Film, processing, scanning or me?

[Susie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

 

I've just spent a couple of hours in the garden photographing some of the flowers and things using colour print film. Then I popped into town and got them developed, printed 6x4 and put onto CD.

 

Now I expect some of you are already cringing at the above, but please help before I jack the whole thing in and sell my kit, as for a long long time I have been completely disapointed with the results of my efforts, whether in colour or black and white. The pictures are generally fuzzy and mushy with nothing sharp. It has been many years since I developed and printed my own pictures, but even only a few years ago I was getting sharp pictures that I was happy with, using colour print film and local D&P high-street firms.

 

The photos have been taken with a variety of cameras and lenses, 111f, M2, M3 and M6, and lenses from a Summar, via Elmars, Summicrons, Summarons, Telyts, Hektors, Summarex, Summarit, Elmarits, in focal lengths from 21mm to 40cm

 

One thing that I do have reservations on though, but have no knowledge of, as I am not technically minded, is how the move from optical printing to digital has affected the results. The last really good results were definately optically printed, nothing since has satisfied. The CD that I got from Boots today has two folders on it. On one the file sizes are between 1MB and 342KB, on the other they are 50KB to 144KB. Comparing these with my Digilux 1, the files from this are about 1.8MB for a JPEG, presumably from a smaller format. You will realise from the last statement how little I know about digital!

 

I can post examples if it will help, but comments on the above would be welcome.

 

By the way, on the computer I view them on the screen of my Dell laptop using picture manager...

 

Susie

[Advertisement]

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

[gsgary]

Lets see some

[250swb]

Those are tiny scans from 35mm, I don't think you can expect much from them. By comparison a scan done at home on a good modern scanner you might expect something in the region of 120mb for a .TIFF file. So yours have been scanned for web publishing and nothing more.

 

Steve

[Phil U]

As Steve points out, the scanning that Boots are doing for you is not good enough for the standards you are expecting.

 

But then (I think) the 6x4 prints you had done were also soft and poor quality. That shouldn't be the case if it is simply that the scan to CD that is being output at too low resolution. That should be separate to the 6x4 print i.e. the 6x4 print should not be made from the low resolution scan.

 

You are shooting with such a range of equipment that it seems highly unlikely that there is a problem with focus calibration or such like, so it's a bit of a mystery if the prints are poor as well as the scans. I trust you are using new film stock?

 

From the info you have given us the finger seems to point at Boots. Perhaps you could try sending one or two films to a different place to check the quality and where they can scan them at a higher resolution?

 

I'd recommend mailing a roll or two to SNAPS PHOTO SERVICES as they are good on price for the quality they provide, if a little slower than other services (expect around 5 days from sending to receiving back). They have done good work for me.

 

snaps photo services ltd,process and scan

 

For the scanning option I suggest one of the following:

 

23mb PER FRAME JPEG C-D - if you just want the image to view and/or print,

 

18mb PER FRAME TIFF C-D - or if you want to process it some more using photoshop type software

 

Either option is around 7 pounds a roll plus postage. If you find the website a little confusing at times, as I do, then just give them a call, ask to speak to Jonathan and explain the problems you have had with Boots and explain what you would like. He is very helpful and will tell you which service you need, the cost and how to go about it.

 

If you choose to give it a try then let us know how it goes. Best of luck.

[andybarton]

I would have thought that Boots would scan at a resolution to make a 6x4 pint at the dpi of their printer. Those are the scans you get for nothing but the cost of the CD media.

 

Those are extremely good prices for the develop and scan service.

[spydrxx]

Susie - not to take away from others' comments, but since you have been using different equipment and getting disappointing results...I need to ask, have you had your eyes examined recently? I had a similar situation about 15 years ago and my issue was traced to an eye problem. Once that was resolved my results began to markedly improve. Drugstore scans aren't usually great by any shakes, but they should be at least usable for web posting and smaller print jobs. The other physical issue many of my friends seem to increasingly experience is that often as we age, we develop microscopically small tremors, and higher shutter speeds often overcome this issue (as does a tripod). Hopefully none of the physical issues apply to you and it is just a matter of bad scans.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All of the above advice, plus ensure you use a tripod for some of the images on your next roll, assuming you have one. Note or remember which shots used the tripod. Check any differences between with and without.

