[Suleeto]

I think the OP may not realize how crappy the quality of drugstore/Walmart scans can be. Since OP has no real experience with such services, that would make sense. OP may not have asked for more than Jpeg because OP might not know better, which is why I posted what I did. In the beginning of my scan curiosities I was also going to go to Walmart. Now I am very glad I didn't. The local Walmarts don't even return your negatives to you, and judging from people's experiences, the resolution and colorspace is sub-par.

[Niner Alpha]

I think the OP may not realize how crappy the quality of drugstore/Walmart scans can be. Since OP has no real experience with such services, that would make sense. OP may not have asked for more than Jpeg because OP might not know better, which is why I posted what I did. In the beginning of my scan curiosities I was also going to go to Walmart. Now I am very glad I didn't. The local Walmarts don't even return your negatives to you, and judging from people's experiences, the resolution and colorspace is sub-par.

I agree with all that in so far as you point out the crappy quality of most mass market developing and printing. And it's not just that the machine prints are likely to be anything from awful to good enough for granny. Some young minimum wage technician running the auto pilot machine may or may not ever change the chemicals on any proscribed basis much less make any other adjustment for quality. But it is not just the print but the negative that suffers too in this process. A crappy negative development scanned and saved to any format will be flawed more than the difference between jpg and tiff or raw or what have you.

[pathdoc]

The films go out to a central lab somewhere in Quebec, and I get my negatives back with the films. I rang the lab once to see if I could do better and the answer was no - they supply a CD with 300dpi jpegs OF THE NEGATIVES and that's it. The quality of these is so awful that even the 6x4 prints I get could not possibly have been made from them.

This is a much higher level of print service than your half-baked Walmart lab (that shut up shop where I am back in February). As for what I'm photographing, it's mostly happy snaps of the kids and dogs until I regain my familiarity with film. I really don't have time or disk space to be messing around with huge TIFF or DNG files and PS/LR tweaking of every shot. I'm just not that invested in the transfer process. What I would like is to be able to blow things up to the size of a laptop screen or print glossy 5x7 on the basis of the jpegs, and at that point I am happy.

[dsmithhfx]

The films go out to a central lab somewhere in Quebec, and I get my negatives back with the films. I rang the lab once to see if I could do better and the answer was no - they supply a CD with 300dpi jpegs OF THE NEGATIVES and that's it. The quality of these is so awful that even the 6x4 prints I get could not possibly have been made from them.

Yes, I have never got scans on cd back without the negatives, from Walmart or anywhere else. You're second point is wrong though. They are not scanning the negatives twice, once for the prints, and again for the jpegs. As mentioned I am getting far better scans from loblaw's 'photolab' for the dirt-cheap price of $5 roll (no prints). Is that available in your area?

For web purposes I find many of the scans are suitable (I stopped printing years ago), and the lab-scanning process (whatever it may be) has brought a different dimension to my photography. The quality is variable. It is what it is. I can always go back and do my own scans as needed. That's the point of getting lab scans. They are a substitute for contact sheets, and a hell of a lot easier to evaluate.

[Niner Alpha]

Years ago I used to use Clark and York as mail in develop and print cheap alternatives. They don't advertise it online but they will still develop and print up to 27 exposures, 4x6 for $3.95 plus 2.20 S&H. The mailers they give you have free postage. They aren't much better than the drug store quality considered but they give you your negatives back. They are sometimes slow...depends on how many people send in film to develop at any given time I'd guess. Clark and York still operate as separate companies but they are pretty much the same place using different names.

Now days my film adventures are pretty much all B&W and I develop myself.

[pathdoc]

Now days my film adventures are pretty much all B&W and I develop myself.

I'm heading in that direction, albeit the existence of rapid colour developing kits excites me because C41 films are about all I can get around here, and frankly even one of the small, cheap stand-alone thingies would almost be good enough in terms of getting an image in digital form. Being in a relatively rural part of Canada (central Newfoundland), my options for rapid development at the store front are precisely zero. Everything has to be sent away, either by mail to St John's or out to a central lab via the pharmacy ten miles down the road. Almost anything that scanned my negs at more than a thousand pixels on any side would be better than what I'm getting now in terms of digitised images. What I'm getting in print form is good enough when I've taken a decent picture; most of the bad ones are MY problem.

