Film Scanning Quality By Developing Labs

[S.Rolf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having re-entered the film world recently I am wondering if film labs who normally would do my film developing and who offer scanning as well, can be (generally speaking) trusted to perform "quality" scans of my chromes and negatives or would it be worth the investment (and extra steps) to procure my own scanning hardware and do it myself?

 

I would love to just check the box "scan" in my developing order instead of the alternative.

 

 

[edwardkaraa]

Usually all current minilab scanners offer two modes, the most interesting one being the 16 bit Tiff "raws". The regular jpg mode is fully corrected and useless imho. The 16 bit Tiff is not corrected, and allows you to treat the file exactly like a raw file. You can open it in ACR or Lightroom and do the usual corrections.

[Advertisement]

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

[leica dream]

I had my lab in the UK scan the images of my recent film experiment and the results were absolute rubbish quality. Not at all clear.

Edited April 29, 2017 by leica dream

[dsj]

I would recommend trying a few different options. I started off getting them developed at local lab that did a good job. Later I tried a lab that is more focused on film work and decided that it is worth the slightly higher price. I see you are based in the US so maybe give Indie Film Lab a try. Many great film photographers work with them. But if you have the time and enjoy doing it scanning it yourself might be the way to go. 

[gbealnz]

To start with perhaps use a commercial developing and scanning service, but in the end why no do it all yourself?

 

Processing film can seem daunting, but given a bit of help, and practice it really is quite a simple process. Processing equipment is available used as well as new, guessing $50 - $200 tops.

 

Scanning is as well, all it does is cost. Decent used scanners like the Plustek will set you back around $200. Given you are in the Leica forum, this is possibly small change.

 

Definitely get a scanner, and try it.

 

Gary

[earleygallery]

I get the low res jpeg scans with colour film processing as 'proofs' and scan the keepers at high res myself.

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No.  You can tell you're not getting "quality" scans because you're checking a box and they're scanning all your images.  What you'll get are low or modest-resolution scans perhaps okay for posting to Facebook.

 

You'll know when high-quality scanning enters the picture because you'll cringe at the price.  For one image.  No way will you scan the whole roll.

 

Shops that provide high-end scans also are happy to tell you how they make those scans - the equipment and the process.  Typically that'll be offered on their website without your even asking.

 

And, by all means, consider doing your own scanning.  It's the only even remotely economic way of routinely getting good scans.  But just know that, even as the commercial shop is unable to provide high quality scans with mediocre equipment, you won't either.  

 

EDIT:  Just saw James post where he uses the cheap commercial scans as proofs, then does the high-end ones himself.  That would make a good workflow.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Jager

[ShivaYash]

After feeling disappointed with lab scans I purchased a Kodak Pakon F135. The results are spectacular.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SilentShutter]

The price too........ 

[Martin B]

I found it very challenging in the past to get decent quality scans from development labs of my film negatives. First barrier to overcome is to convince the operator to make TIFF files and no JPG files in the first place - some might simply refuse to do it and only offer "high" quality JPGs which proved to be fairly useless. As edwardkaraa pointed out earlier, TIFF 16 bit RAW files is probably the best you can expect to get - I was never this lucky with outside labs both in Germany and in the US. What most labs consider "high quality digital files" turned out to be severely compressed JPG files of less than 2 MB per file. IMO waste of money to even pay extra for a photo CD of your negatives. 

 

Unfortunately there is no good alternative than scanning negatives (or slides) yourself. If you mostly shoot 35 mm format, I also recommend a Plustek scanner for a few hundred dollars. I bought mine early this year (Plustek 8200 Ai), and have scanned hundreds of negatives with mine since. Word of caution here: while the scanner works perfectly for negatives, it is more troublesome to be used for slides since the slide film holder sets the slide frame higher in the holder than negatives. This leads to a reduction of sharpness when the slide is scanned since the scanner unit inside itself cannot change the focus. Easiest workaround is to take the slide out of its frame and scan it like a negative. But this is likely not the most practical if you have many slides to scan - fortunately I rarely shoot shoot slide film and stick to negatives. 

[gbealnz]

Echoing Martin, the Plustek has proven to be a very fine scanner for the middle of the road use I have for it.

Scans are fine, as good or as cheap and cheerful as I want.

I recently acquired an old Epson flatbed scanner, against my better judgement. It has turned out to be a revelation to be honest, for the use I have. Certainly for my M/F negs/slides it is the only game in town, for me.

Either way, get some commercial scans done, to whet the appetite. If that is all you want, just carry on with them. If later you find you might want to try it yourself, Plustek (8100 in my case), or a used flatbed (4870 in this case).

Gary

[friedeye]

Just read - I think it was PetaPixel - about scanning with a Canon 5 MkII (about $650 on eBay) - and a macro lens/light table combo. Basically, you take six photos of your negative in a divided by six layout and then stitch them together in PS. The results are quite astonishing and beat a drum scanner by quite a bit.  I think this is the way I'll eventually go on anything I want to archive. Epson 800 to do the roll. then the Canon for the picks.

[EoinC]

Having used a similar setup with both Canon 1DX and Sony A7R, combined with Canon's excellent MP-E 65 lens (using a macro-rail and an iPad for focusing), I don't see results that beat a drum scan (or those of my Plustek 120). That is even with taking 20-shot stitches of 120 film.

 

It works, and works well, but I still prefer the hands-free effort of a dedicated film scanner.