Drug Store Scans suggestions from C41 B&W film

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before I start, here's what I'm looking for. Low cost 72dpi scans from negatives that represent the images on the film.

 

Ok, now my rant...

 

Images from my R9 should not look this bad!

 

In this case, I don't care about getting prints back. And, it doesn't matter to me that the scans come back looking bluish, greenish or reddish...since all that can be fixed in Photoshop. I also don't care about high resolution or if they are jpegs or tiffs.

 

 

However, even at 72dpi, I would expect images that are not so blown out and riddled with digital artifacts. And that's the problem I'm having.

 

I shot off a roll of Kodak BW400CN at it's rated 400 iso speed and took it to Walgreens. The negatives are great. However, the scans are riddled with digital artifacts and are close to being blown out. It almost looks like the contrast is too high. However, I did shoot out in harsh sun AND, I'm not too sure of the characteristics of BW400CN is (as far as contrast is concerned.)

 

The results are embarrassing to send copies to friends (without spending lots of time on them.) And still, there is no getting around the highly compressed detail reducing digital artifacts. Don't get me started how these scanners don't scan full frame messing up my carefully in camera compositions...although I do expect that to happen with most all scanners (except for flatbed scanners...) I know I can always back up a bit.

 

But that does not excuse getting partial black frame lines on a few of the images scans (taking away even more image area.) It's not worth taking back to get rescanned.

 

 

I want to avoid sending film through the mail. And, I want to do my best to avoid the experience I recently had.

 

 

Should I go to Walmart?

 

Or maybe another place?

 

I know some places (like Walmart) have larger labs that do more processing for things such as E-6. Should I ask for the BW400CN film to be sent out for development and scanning??? Would the results be different?

 

 

Currently, I have a roll of Ilford Super XP-2 in my camera and will be getting it developed in a couple weeks.

 

 

 

Maybe I should shoot traditional B&W film and give it to Walmart to be sent out for development and scanning??? However, the difference in the type of film is not going to matter much if all I do is get blown out images with digital artifacts...

 

Please don't suggest doing it myself. I'm tired of all the work that's involved.

 

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

Processing your own B&W film and making low res scans on say a flatbed Epson will be a lot less hassle than dealing with places like Walmart (boots/Jessops in the UK), trust me!

 

If that's really not an option you need to find another processor.

[andybarton]

72dpi scans? That's a ridiculously small scan. Computer screens are/were 72ppi. That would surely give you a scan of a negative that is 100% at screen resolution. i.e. the image on your screen is the same size as the negative. Useless for printing.

 

Time to find a different place to process your films.

[masjah]

I do agree about how irritating it is that commercial scans are not full frame. (It's the prints as well of course which also suffer.) I suspect it's so an operator can just shove them rapidly through a machine without having to spend a lot of time on alignment. I've got to the point where I allow a bit extra around the image and crop down the surplus. (The operator at my processor will move the negative around the restricted space at my request if needed, but that's the best she can do.) That apart, these machines (eg Fuji Frontierlab) are capable of something half-decent within the limits of the resolution setting. It's down to the operator, whether you've got someone who knows how to use the machine, or whether you've got a general overworked, underpaid and undertrained shop assistant doing their best. You've just got to shop around until you find someone who can do a reasonable job. ( I guess I'm lucky in that there's an independent photographic services shop in my city who does a good job at a very reasonable price.)

[thebarnman]

Processing your own B&W film and making low res scans on say a flatbed Epson will be a lot less hassle than dealing with places like Walmart (boots/Jessops in the UK), trust me!

 

If that's really not an option you need to find another processor.

 

I don't want to process my own film. Like I said, the development of the negatives were great from Walmart. The problem was the scanning.

 

However, about the scanning...

 

Would a flat bed Epson be good enough to create a large enough 72dpi image to fill my screen? Or at least take up a good portion of the screen? Does it matter to the Epson scanner that the Kodak B&W film have that orange cast? (Probably not since it would be scanned as a B&W image.)

 

At the same time, I can't believe I'm even asking that question since I'm doing my best to not have to deal with all of that.

