[Pentastic]

I see suggestions often to skip the print phase at a lab and just get the negatives for scanning. My instincts tell me that is one more handling step subject to dust at the very least. What are the pro and cons of getting the negatives and a cd scan from the lab and forego the prints. Do labs "scan" from the negative or the prints? What kind of scan quality can one expect? I have a pretty good flatbed scanner but to scan a negative strip in for a full roll is a little time consuming particularly if I can get good quality scan right from the lab. I should say by lab, I man the local drugstores. Thanks.

[Nesster]

I get my 35mm color print film developed & scanned at various CVS drug stores.

There isn't any additional handling, afaik, as to print the minilab scans the negatives in any case.

Each CVS I use has its own peculiarities. The one in the mall nearest to work scans the largest - 1908x1272. But they tend to be dusty, so I need to do spotting afterwards.
The other two - near the train station in Hoboken, and the one nearest to my house - don't usually have a dust problem, but their scans are 1544x1024. One of them does b&w better than the other, with color they are about even.

Around here, the developing costs $2.19 and the scan $3.29. So it certainly is economical. On occasion I re-scan some negatives at home, if I want something other than what CVS produced.

[Pentastic]

I use CVS also - when you have dust problems do you ask for a "rescan" - I guess that gets back to my question too if they scan from the negatives since I assume the dust would have to be removed from the negatives. Do you find it is less dust than if you scan yourself?

[Nesster]

The level of dust has to do with the store and how clean they keep it. The one in the mall is dusty, and in general not very cleanly maintained.... I don't bother asking for a rescan... I doubt they can get the dust off the film. That's why I'm always debating which CVS to go to - the bigger scan or the no dust place. The other two, especially the Hoboken one, have a minilab area removed from other stuff, and dust is well controlled.

The dustless CVS's are less dusty than I am - we have lots of pets and an old house, so dust gets everywhere. Often dustiness is related to which film - for example, T-MAX 400 b&w is horrendous at my house. Cleaning the film and scanner glass helps.

With home scanning, at least some spotting time is a fact of life.

[stevebrot]

Here are a few answers to your specific questions:

• Scans are done from the negative/slide
• Scan quality is variable depending on the equipment and source image
• See previous point regarding the quality of your home scans

In my personal experience, I used to have my negatives scanned on the Noritsu at the local Costco. The results were usually adequate, but often enough were inaccurate or had artifacts related to sharpening or exposure compensation. This was particular true for my Ektar 100 shots. There were issues with development by Costco as well.

Eventually, I started sending my film to the local pro lab for development with no prints, no cut, and no scan ($3 per 36 exposure roll). I also invested in a good film scanner (ouch). The difference in results is night and day. The 1-2 Mb, 1000 dpi proofs from my Nikon 5000 ED simply blow the 6 Mb files from the Noritsu completely away. Batch scanning the negatives takes a lot of time, but the results are worth it.

As for the cost of the scanner...I figure I will break even somewhere around 500 rolls of film...

Steve

(P.S. Good dedicated film scanners are available for a lot less bucks than the Nikon 5000...)

[ChrisA]

(P.S. Good dedicated film scanners are available for a lot less bucks than the Nikon 5000...)

Is this still true? I've recently bought a Coolscan 5000, and I had to buy it from Adorama, since no one had it in stock in the UK, and both it and the Coolscan V have been discontinued.

I'm very pleased with it (and I'm about 2400 scans through the 10,000 negs I've had lurking for years), but I'd be curious to know of any comparable alternatives?

[stevebrot]

Is this still true? I've recently bought a Coolscan 5000, and I had to buy it from Adorama, since no one had it in stock in the UK, and both it and the Coolscan V have been discontinued.

I'm very pleased with it (and I'm about 2400 scans through the 10,000 negs I've had lurking for years), but I'd be curious to know of any comparable alternatives?

I don't know that there are any scanners currently available that are directly comparable to the Coolscan 5000. With the demise of Minolta, the Nikon models pretty much stand alone. Having said that, very good results may be had from models from Plustek and Pacific Imaging (Reflecta) at under $300 USD.

Plustek Technology Inc. | OpticFilm 7500i SE Film | A25-BBM31-C

Pacific Image | PF7250U 35mm Film and Slide Scanner | PF7250U

The Plustek model is particularly interesting since it is bundled with Silverfast SE Plus, supports multi-scan for enhanced dynamic range, and also includes dedicated support for Kodachrome. The main drawback is that it is much slower than the Coolscan 5000, lacks batch processing capability, and has a real world maximum resolution of about 3200 dpi rather than the claimed 7200 dpi. For 1/5th the price of a Nikon, it might be worth a try!

Steve

P.S. It is my understanding that Plustek has two new models available in the EU that use cold LED light sources and offer faster and better performance than their previous offerings.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 11-06-2009 at 05:18 PM.

[little laker]

Personally, if I was in most peoples shoes I'd just get the film developed, and a scan at the lab. Then print whatever I wanted printed.

