Dan Ryan Posted January 28, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I collected these scans this afternoon from a local shop which develops C41 and scans on a Fuji drum scanner. The film was expired Fujicolour Superior 100 ISO. The results have me spellbound. Henry, you are right - there is no doubt that film is just so good when developed properly and scanned with the best. This was my test of the lenses and M4 CLA'd by Sherry Krauter. I thought you might be interested in what a commercial scanner can do. These downsized images cannot do justice to the originals. At full screen on my Macbook Pro 17 inch they look gorgeous. No polariser was used. The colours are as scanned. The scans were 1818 x 1228 - about 2mb on average. These are with the 90mm Elmar f4 taken @ f11 or f16 and 1/125 sec. - Serial # 875326 (so you can tell the age!) The first is Coolangatta beach, the second is our grandson Max (not happy about being told we were about to leave the surf), and the third is a beach view at Greenmount beach showing some of the lifesavers. My wife approached them to read the tide times on the notice board. She said she just wanted to check the tide times, and one of the older guys (about my age) said: "that's ok darling - they all say that!" Taken last weekend - the best we have had since the rain and the floods. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/142734-drum-scans-m4/?do=findComment&comment=1571871'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Hi Dan Ryan, Take a look here drum scans - M4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dan Ryan Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted January 28, 2011 I have finally seen what I hoped to see - full format scans which show the scene as I saw it. Not muddy prints from expired chemicals or out of focus scans with no definition. This for me was proof that film and good lenses can deliver the goods. I am not saying that they are good photographs. But, technically, the basis for making good shots is available. If this business goes broke then I think I shall have to buy their scanner! These are with the 35mm Summaron LTM f2.8 and the Nikkor 28mm f3.5 LTM used on the M4 - the indoor shots were metered with the VCII as were the outdoor shots (although outdoors I checked and then just used f16 and 1/125th all the time). The film was expired Fujicolour Superia 100 ISO. I am told the scanner was a Fuji drum scanner. See my other post for details. All of these photos were taken last weekend at the Gold Coast - the first is Greenmount beach, the second is the esplanade at Coolangatta, the third is Kirra beach and the last is our son-in-law at our house on the coast Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/142734-drum-scans-m4/?do=findComment&comment=1571880'>More sharing options...
el.nino Posted January 28, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 28, 2011 though the pictures are very nice, they are no drum scans. a drumscan is about 50-100€ PER picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 28, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 28, 2011 Hi Dan, For a film out of date, there is still nice color. I'm going to buy a development kit for C41 color development at home. I already developing b&w myself Scanned images are beautiful especially the photo of your son Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 28, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 28, 2011 You have proved what many already knew. It works fine and you do not need a digi cam except for convience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 28, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 28, 2011 So, are you going to tell others where the processing shop is and how much they charge you for processing and scanning? Would they scan as tiffs and larger? What you have are scans for 6x4 prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 28, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) That 90mm Elmar seems remarkably glare resistant. What a little gem. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted January 29, 2011 Andy - happy to do that. I wondered if it was acceptable on this forum. Allchromes in Brisbane, Qld, Australia Allchromes Colour Lab - Bowen Hills, Qld Yes, they will scan in resolutions which will enable much larger prints, and they offer several printing services. Not sure about Tiffs, but my agricultural Epson RX650 can produce Tiffs so I guess they can. It's a well established professional lab. The website is being updated and my copy of the new 2011 price list has been left at work. Of course I now cannot find the receipt either! But I think it was a total of about $A67.00 for developing 3 rolls of 36 exposure C41 and scan at low res to a CD. I realised that the scans I ordered would only support the small print size you mention. I opted for the low res scans so that I could evaluate the lenses, the developing and the scanning at a reasonable price. I will put in an order for the 16x20 scan if I ever see something in a roll which justifies it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted January 29, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 29, 2011 Those are not drum scans. EXIF data shows they were made on an Fuji SP-2000, which is the model name of the CCD scanner built into the Fuji Frontier mini-lab. Specs and performance of the SP-2000 are rather low and generally eclipsed by most high end home scanners. Full marks to the lab for good processing and colour matching, but in all other respects those are consumer grade mini lab scans. If you really want to see those files sing you should consider ordering actual drum scans (or at least scans from an Imacon or CS 9000). Once you see them done on a high end scanner at 6000px width instead of 1800px, you'll be even more enthused about the beauty and performance of film. Beautiful chromes though, and you've reminded me to visit my stock of Provia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 29, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 29, 2011 Beautiful chromes though, and you've reminded me to visit my stock of Provia. I thought the OP stated the film was some old expired Fuji C41. