the same Kodak Gold 200 eliminates the film as a variable from your learning. You may want to try different labs as you will see some are consistently good while others are inconsistently mediocre. But on the other hand, getting a sampler of different films will also expose you to differences in emulsions and you will develop a preference due to quality, convenience, or price. Just stick to one lab at that point, as mixing films and labs too much can lead to confusion. My general advice if you do not have a film preference? If the lab runs Kodak chems, shoot Kodak. If the lab runs Fujifilm, shoot Fujicolor.

07-13-2018, 01:22 PM	#8
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	Originally posted by AstroDave There is not exactly an equivalent of "RAW" for scanning. Once the film has been developed, it is what it is. How it is scanned then, though, does make a difference. What you want (it seems to me) is to ask for something like a TIF (or other lossless compression) file format, which will have as much of the scanning details as it is possible to have. Ask them about how many pixels you get in a scan and what the dynamic range is. As you already put it - if they have no idea what you are talking about, you should keep looking! You can still play with such a file in e.g. Photoshop to get your final results. AstroDave Thank you for your response. I believe that is what I am after. I am assuming that I can do more editing a tiff file than a jpeg. Also the pixels and the dynamic range is something I would not have thought off. Steve ---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 01:43 PM ---------- Ontarian50 and Swift1, Thank You for your responses. As you can tell I knew absolutely zilch about scanning or the formats that are used. I am definitely interested in being able to edit the photos in Photoshop or Topaz studios if they require it. Also thank you very much for the film suggestions ---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 01:53 PM ---------- Originally posted by twilhelm If you get into scanning your own software, you will have different options, dependent on the software as mentioned. I scan my own, and do so as Tif format. Silverfast allows files to be saved as Tif or jpg. Viewscan also allows a raw format, but I’ve never used it as Tif works good and has rather large files. Twilhelm, Thank you for your responses. If it turns out that I enjoy shooting film I will definitely want to get into scanning my own and also possibly developing my own. I developed some black & white back in High School and thought it was pretty cool. But that is a long way off I think. ;-) Though scanning might come sooner as I have many old photos that I have not looked at in years. And it might be interesting to digitize them. Steve ---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 02:13 PM ---------- Originally posted by Alex645 a) Yes, the default file format for most lab scans are jpegs. Some will offer 'basic' and 'high quality' and that usually is referring to the quality of the jpeg and size. b) Yes, there are labs that will offer you an uncompressed format. It's not really "RAW" because it's not digital native. But they can save it to a DNG or TIFF. Some labs that do this include TheFindLab and Richard's Photo Lab. Film Services Richard Photo Lab c) For a 'beginner' Kodak Gold 200 is fine as it is cheap at around $3/roll, fairly forgiving of exposure errors, and is a decent compromise. However, I'd recommend two other films that have their own pros and cons. 1) Fujifilm Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400. This film is about the same price as the Kodak Gold 200, but is more forgiving in terms of exposure latitude (the ability to over and under expose intentionally or not, but to keep details in the highlights and shadows). 2) Kodak Ektar 100. This is the exact opposite approach, with a film that is around $7.50/roll, and for a color neg emulsion, will show you the effects (good and bad) of any amount of over and under exposure. It's a demanding film that will show you best (if you're taking notes) what you're doing right and wrong. Any slide film will be even more demanding, but then your costs just went way up. Ektar 100 is extremely fine grain, which will allow you to crop a bit more and it scans beautifully. There is no right way to approach this. On one hand using the same Kodak Gold 200 eliminates the film as a variable from your learning. You may want to try different labs as you will see some are consistently good while others are inconsistently mediocre. But on the other hand, getting a sampler of different films will also expose you to differences in emulsions and you will develop a preference due to quality, convenience, or price. Just stick to one lab at that point, as mixing films and labs too much can lead to confusion. My general advice if you do not have a film preference? If the lab runs Kodak chems, shoot Kodak. If the lab runs Fujifilm, shoot Fujicolor. Alex, Thank you for your very detailed response. You have provided me with a lot of very useful info. The info and explanation of the films you mentioned are very much appreciated. The main reason I am interested in the different file types is for editing purposes and also for printing large wall art if I so choose. Everything I learned from digital was to always shoot Raw rather than jpeg. I assume that a tiff file contains more info and you can do more editing a tiff fthan a jpeg. Or am I completely wrong about this? Either way I want the best image files that I can get. Steve

07-13-2018, 03:47 PM	#10
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by steve_k I assume that a tiff file contains more info and you can do more editing a tiff fthan a jpeg. Or am I completely wrong about this? Either way I want the best image files that I can get. Steve Steve, yes, a TIFF is uncompressed and is usually a 16-bit file that has more data for editing than an 8-bit jpeg.

