Help re Commercial Scanning Quality

[smgorsch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings,

 

Just had my first film scanned after years with an M8. Went to a local lab and asked for their "highest quality" scans. Received 30 Mb scans which reveal the following UBOs (unidentified bright objects) which are present in most all the pictures but most visible on the underexposed color images.

 

I assume this is an artifact of the scanning. My questions are: 1) am I correct and 2) is this acceptable/should I request a refund?

 

Thanks, stefan

 

Crop attached:

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Kraus1971]

Those specks are normal on any c41 neg I have processed and then scanned at home. Cleaning the negatives with somethimg like "Edwal Anti-Stat Film Cleaner" can help but be careful about scratching the negatives. The best solution I've come up with is simply using the ICE functionality on my Coolscan9000/Silverfast set-up. (Note: There is other stuff like software based and infrared based solutions as well that I haven't used). Option B is spending a TON of time cleaning it up in PS. You shouldn't see stuff like that on any E6 scans you get.

 

In reference to your questions my take is:

 

1) Yes I think you're correct

2) Yes you should get a refund (or make sure someone who knows how to use their machine rescans them)

 

Good Luck,

 

John

[Elliott J]

Hi.

 

Can I ask what you paid for the scan and on what kind of scanner the work was done?

 

Also, what file format did they send you?

 

Depending on the price of the scan, the scanner/software used, this may or may not be something you can complain about too much.

 

If a 30mb file is the biggest they can provide you with, I have a feeling the hardware may not be top quality, which would mean that the rest of the "supply chain" may not be top quality either.

 

So, the price is an issue at this point... A local lab here charges $ 75.00 for a scan up to 60mb - it is retouched (for dust) and color corrected - to a point.

 

E

[smgorsch]

Hi.

 

Can I ask what you paid for the scan and on what kind of scanner the work was done?

 

Also, what file format did they send you?

 

Depending on the price of the scan, the scanner/software used, this may or may not be something you can complain about too much.

 

If a 30mb file is the biggest they can provide you with, I have a feeling the hardware may not be top quality, which would mean that the rest of the "supply chain" may not be top quality either.

 

So, the price is an issue at this point... A local lab here charges $ 75.00 for a scan up to 60mb - it is retouched (for dust) and color corrected - to a point.

 

E

 

Thanks --

 

Cost was $31/roll. Format was TIFF. Interestingly, they initially had planned a "pro" scan which they said was about 50mb in jpeg format. I then said that I might print crops would want their highest res TIFF. Not sure why it's only 30mb.

 

Support of forum is useful because if consensus is that this is not adequate (my impression), I would feel more comfortable going back to them. Already have given them 3 rolls to do.

 

thanks

 

stefan

[marcg]

The artefacts you see are absolutely normal - unless you get very lucky.

 

Msot ordinary film labs don't seem to be interested in doing any better than just the basic scan.

 

If you are going down the film route in this way then get yourself a scanner.

Coolscan 5000 if you can afford about £800 for a secondhand one.

 

See the scandig website for good reviews. You'll learn a lot.

Other Nik scanners will do a good job too and are much cheaper.

The difference about doing it yourself is that you will be bothered to activate the ICE or infrared filoters which will return superb results.

If you want a job done well - you have to do it yourself.

[chris_livsey]

You may find it helpful to read this recent article which shows how the IR channel in some scanners can be used to remove "artifacts" which these commercial scans will not do. You will need to pay considerably more for a drum scan which will provide superior results IF the operator is sufficiently skilled. If you opt to DIY you will need to invest not only in good hardware but in a learning curve to evolve into a skilled operator.

There is not an easy or cheap answer, unfortunately.

 

Scanning: The Old World Joins the New

[smgorsch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may find it helpful to read this recent article which shows how the IR channel in some scanners can be used to remove "artifacts" which these commercial scans will not do. You will need to pay considerably more for a drum scan which will provide superior results IF the operator is sufficiently skilled. If you opt to DIY you will need to invest not only in good hardware but in a learning curve to evolve into a skilled operator.