[thebarnman]

72dpi scans? That's a ridiculously small scan. Computer screens are/were 72ppi. That would surely give you a scan of a negative that is 100% at screen resolution. i.e. the image on your screen is the same size as the negative. Useless for printing.

 

Time to find a different place to process your films.

 

Ridiculously small scan? That's all I'm looking for as stated in my comments above. I'm not looking to print these images, I simply want them to be of good size on the computer screen to share the images with friends.

 

The problem is the ugly blown out looking images with lots of detail robbing digital artifacts.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try sending a film to Dwayne's Photo in Kansas - the last lab that did Kodachrome processing. Their prices are not bad at all, and scan results much higher quality (and MUCH less dust) than Walgreens.

I haven't used them for BW400CN, but all the film types I've tried have been good, and cheaper than taking to our Austin camera shop.

[thebarnman]

Sounds like I need to shop around for a store that can do better scans. And I take it, the fact they are 72dpi has nothing to do with it.

 

Here's an portion of a image I received back from Walgreens.

 

It's blue, (I don't care about that since it can be changed in Photoshop)

 

In the meantime, I have found something that is helpful to do,

 

First, I noticed these images don't come back with good profile (such as sRGB.) I noticed if I change them to sRGB, the picture does get lighter and it displays (looks) the same in Photoshop AND Windows Picture and Fax viewer.

 

Where before assigning a profile, the image was darker and less saturated in Windows Picture and Fax viewer.

 

 

Still, that does not get rid of the digital artifacts or the blown out image.

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!

[thebarnman]

Try sending a film to Dwayne's Photo in Kansas - the last lab that did Kodachrome processing. Their prices are not bad at all, and scan results much higher quality (and MUCH less dust) than Walgreens.

I haven't used them for BW400CN, but all the film types I've tried have been good, and cheaper than taking to our Austin camera shop.

 

I appreciate your help, though I'm trying to get away from sending stuff through the mail or having to do the scanning myself. (though if there really is an easy way to scan them at home, like a small little flatbed, that would be nice)

 

I used to (and still have) a Minolta Duel Scan II scanner I bought some years ago. Never liked it and wish I never bought it. Slow, loud and images looked really crappy.

[pico]

Measure your expectations.

Consider the cheap metrics and economic model of your scan provider.

Then fight with them - which is fruitless for obvious reasons.

Leave us alone.

 

Oi! A guy that uses a Leica pursuing the cheapest, least self-responsible solution when he claims he really could do it himself? - it is just nutz!

 

Please don't suggest doing it myself. I'm tired of all the work that's involved.

 

Tough shit. Do not criticize what you cannot do yourself, or are too lazy to try.

 

.

Life - find it.

[Michael Hiles]

The scan in your image is incompetent. You need to either do it yourself, or find someone else who will do it properly and do a little self imposed quality control. I suspect your negatives are OK - at a Walgreens the film was almost certainly put through an automatic machine. Unless it is poorly maintained, there should be no problem with a standard C41 process.

 

I get XP2 processed by a local Walmart - they use a standard machine and the negatives are perfect (unless I have screwed up exposure).

 

Then I scan the negatives using my Canon scanner. I usually scan at 800-1200 dpi. This is about the minimum to produce good quality full-screen images that I am willing to put my name on here. 72 dpi is nonsense - you won't have a viewable image.

 

If you are not willing to invest the effort in scanning, and you don't like the mail option, your best alternative is to search out a local photo shop/lab by trial and error. And be prepared to pay.

[thebarnman]

Measure your expectations.

Consider the cheap metrics and economic model of your scan provider.

 

I've already considered that. And, I'm not looking to make any prints of these images. Though at the same time, I've read where people get satisfactory results at places like this. People go to Costco, Walmart, Walgreens, CVS etc and show the good results on the internet. Compared to what I have, it's far worst. Really bad. I know I'm not going to get Imacon (or better) quality, however no one should have to put up with tons of digital compression...even if these are only 72dpi (the resolution I want from these images.)

 

Then fight with them - which is fruitless for obvious reasons.

 

I don't know if that will be fruitless or not. (See below) I don't want to fight with them as much as I would not want to fight with you.

 

 

Leave us alone.