Working in a lab means that I can scan my film for a nicely reduced price (free) so as long as I get good results I'd be foolish doing it at home.

Here's a sample of the work we can do. Although it's a TIFF I only scanned it as an 8 bit this time, pretty much making it Low Res
Scanning as a tiff is a special request at the lab I work at, and will usually cost a little extra.

I shot Ektar 100 film, there were no edits done... other than rotation.

[stevebrot]

Personally, if I was in most peoples shoes I'd just get the film developed, and a scan at the lab. Then print whatever I wanted printed.

Working in a lab means that I can scan my film for a nicely reduced price (free) so as long as I get good results I'd be foolish doing it at home.

Here's a sample of the work we can do. Although it's a TIFF I only scanned it as an 8 bit this time, pretty much making it Low Res
Scanning as a tiff is a special request at the lab I work at, and will usually cost a little extra.

I shot Ektar 100 film, there were no edits done... other than rotation.

Nice scan Stu. Much nicer than what I found I could expect from my local minilabs. When I was using Costco for Ektar, they gave me a 5 Mb scan (yours is 18 Mb) with considerable sharpening artifact and interference patterns. I tried the lab at Target and got a 1 Mb file with less artifact, but low resolution. I looked into having scans done at the local pro lab, but was quoted $0.50 per frame for low resolution.

It was at that point that I threw in the towel and ordered the Coolscan 5000. I do 2-5 Mb JPEG proof scans that I are far superior to the Costco work and that I use for posting on Flickr and here. I am seldom disappointed with the results. In addition, I am able easily digitize my existing slides when and if I need to. Ditto for B&W negatives that I hope to be churning out once I start doing my own processing on that medium again.

Having said all this, I would still be hesitant to disregard having a local lab do the work. It all boils down to price and quality. My advice to anyone would be to exhaust the local resources and maybe even the various mail-order labs before spending money on a scanner. You do good work and the same is probably true for many other labs. Much better to go that route unless you have a clear need or strong desire to do it yourself.

Edit: I forgot to add an additional note regarding having prints done at the local minilab. I spent considerable time discussing scan quality with the Costco lab manager. He defended the quality of his scans by making several 8x10 prints from their scans of my negatives. It was then that the lights went on in my head. A minilab print is done from a digitized image (i.e. their scan) using an inkjet printer. The print you get is never better than the scans they do. Gone are the days of silver-based print technology.

Steve

[jon.partsch]

Edit: I forgot to add an additional note regarding having prints done at the local minilab. I spent considerable time discussing scan quality with the Costco lab manager. He defended the quality of his scans by making several 8x10 prints from their scans of my negatives. It was then that the lights went on in my head. A minilab print is done from a digitized image (i.e. their scan) using an inkjet printer. The print you get is never better than the scans they do. Gone are the days of silver-based print technology.

Steve

Yes, exactly! That's why I am finally moving to digital. I am still keeping the the Mamiya 645 with which I will shoot Velvia and T-Max. The mini-lab scans project the negative (positive) onto a CCD with a nominal resolution of 3000x2000 pixels. You end up with a 6-megapixel equivalent image regardless of the film format you start with. The film records far more information than any scan from a minilab, but you can scan have them scan your film and then have a "real" scan and print made at a "real" pro lab for your best shots (of which there seem only to be a handful left these days). Any large print you will get from a minilab place (CVS, Costco, Wolf Camera, etc.) will be interpolated from that 6-megapixel scan.

My 2 cents.

[tuco]

Here's a sample of the work we can do. Although it's a TIFF I only scanned it as an 8 bit this time, pretty much making it Low Res
Scanning as a tiff is a special request at the lab I work at, and will usually cost a little extra.

And a 16 bit TIFF will not display on your computer monitor any different than a 8 bit. Who has/makes commodity 16-bit per channel video cards and monitors? The higher bit res, from what I know, only helps in printing and if you are heavily manipulating your "photograph" in a graphics editor to the point where it is a "digital painting" more than a photograph, IMHO.

And a 16 bit TIFF will not display on your computer monitor any different than a 8 bit. Who has/makes commodity 16-bit per channel video cards and monitors? The higher bit res, from what I know, only helps in printing and if you are heavily manipulating your "photograph" in a graphics editor to the point where it is a "digital painting" more than a photograph, IMHO.

Here's a digital painting with more detail than most photos. Saw his files at a seminar he taught. If memory serves it's about 15,000 layers.

[stevebrot]

The mini-lab scans project the negative (positive) onto a CCD with a nominal resolution of 3000x2000 pixels. You end up with a 6-megapixel equivalent image regardless of the film format you start with.

I would put emphasis on the word "nominal" above. The files are big and the image dimensions are generous, but the captured detail is comparable to a 500 dpi scan done with a better scanner. Add in some sharpening and smoothing artifact and you get junk. If I get the time I will post up a few images where the low contrast subjects are a mess of moire from an attempt at sharpening on a fine-grained film. Then there is the issue of excess/inadequate gain for uniformly dark/light subjects.

Steve

(end of rant for the day!)