There is not an easy or cheap answer, unfortunately.

 

Scanning: The Old World Joins the New

 

Okay, I'm sure there are answers elsewhere on this forum but I just looked at B&H and the least expensive drum scanner is $20,000. I can get a Nikon coolscan for $2,000+ -- is the differnce that noticeable?

 

thanks

 

stefan

[chris_livsey]

I was suggesting you have the drum scan done commercially but then that is limited by the skill of the operator OR buy a Nikon or equivalent, bearing in mind they are discontinued and support will be limited for eg spares or repair or look at a flatbed and spend your time and effort to get good results. Again I say there is not a cheap or easy answer.

Quality:

Drum scan done well is best then down from there. Is the difference noticeable ? That depends on the criteria you apply. For web posting obviously not, for 30 a 40 inch prints yes, in between opinions will vary. Not helpful I know but D700 to Leica M8 is the difference noticeable same answer it depends on what your standards are and what you want. Obviously you are not happy with the scans you have I think what we are all saying is it's going to cost more in either money alone or time and money to get better and will the results be noticeable depends on what you want to do with them. I suspect if you posted one of those scans here uncropped it would not be unacceptable but you are not happy zooming in to the pixels, not a criticism we all zoom in because you can, but if you want to print big then use a cheap scan to select and a select to be scanned at drum quality.

Then realise what a bargain the M8 is

[earleygallery]

I get good quality scans - without these problems - from my Epson flatbed. For colour film I have it processed only and a CD scan (no prints). I use the CD for proofs/web and scan images to print on the Epson. I process my own B&W so usually do high res scans of the film so I only have to do it once.

 

Post the full frame image for comparison. My guess is that it will be fine for web use (in fact the typical low res photo CD's are more than adequate for that). You have the negative - if you need to print do it the traditional way, or re-scan the individual frames you require for printing digitally.

[smgorsch]

Okay, here's the full image (don't laugh -- yes I know it's a wreck) but it gives an idea of the problem; look at the white specks by the guy's head in the lower part of the frame

 

thanks

stefan

 

 

BTW, I do print many of my images -- up to A2+

sg

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!

[cheewai_m6]

I get good quality scans - without these problems - from my Epson flatbed.

 

same here. i don't which scanner earleygallery is using, but i'm using an epson v500, and i find the scans to be surprisingly good. i can process in lightroom without any problems.

[too old to care]

I am new here; however I have seen this before from a negative that was processed poorly, that is it had bubbles on the film when it was developed. Under magnification you could see the “holes” in the negative. I am only guessing, but all of the white spots seem to be in the vertical plane, much like bubbles on film rising in a tank. I know that commercial labs do not use reels like home labs, so I am not sure that this is possible.

[alun]

I always feel that one of the advantages of shooting film is that you don't need to obsess too much about the quality of the scan because you have the negs as back and print-source.

 

Having said that, I have never really had any problems using the standard 18Mb JPEGs provided by my local pro-lab. I convert the JPEG to TIFF as a 'master file', make any adjustments necessary and then downsize this for a screen/web-display JPEG. I have never seen the kind of artefacts you illustrate.

 

If I subsquently wanted exhibition quality prints (it has only happened once) I would get prints from the negs, but for other use -- for example, front-page and inner pages in several small press mags -- the 18Mb TIFFs have always proven to be fine.

 

18Mb JPEG scans to CD cost me GBP3.00 per 36/roll.

[gigibond]

weel, I found a little lab near to my office; they work with a Noritsu mini lab.

I was a little bit scared about the nominal "weight" of the file .... less than 1 mb per photo..

 

However I like a lot the dinamic range of that scans (1500x1000, not that much...), especially on color slides..

 

Attached two simple, I wolud like to have your opinion.. It could be unbeliveble but they looks fantastic on my Panasonic HD plasma TV.......

 

 

 

[ndjambrose]

Stefan, you've got a pretty lousy scan. There are a few things wrong with it.