07-13-2018, 04:44 PM	#11
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	I happened upon this site that does developing and scanning. As I’ve been told that jpeg and tiff are the standards. This site offers 4000x6000 pixel dng files. I am wondering if there is anything to be concerned about? Simple Film Lab – Adrian Bacon ---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 04:45 PM ---------- Originally posted by Alex645 Steve, yes, a TIFF is uncompressed and is usually a 16-bit file that has more data for editing than an 8-bit jpeg. Thank you Alex. ---------- Post added 07-13-18 at 04:51 PM ---------- Originally posted by tuco There is a "raw" file in scanning. It is scanner/software dependent. It saves the scanning information so you only have to scan a negative once. You can re-open this file as many times as you want and re-export it from the scanning software as if you just scanned it to make changes. (e.g. VueScan, FlexColor and ColorPerfect). If you scan, make adjustments and export to a final file, you have to rescan it to make changes if you closed the scanning software. Of course you can make changes in post with an image editor but you should export to an editable file, use a wide color space, 48bit color/16bit BW color depth and scan to grab max density off the negative and edit the contrast curve in post. Thank You Tuco, Is there a particular scanner that you would recommend. That would work with the software packages you listed. I have hundreds of old photos that I may want to digitize someday. Possibly even this winter. Steve

07-13-2018, 06:36 PM	#12
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by steve_k Thank You Tuco, Is there a particular scanner that you would recommend. That would work with the software packages you listed. I have hundreds of old photos that I may want to digitize someday. Possibly even this winter. Steve I know a Nikon CoolScan can produce a raw file with VueScan and for ColorPerfect. And I'm sure many other scanners that VueScan supports will output a VueScan raw file. It's a check box option in VueScan's file output. I don't know off hand what is a good batch scanner. The ones I've owned don't do that many at once. Maybe paying for a service to scan your files would be the fastest method of getting them done. IIRC, there are some past threads on that subject.

07-14-2018, 02:14 AM	#13
Russell W. Barnes Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Near Penrith, Cumbria, England UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 296	I ran a Kodak Gold through my ME Super and decided to try a lab-scan as well as just the negs. But I only asked for 4.5k TIFF files and I was disappointed. You CAN get hi-res files but the cost is far greater compared to what it was just a few years ago. I have an old Acer Scanwit 2720S which can output as colour neg or slide or B&W with a few film-type preset options, or as a RAW output which I use and save as PSD files. I use a combination of Lightroom 3 and Photoshop 7 for processing. When I say 'RAW' it's a case of what you see is what you get - but ALL the correction settings for other options have to be disabled. This gives me way better results than the 4.5k TIFF lab scan. The company I use has a Noritsu scanner (UK-based). Trouble is, it's a SCSI scanner and I have to keep my old desktop PC alive running WinME to drive it. The MiraFoto interface is clunky and very 1990s, but works. Unfortunately I can't find a VueScan or Silverlight driver to work that old. Unless someone can point me to one?

07-14-2018, 06:30 AM - 1 Like	#14
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco I know a Nikon CoolScan can produce a raw file with VueScan and for ColorPerfect. And I'm sure many other scanners that VueScan supports will output a VueScan raw file. It's a check box option in VueScan's file output. I don't know off hand what is a good batch scanner. The ones I've owned don't do that many at once. Maybe paying for a service to scan your files would be the fastest method of getting them done. IIRC, there are some past threads on that subject. Tuco, Thank you again for your response. Now I know that there are scanners capable of batch processing. Also thanks for specificks on the Nikon scanner. It provides me with a starting point. When I started this thread I thought it would be a relatively simple answer. Instead it seems more like a journey down the rabbit hole. ---------- Post added 07-14-18 at 07:04 AM ---------- Originally posted by Russell W. Barnes I ran a Kodak Gold through my ME Super and decided to try a lab-scan as well as just the negs. But I only asked for 4.5k TIFF files and I was disappointed. You CAN get hi-res files but the cost is far greater compared to what it was just a few years ago. I have an old Acer Scanwit 2720S which can output as colour neg or slide or B&W with a few film-type preset options, or as a RAW output which I use and save as PSD files. I use a combination of Lightroom 3 and Photoshop 7 for processing. When I say 'RAW' it's a case of what you see is what you get - but ALL the correction settings for other options have to be disabled. This gives me way better results than the 4.5k TIFF lab scan. The company I use has a Noritsu scanner (UK-based). Trouble is, it's a SCSI scanner and I have to keep my old desktop PC alive running WinME to drive it. The MiraFoto interface is clunky and very 1990s, but works. Unfortunately I can't find a VueScan or Silverlight driver to work that old. Unless someone can point me to one? Russell, Thank You for your response. I love hearing about people’s experiences dealing with the labs. I think I have found one that I am going to give a try. It looks like it is a very small operation in California. For $15 US he will develop and scan the files to a 6000x4000 dng file that you then download. He will then mail the negatives back to you. Worse case scenario is I’m out $15. Simple Film Lab – Adrian Bacon I also like your hardware. A man after my own heart. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Still have an XP computer because my wife hates change. Also I get blamed because I didn’t tell Microsoft to leave the interface unchanged. :-). Thanks Steve

07-14-2018, 07:18 AM - 1 Like	#15
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	For inexpensive scanning at home, I can recommend the Epson V550 and V600. They will batch scan up to 12 negatives. I use the V600 with Vuescan for this reason. My cost for scanner and software was around $260. I also have an Opticfilm 7500i running Silverfast. That setup cost me about $600 and while it does not do batch scans, I have a lot of working latitude with my scans and can create huge files to work with. With it I have recently scanned some Ilford Pan F+ and printed at 13x19 which looked great.