 

No reason to tell me that at all.

 

 

Oi! A guy that uses a Leica pursuing the cheapest, least self-responsible solution when he claims he really could do it himself? - it is just nutz!

 

What did I say that gave you the impression I could do it myself? I've given that Minolta Scanner a try several times and never been happy with the results. I'm tired of it...just like I'm tired of working long hours in a darkroom or setting up chemistry and making sure all the temperatures are perfect while agitating film and going through all the processes. I don't want to do it anymore and I don't have to I choose not to.

 

I love film and it's look. In fact, I'm used to doing quite the opposite when it comes to the amount of money I spend on processing. Usually I buy B&W negative film and send it to DR5 for reverse processing to view it on my Leica projector. The quality is fantastic. I send it to DR5 because I don't want the bother with the developing or even attempt to do the reverse processing. It costs a lot more money, takes a lot longer and I have to send it through the mail.

 

In this case, I don't want to go through all that with some shots I simply want to share with some friends.

 

"Tough shit. Do not criticize what you cannot do yourself, or are too lazy to try."

 

 

Did you look at the example I posted? I've never seen such bad results.

 

I'm used to getting much better quality and I can certainly criticize bad scanning from professional equipment that obviously was not operated very well. I've seen scans good and bad, and this is about as bad as it gets. I've even read about the nice results people get from Kodak BW400CN film. I've shot it myself some years ago and was happy with the results though though this is the first time I've ever had scans from it.

 

I choose this C41 film so I wouldn't have to travel to the other side of town to a pro lab (a lab I normally go to) to simply get it developed and scanned.

 

What I've done so far is talked with a couple people who work at the Photo Department. I didn't even have my CD with me and the woman was able to pull up the results and told me it didn't look right. In fact, she even said it looked like there were no adjustments made to any of the images. I was told she'd be happy to rescan a couple of them so I went home and brought back the negatives and the CD. The only reason I brought the CD back was because on several of the images, there are visible frame lines (an issue I was not even complaining about in the beginning.)

 

She even talked about the histogram. Glad she brought that up, because I remember looking at the histogram of a couple images and the values were pegged to the extremes. Another words, it's possible there could have been some information clipped off.

 

There's definitely a lot of room for improvement.

[andybarton]

You do not want scans at 72dpi.

 

If you consider that a 6x4 print is the smallest the machines do, and printers generally print at 300 dpi, you need a scan of 1800 x 1200 pixels to generate such a print. That is the defecto lowest resolution. That is probably sufficient to fill your computer screen.

 

I think that you are confusing pixels per inch with dots per inch. Your screen probably displays at 72 pixels per inch, which would give an image ON THE SCREEN at 25 inches wide at the resolution required for a 6x4 print.

 

If this place is the only place in town, you are either going to have to work with them, or send your films away.

 

Whatever you choose to do, you need to buy some proper editing software. Photoshop Elements will cost you about €50 or less

[CalArts 99]

As Andy has correctly pointed out, a 72 dpi scan is not what you want. It's much too small. Your monitor screen only understands pixels. If you scan a 35mm piece of film for 72 dpi, then you are getting an image of 1.4 inches by .92 inches. The concept of dpi is irrelevant to your computer's screen and video card. You need to scan a pixel dimension that gives you the size you want for monitor viewing. If you want to determine that size then just divide by 72 to figure out how big it will look on your screen.

 

This article is a bit dated but the concept has not changed: Say No to 72 dpi

[masjah]

Can I just point out that when I get a "bundled" scan along with my prints, from a Frontierlab machine, I automatically get a disk with a HighRez and LowRez folder. The high-rez scans are 1818x1228, which, as Andy says, should be fine for 6x4 prints (and is more than would be permitted for PhotoForum postings!). The LowRez ones are best just for emailing illustration purposes! If I want better than this, then my dealer will do me a custom scan of the particular negative for a very modest cost indeed. (the machine can print up to 18x12, so can scan at a much higher resolution if it is explicitly asked to do so)! I fully appreciate what you do and do not want to do yourself and why; so I can only reiterate, you need to find a competent local processor. Of course, the problem is finding one - very best of luck in your quest.

