[StephenMerola]

I have been considering buying a 645n for a while now and have some questions about processing labs. I came across A trusted name in photo processing for over 50 years - Dwayne's Photo and was wondering if anyone had used them or any other lab for having and slide or print film developed and scanned to CD. I cannot afford a film scanner so I was thinking maybe I could just pay for developing and a photo CD. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you everyone.

[Nesster]

I've had them develop 120 and 35mm slide film, and they do a good job. (Many other outlets send the film to Dwaynes behind the scenes).

I haven't had 120 film scanned, but I just paid for a roll of 35mm slide scans - they came out excellent, I suspect Dwayne's uses good film profiles.

OTH, I've read of instances where the scans have been less than great. That may be because people are more likely to complain than praise, unprompted.

--

For color negative film, I use a local minilab that does 120. The first such did 'develop only' but they were very cheap. The one I use now can scan and print, though they cost more. The scans from this minilab are only about 1500 pix wide, which makes them useful for the web, just about.


You can ask local Holga heads where they get theirs done.

[StephenMerola]

I am hoping that the scans are good enough to make shooting 120 film worth it.

[StephenMerola]

Thanks for the info by the way.

[Nesster]

Hope we get more feedback, someone here must have had 120 scans from Dwayne's I'm interested too as I have 3 rolls of 120 slide film and a P645 I'm thinking I'll use instead of the TLRs I've tried the slide film with.

Here's a sample of their 35mm scan of Sensia. The full size is on flickr.

[pbo]

Their scans are pretty decent, colors for mine are usually pretty good, but there always seems to be some sort of haziness in photos (like, a white cast) - but pretty easy to correct in PS by shifting black clipping in levels. Photos are sized 2796x2048. The machine they use (Noritsu something something) sometimes leaves black areas in edges, and crops out some useful areas.

[StephenMerola]

Good to know. Thanks. I might buy a 645n just to try it out. If anything, it will be fun to experiment.

[tuco]

Good to know. Thanks. I might buy a 645n just to try it out. If anything, it will be fun to experiment.

Heck, if you're willing to spend that kind of money just to try it out, why not buck up a little more and get yourself a scanner while you're at it? It sounds like a 645N is not a financial burden at all for you so a scanner wouldn't be either.

[Venturi]

I just quit hemming and hawing over how best to jump into the MF world and ordered up a "BGN" 645 body & 120/4 lens from KEH to test the MF waters. I was teetering over whether to get the AF body or not and said screw it. The savings of going with a regular 645 covers an Epson V500 outright and since I was already budgeting for a scanner to handle MF now I can easiliy rationalize going for the V700 which will let me do a full roll of 24exp 135 in one shot - or 6 MF negs at a time.

[tuco]

...since I was already budgeting for a scanner to handle MF now I can easiliy rationalize going for the V700 which will let me do a full roll of 24exp 135 in one shot - or 6 MF negs at a time.

Your milage may vary but when I shoot a roll on my 67, I view the negatives on a light table. Out of 10 shots, usually two or three are keepers; that is, ones that I would consider posting on my photostream and sometimes none at all.

Since I scan at 4000dpi and produce a TIFF file, my file sizes are 100MB+ each. So I've learned to read my negatives on the light table and only scan those that are worthy. The 645 is a small MF negative and you don't really don't need to scan as high as I do because your scanner may just be interpolating so that may be more practical for you. But the point I trying to make is don't put too much stock in the ability to scan multiple MF negatives at once because over time I bet you end up only scanning the "keepers".

[yurihuta]

While the prices of 645Ns have certainly fallen from when they were sold new from stores, they have seemed to stabilize over the last coupe of years. So, you might likely take a small loss (if at all) if you dip your toe into the 120 waters and decide to not stay.

Good to know. Thanks. I might buy a 645n just to try it out. If anything, it will be fun to experiment.

[Nesster]

Well obviously Stephen should get a p645/p645n Although of late I note a bit more frequent bargains through ebay, there shouldn't be too big a financial risk. And the lens prices seem very firm to slightly up of late.

Has anyone had Dwayne's 120 scans apart from pbo? Looks like the 645's are at 2796x2048 -- 35mm scans are 1908x1228. As they use preset masks, it depends on the person scanning what they frame for the scan.

[iCrop]

Don't know about Dwaynes, but out here in California a good place seems to be North Coast Photographic Services (Carlsbad, CA). Processing and a 'budget scan' (2048x3072, jpg only) runs about $11/roll. I put a few rolls in the mail on Monday and get a CD and processed slides back by Friday. Here's one shot I got back a week or so ago. 645N, FA 45/28, on Fuji Velvia. No post processing here, just resizing the original JPG. At first glance it looks over saturated and over sharpened, but promising. Can't wait to get my own scanner to see what the 645N can do with a good scan.

[StephenMerola]

Thanks everyone. I will probably wait until the holidays to make my purchase. I am really excited about it though.

[StephenMerola]

Hey iCrop, these prices seem reasonable.

North Coast Photographic Services