 

First, the colour correction is totally off. In fact I would guess it is entirely uncorrected. Most of the colour cast is from the orange mask on the film base. The walls are supposed to be dark green, no? And the girl's shirt ought to be white, not orange? You're obviously using daylight film in tungsten light, but the colour drift is extreme even so.

 

Second, it's been scanned without dust reduction (aka Digital ICE). There will always be a minimal amount of dusting needed, but generally you should expect it not to be noticeable unless zoomed in to 100%. Looking at your full image, the amount of dust (or possible emulsion scratching) is unacceptable, at least to me.

 

Third, the tonal range is shortened, with inadequate definition in the shadows.

 

I could understand the third point if you underexposed the shot. That level of detail loss would be consistent with a 2 stop underexposure, which the scan operator may have tried to correct, leading to tonal loss.

 

But, otherwise, if anyone gave me my scans back like that I'd return them and ask for the job to be done properly.

[martha]

same here. i don't which scanner earleygallery is using, but i'm using an epson v500, and i find the scans to be surprisingly good. i can process in lightroom without any problems.

 

Same here! Love my v500 and have received very good results. Easy software to use and really NOT that slow that I can't bear it!

 

I also have color print film "develop only" and they make a fairly large TIFF scan of each image for about $15.00/roll of 36.

 

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that you got some rather sloppily done scans. I would either ask for my money back or, if you trust them, ask them to do the job again at no cost to you. Colors are off and the dust and artifacts are inexcusable for "professional" scans.

 

Thanks for putting this out to the forum. I have learned something from the discussion.

 

God luck!

[smgorsch]

weel, I found a little lab near to my office; they work with a Noritsu mini lab.

I was a little bit scared about the nominal "weight" of the file .... less than 1 mb per photo..

 

However I like a lot the dinamic range of that scans (1500x1000, not that much...), especially on color slides..

 

Attached two simple, I wolud like to have your opinion.. It could be unbeliveble but they looks fantastic on my Panasonic HD plasma TV.......

 

 

 

 

WOW -- Forget scanning. I love your shots. Really good. What films/lenses/camera?

 

stefan

[gigibond]

Ciao Stefan

 

thanks. well, B&W is m6+Cron35mmASPH and Delta 100. Colors are Oly OM2+50mmf1.2zuiko+Kodak Elite Chrome

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wblynch]

Ciao Stefan

 

thanks. well, B&W is m6+Cron35mmASPH and Delta 100. Colors are Oly OM2+50mmf1.2zuiko+Kodak Elite Chrome

 

Great pics Gigibond !!

 

note to self: Pick up some Kodak Elite Chrome tonight for the old OM1 !!

[Elliott J]

Thanks --

 

Cost was $31/roll. Format was TIFF. Interestingly, they initially had planned a "pro" scan which they said was about 50mb in jpeg format. I then said that I might print crops would want their highest res TIFF. Not sure why it's only 30mb.

 

Support of forum is useful because if consensus is that this is not adequate (my impression), I would feel more comfortable going back to them. Already have given them 3 rolls to do.

 

thanks

 

stefan

 

Hi,

 

So, at 31/roll you can only complain so much. They should have some ICE software in place to fix the problem with the dust on the neg - which doesn't work with BW - but the tonality and color in your scan is pretty poor. If I am getting roll scans done here, they are 25/roll and most of the broader dust problems are looked after with ICE. The other problem is if you are scanning negs, the scans are only as good as the profiles they have loaded for the file you are shooting. All of the adjustments are done automatically so if the profile is bad, the scan looks bad.

 

I am usually happy with these batch scans if they hold enough info so I can make adjustments in PS to make it look the way I like before I make 4X6's for the family...

 

Just received a quote for some high end scans for an exhibit I am having. The project is being shot on 4X5 and I need 300 mb files. They were quoted at $ 275 each.

 

Scans can get really expensive really quickly if you want everything pulled out of your film.

 

Roll scans are always tricky, because they are really just for editing/proofs - not good for much else.

 

E