 

PS: You can download GIMP for free, with which even I (and I'm hopeless with this sort of thing) can rescale images.

[thebarnman]

You do not want scans at 72dpi.

 

If you consider that a 6x4 print is the smallest the machines do, and printers generally print at 300 dpi, you need a scan of 1800 x 1200 pixels to generate such a print. That is the defecto lowest resolution. That is probably sufficient to fill your computer screen.

 

I think that you are confusing pixels per inch with dots per inch. Your screen probably displays at 72 pixels per inch, which would give an image ON THE SCREEN at 25 inches wide at the resolution required for a 6x4 print.

 

If this place is the only place in town, you are either going to have to work with them, or send your films away.

 

Whatever you choose to do, you need to buy some proper editing software. Photoshop Elements will cost you about €50 or less

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

The image size in Photoshop says the scans are 1800 X 1215. More than enough to fill the computer screen. It's all I'm looking for...something big enough to share via email. It's the compression I'm worried about.

 

By the way, I am working with the to see if they can do a better job at scanning (I've decided to work with them...)

[thebarnman]

As Andy has correctly pointed out, a 72 dpi scan is not what you want. It's much too small. Your monitor screen only understands pixels. If you scan a 35mm piece of film for 72 dpi, then you are getting an image of 1.4 inches by .92 inches. The concept of dpi is irrelevant to your computer's screen and video card. You need to scan a pixel dimension that gives you the size you want for monitor viewing. If you want to determine that size then just divide by 72 to figure out how big it will look on your screen.

 

This article is a bit dated but the concept has not changed: Say No to 72 dpi

 

 

Sorry for the confusion, it is pixels. 1800 x 1215.

 

It's the compression that's really bad.

[thebarnman]

Can I just point out that when I get a "bundled" scan along with my prints, from a Frontierlab machine, I automatically get a disk with a HighRez and LowRez folder. The high-rez scans are 1818x1228, which, as Andy says, should be fine for 6x4 prints (and is more than would be permitted for PhotoForum postings!). The LowRez ones are best just for emailing illustration purposes! If I want better than this, then my dealer will do me a custom scan of the particular negative for a very modest cost indeed. (the machine can print up to 18x12, so can scan at a much higher resolution if it is explicitly asked to do so)! I fully appreciate what you do and do not want to do yourself and why; so I can only reiterate, you need to find a competent local processor. Of course, the problem is finding one - very best of luck in your quest.

 

PS: You can download GIMP for free, with which even I (and I'm hopeless with this sort of thing) can rescale images.

 

Thanks for the info. What's interesting, I've seen where two sizes of images come on CDs, however in this case, it's just the one size and that's fine since I can re-size them myself in Photoshop.

 

And yes, when and if I really need something of high quality for printing, I will pay for higher quality.

 

 

Thanks again!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SiMPLiFY]

I've been searching for various ways of using a digital camera as a scanner and found this I think it's smart and if you can shoot RAW all the better. I am trying to do a similar thing since I HATE the time consuming scanning process and my scanner is an old Epson 2450. I think once you set it up you can really have a nice speedy process with high quality images.

 

I have a Nikon D70 which has a modest 6MP file so storage will be manageable as well. I may just dedicate it to digitizing negatives. Best of both worlds really. You can pick up a used one for less than the cost of a cheap scanner too. Nikon D70's have gone down to $150.00 used. I got one with only 3000 shutter actuations.

 

You could use a cheap point and shoot with macro mode and small jpegs and get better results than what Walgreens gave you.

 

Here is a novel gadget called shotcopy.

[thebarnman]

I've been searching for various ways of using a digital camera as a scanner and found this I think it's smart and if you can shoot RAW all the better. I am trying to do a similar thing since I HATE the time consuming scanning process and my scanner is an old Epson 2450. I think once you set it up you can really have a nice speedy process with high quality images.

 

You could use a cheap point and shoot with macro mode and small jpegs and get better results than what Walgreens gave you.

 

Here is a novel gadget called shotcopy.

 

Very interesting as that's something I've wondered about before. I currently don't have a digital camera, though maybe one day if I do get one, I'll have to give that a try!