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted January 29, 2011 Well we live and learn. Neil, educate me a bit more. You say "...generally eclipsed by most high end home scanners."" Could you identify these high end home scanners for me? Because if they are better than this then I surely want to get my hands on one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 29, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 29, 2011 Any of the Nikons, an Epson V700/750 or anything with Imacon on the front will do better scans than these in the right hands. These are very good scans from a Fuji Frontier, and the operator knows what s/he is doing (which isn't always the case) but the whole process is set up to give punchy 6x4s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted January 29, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 29, 2011 Well we live and learn. Neil, educate me a bit more. You say "...generally eclipsed by most high end home scanners."" Could you identify these high end home scanners for me? Because if they are better than this then I surely want to get my hands on one. Well, the SP-2000 was launched in 1998. That was a long time ago in the world of digital imaging, and I suspect every current consumer scanner now has better specifications. Good quality consumer models would include the Nikon 5000ED or 9000ED or, for slightly higher performance, any of the the Imacon/Flextight range. If you're looking for optimum quality a real drum scan (fluid mounted) would be even better, although you should expect to pay circa £20 per scanned frame, so best save it for your keepers only. I thought the OP stated the film was some old expired Fuji C41. Exactly right - my mistake. Cognitive dissonance from the name of the lab, I think. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted January 30, 2011 Neil - Andy: thanks for the advice. yes Andy, they do give very punchy, sharp prints on 4x6 gloss paper Henry - Pete: thanks for your comments Doc - he is my "Grandson"! God forbid that I should have a child that age! he is the son of the younger of the surfing blondes ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted January 30, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 30, 2011 In the U.S., North Coast Photographic Services scans 35mm @ 3339 x 5035 pixels (48 mb). That's megabits. Like most service shops they do not offer TIF files. They give you JPG files of about 15 megabytes. FastStone viewer says the scans are at nominal JPG quality level 98%. The current price to develop and scan a roll is about $24 including shipping. I put your Greenmount image into Picture Window Pro. According to it, the distribution of pixels occupied the full dynamic range on the HSV spectrum. (I guess this is in the sRGB color space detected as the image profile.) PWP auto color balance found the image already balanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share #16 Posted January 30, 2011 Charles, thanks for that. I had been looking at NCPS myself and was about to explore the cost of postage. Then it depends on the exchange rate. Is there some significant difference in getting a 3339 x 5035 pixels scan in Jpeg as against 3339 x 5035 pixels as a TIFF? I just scanned the negative of my red-headed grandson Max on the Epson RX650 using Epson Scan and set it for output as TIFF for a print at 11x14 inches and it produced a file of about 40MB (pixels came out at 4199 x 3299). Are the MBs in TIFF more important than the MBs in JPEG? Btw, the image from my scanning efforts printed at A4 size quite well - but, and it's a big But, the accuracy of the colour rendition, the clarity and the sharpness were way below the standard of the stuff I received from this lab and posted above. The 4x6 inch prints I did from the lab files were gorgeous. My effort at A4 printing from a home-made TIFF scan was rubbish by comparison. >>I put your Greenmount image into Picture Window Pro. According to it, the distribution of pixels occupied the full dynamic range on the HSV spectrum. (I guess this is in the sRGB color space detected as the image profile.) PWP auto color balance found the image already balanced<< That sounds like it's a Good Thing. Is it? ..... thanks for all the advice everyone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted January 30, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 30, 2011 ...Are the MBs in TIFF more important than the MBs in JPEG?... The TIF file format is "verbose." The same raw image data that takes up perhaps 7 MB in JPG format top quality will take 40 or 50 MB in TIF format. One reason service shops do not offer TIF is that a roll of 36 exposures would occupy two CDs or a more expensive DVD disk. I don't think high quality JPG format is a limiting factor for 35mm photography, at least as most of us practice it for the first two or three decades of hobbying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted January 30, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 30, 2011 I just scanned the negative of my red-headed grandson Max on the Epson RX650 using Epson Scan and set it for output as TIFF for a print at 11x14 inches and it produced a file of about 40MB (pixels came out at 4199 x 3299). Dan have you read RichC's posts here and here? They may help. One of the main differences between jpeg and tiff files is that jpegs will slowly degrade with each edit and save. Having said that you should always work on a copy of the original file whatever format it is in, even if your image editing software is non-destructive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 30, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 30, 2011 The other big difference is that Tiffs can be 16 bit, Jpegs are always 8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted January 30, 2011 Andy (like that Graflex avatar) and Steve: thanks. It's a steep learning curve. Reminds me of Disraeli's comment about the greasy pole. Just when you think you have an understanding of it within your grasp ......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.