 

Definitely insist on larger scans.

 

take the processed film to another lab and ask for a Pro print from one or more negs. Compare with the cheaper print from Boots.

 

After all that, something should become obvious.

 

Report back whatever you find out.

[AlanG]

Have you gone to the trouble to examine the negatives under a loupe to see if they are sharp? If you examine them closely and they are not sharp then you are either not focusing accurately or have movement. If they are sharp then good quality scans in the range of 20-35MB for RGB tiffs would probably be fine for large prints. The MB size of a scan in jpeg will vary due to how much compression is being used so you'd have to see the width and height in pixels when the file is opened to know what resolution it was scanned at. Quality home film scanners can scan 35mm at 4,000x6,000 pixels which equals a 72MB RGB tif file but you probably don't need nearly that high a res for typical use. Keep in mind that some scanners are much better than others even at the same high resolution.

[tobey bilek]

Have you gone to the trouble to examine the negatives under a loupe to see if they are sharp? If you examine them closely and they are not sharp then you are either not focusing accurately or have movement. If they are sharp then good quality scans in the range of 20-35MB for RGB tiffs would probably be fine for large prints. The MB size of a scan in jpeg will vary due to how much compression is being used so you'd have to see the width and height in pixels when the file is opened to know what resolution it was scanned at. Quality home film scanners can scan 35mm at 4,000x6,000 pixels which equals a 72MB RGB tif file but you probably don't need nearly that high a res for typical use. Keep in mind that some scanners are much better than others even at the same high resolution.

 

This is step one. Reverse 50 MM LENS for the loupe.

[Susie]

Hi Guys and thanks for the replies.

 

One reason for using rangefinders for the last 30 years is that I can focus them! Also, with the Viso 1 and 2 finders I can adjust the eyepiece to accomodate my worsening eyesight.

 

This morning I sat by the window and had a good look at the negs. Okay, some do show some movement (double images etc.) but most of the 'mushy fuzzy' ones are sharp on the negs. On the shed I have an olde-worldy advertising sign. I cannot read the small lettering on the print, but nice and sharp on the neg, also each rose petal is discernable.

 

M3 with 5cm f/3.5 Elmar

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!

 

 

Again, on the print the detail was mushy, but on the neg it is sharp

 

M3 with 125mm f/2.5 Hektor with bellows, handheld.

 

 

Last one was again handheld using the M3 and an 85mm f/1.5 Summarex.

 

Thanks again for your suggestions guys. I'll run another film through and use the firm Phil suggested.

 

Susie

[jankap]

Thank you for starting this thread.

I started a similar project. I have an old scanner with SCSI interface. That means I run into trouble with memory space, because I have to use old computers.

OK, my first scans have 150 mb in tif-format.

I have used the Leica IIIf with the 12mm/5.6

Because the 5.6 on Fuji 1600 film and the results are grainy (more marbly).

The picture shows a cheese factory (Parmesan!).

Jan

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=387235&stc=1&d=1373747826

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!

[250swb]

Susie, I can tell you that simply sharpening them in Photoshop makes a massive difference, they are sharp, not mushy, although the scan size leaves a lot to be desired. Have you tried sharpening them because I would guess the scans were made without any sharpening applied?

 

Steve

[jankap]

Thank you for starting this thread.

OK, my first scans have 150 mb in tif-format.

-------

I scanned 2 negatives in one scan, so about 70 mb per negative.

I developed the film myself. As we have 2 dogs and a cat, dust is a limiting factor too.

Jan

[AlanG]

-------

I scanned 2 negatives in one scan, so about 70 mb per negative.

I developed the film myself. As we have 2 dogs and a cat, dust is a limiting factor too.

Jan

 

I think you should clarify if the color depth is 8 bits or 16 bits. The file sizes I mentioned were for 8 bit scans.

[jankap]

My scanner produces Lab-tif. It is a Heidelberg Saphir Hires.

The colorspace according to Photoshop is 65535. That would be 16 bit!

Thanks.

Jan

[erl]

Jan, at least you got the dog to cat ratio right.

Makes a big difference .

[earleygallery]

Boots you say?

 

I'd avoid them for film processing at all costs. I think your problem is their shoddy service.

 

Try a capable firm to process/scan a new film and see how that works out.