[Niner Alpha]

The V600 will scan an image into about 12 times a 1000 pixels measured side to side...although you won't need nearly that much of a scan for all practical purposes.

[gofour3]

I use this as my film 35mm mounted slide/negative strip scanner: It's a small footprint and not too costly, you also don't need to use any holders for either type of film.

PacificImage Electronics

I also bought SilverFast scanning s/w with the Kodachrome profile:

SilverFast SE Plus :: LaserSoft Imaging

Works well with colour or b&w images. Either the scanner or Silverfast also came with PhotoShop Elements.

Phil.

[Eyewanders]

Late to convo, but the Pakon f135 minilab scanners available second hand are pretty much life-changing for 35mm negative film in terms of quality vs. ease of use. PM me if you want more details or join the Facebook users group. Here's a little video made by Matt Day that's a great introduction.

You Tube

You Tube

[stevebrot]

Does anyone know of a good printer-scanner combination that also handles 35mm film scans?

All-in-one scanner/printers? None.

Consumer/Enthusiast grade flatbed scanners? Several. I own an Epson V700 that does reasonable scans from 35mm negatives, though the maximum real-world resolution is only about 2300 dpi. That number is pretty much as good as you can get with other than commercial (reprographics) grade flatbed models.

Dedicated negative scanners? Several. There are multiple options here at various price points with some models having real-world resolution of 4000 dpi or a little less.


Steve

* I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED for 35mm. Sadly, Nikon no longer makes film scanners.

[stevebrot]

From what I was reading, you want something that scans at at least 4000dpi and 48 bit color.

Very few units under $1000 approach that level of performance (4000 dpi) and none are flatbeds.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Create TIFF or RAW originals, and then if you need Jpeg or PNG for web use, spit out a converted file.

Ummmmm...To the best of my knowledge, no scanner supports RAW in the same sense as a digital camera capture. Some commercial units output to a proprietary file type, but the underlying image is TIFF. Vuescan can generate DNG, but they are just a TIFF in a DNG wrapper. Vuescan can also output a RAW file (also a TIFF) with no default processing applied. These are intended for deferred processing from within Vuescan and are not supported outside that product.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Having played with image formats quite a bit, I have to disagree. Jpegs lose a LOT.

Yes, they do and I firmly recommend that all scans intended for publication or printing be captured as full-resolution 16-bit TIFF to the widest available gamut. Doing so will allow the widest flexibility in PP with the least tendency to generate artifact.

That being said, I routinely scan to 1200 dpi JPEG for proofing and for general publication to the Web. Film images I have shared on this site and on my Flickr account have ALL been scanned that way.

For a sampler:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=28796087%40N02&sort=date-taken-desc&t...tar&view_all=1


There is a use for both approaches.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The films go out to a central lab somewhere in Quebec, and I get my negatives back with the films. I rang the lab once to see if I could do better and the answer was no - they supply a CD with 300dpi jpegs OF THE NEGATIVES and that's it. The quality of these is so awful that even the 6x4 prints I get could not possibly have been made from them.

My experience was similar to yours. I was getting quite discouraged with the scans I got back from Costco despite their claims of high resolution (many, many megapickles). On an impulse, I bit the bullet and bought my Nikon 5000 ED. The difference in quality, even for "auto-everything" scans was night and day over what I got from the lab.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The V600 will scan an image into about 12 times a 1000 pixels measured side to side...although you won't need nearly that much of a scan for all practical purposes.

As user results posted on this site attest, the V600 can do very nice scans, though the real world resolution is less than the figure stated on the side of the box (6400 dpi optical, 12,800 interpolated). I usually point people doing market research to ScanDig's scanner review Web site. They do a decent job with technical testing including direct scan of the USAF test chart for resolution. Their review of the V600 is available at the link below:

Detailed test report flat bed scanner Epson Perfection V600 Photo with integrated transparency unit for the scanning of slides, negatives and medium formats

The best resolution using the photo lid was 1560 dpi. That sounds low, but with good scanning technique and processing, very usable prints up to 8x10" are quite doable. It is a good value and ScanDig gives the V600 decent marks for a flatbed scanner.


Steve