Use of scanners by commercial photo labs

Hi guys.

I've been sort of shopping around to find one lab that does everything well- develop, send scans, AND perhaps, one day, make me a darkroom print, be it of color or black and white. So far I've used

Richard Photo Lab in California

Blue Moon Camera in Portland OR

and most recently

Old School Photo Lab up in New Hampshire.

 

Of the three,

only Blue Moon will make a darkroom (or lab) print, files appear in DropBox

Old School Photo has solid & consistent general service, files come into some 3rd party app, files expire eventually

Richard seems to have the (generally) best overall system, that is to say they do everything consistently well EXCEPT one cannot access or download their scans on a mobile device, their files also eventually expire.

 

After opting for Old School's upgrade scans, I've been thinking lately about scanning and this whole end of the process, or "lab experience".

 

Richard has Frontier and Noritsu scanners. Pretty sure they don't have a "drum" scanner- nor does anyone the others mentioned. I get the feeling that is a specific sort of tech that has become specialized or niche-market. Blue Moon scans are OK, I've not used their "upgrade" option. And I haven idea what they are using. I don't. know what Old School uses either, but their upgrade scans seem pretty amazing. Pretty sure everyone of these labs tells you what they scan at.

 

On a 6X6 negative,

 

***Old School's standard scans rate at 2416 X 2380

vs Upgrade at 4832 X 4760

Or for really large scans, a TIFF option- they don't say how large these files are, only that they do not send scan files, they put these on a CD and send them along with your negatives.

 

1 roll 120 B&W film + upgrade scans = 29.00 (USD)

They use Noritsu HS-1800 (also have a fuji scanner that they say is for novelty only na they do not recommend it , unsure what their large file TIFF scans are made on)

 

***Richard has 3 scan sizes, small medium and large:from either Noritsu or Frontier scanners

• Small | 3 – 5mb, approx. 1025x1450 pixels or higher | Good for online and small prints.
  
• Medium | 12 – 18mb, approx. 2050x2790 pixels or higher | Most popular! Best for all around work.
  
• Large | 30 – 45mb, approx. 3350x4550 pixels or higher | For special large print projects.
  

1 roll 120 B&W film + large scans = 24.78 (USD)

 

***Blue Moon scans come in at

standard 2380 X 2410

upgrade 4760 X 4830

 

The don't say what equipment they use.

1 roll 120 B&W film + upgrade scans = 30.50

 

SO every one of these three come in pretty close in terms of cost per roll...

 

*******************************************************************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************************************************************

I understand that scans/files is the easiest way to receive images. One can download the file and do post work on it, and easily present it to the world via social media or whatever.

 

Beyond that, would any lab that's doing digital prints (almost seem to be doing) use the same scan files for printing? If so, wouldn't one want the highest possible scan resolution?

 

And if a lab is using some level of, even top end consumer grade scanners, why would anyone bother to pay a premium for that?

 

Why have drum scans fallen by the wayside? Takes too long? Massive equipment? Pain in the ass? Obsolete tech?

But ins't a drum scan the best possible scan?

 

Beyond the obvious ease of delivery & long term file storage, why do scans matter?

and I mean, in general, not just why am I obsessing about them LOL

 

Discuss, please.

Thanks in advance for your time.

have a nice day.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Ricochetrider

would any lab that's doing digital prints (almost seem to be doing) use the same scan files for printing? If so, wouldn't one want the highest possible scan resolution?

No! I can only rattle down my vocational school's prepress drill: if we have 60l/cm offsetscreen we scan 120p/cm maybe just 90p/cm evrything above is called "generating data junk" and was frowned upon. I went to school in 2000-2003 so I assume I got 1990s style routines taught.

A lab wants a good enough scan, no way a best possible scan. if you send in a neg and order scans + prints they scan for that print size. and the "upgrade" scans should be good for absolutely excellent 8x10"s standard for 4xwhatever"s, stuff the minilab tech they are most likely running was made for.

if a lab is using some level of, even top end consumer grade scanners, why would anyone bother to pay a premium for that?

A scan consists of pixels and tweaking to look right. the latter is what you'd struggle with, at home. suggestion: "Read"* dpreview's recent cheapo flatbed review.- v600. You don't need to read you should just dabble with their Epson vs lab scan comparison tool at the bottom.

I'm sure you can tweak things to some extend but do you have a monitor calibrated to your lab's printers? Why do serious photographers jump back on Canon's skin tone JPEG rendering? or others claim it took them more than a week to get used to their latest Leica's files in Lightroom?

ins't a drum scan the best possible scan?

Yes it is.

But so what? It takes time to do those. - I was told maybe 4 scans per hour, doable by a well drilled operator and just scanning for "nice image" and not insanest achievable highest resolution. Who'd pay that?

Sorry, we are talking industrial style consumer mass satisfaction here. Consumers tend to be cheap. They jump on good enough industrially made products. Scan the heck out of your neg if you have to otherwise: just enough to get away with. If you are rich enough to afford insane luxuries: Why not order processing with 50x60cm proofs? Why bother with scans at all?

Beyond the obvious ease of delivery & long term file storage, why do scans matter?

IDK & live accordingly.

I own a serious 35mm film scanner and 2 copies of dirt cheap consumer grade 35mm film digitizing toys and don't use them. I am also not eager to pay a lab a few extra € for a photo CD when I turn in film, to get prints or slides.

I'm realistic enough to know: Odds to need the file are too low, to justify it's price.

I can understand that shooting film is about the joy of shooting that film camera. Go & do it. If it happens to turn out great: Print a poster, hang it somewhere and take a cellphone selfie of your vernisage, to post that online.

If a neg looks "meh", an insane quality scan will show your film grain but won't add sharpness to the OOF & camera shaken not so great composition.

Scans could be nice to organize in Picasa or LR. But if that on screen joy is your goal; why not shoot digital to start with?

Richard Photo Lab does do drum and flatbed scans. But drum scans are NOT a better scanner when it comes to film, which is why drum scans really aren’t recommended unless you need a HUGE file for printing something really really big. Even then, you are better off getting a scan on Noritsu or Frontier and then having your drum scan color corrected in post to match, because those scanners were made specifically for scanning film.

 

Richard Photo Lab can make prints from your scans. But your resolution only needs to be 300 dpi for your final print size. So, if you are printing a 5x7, you don’t need a large scan. Also, Noritsu scans can be printed larger than Frontier scans (the newer tech just results in a better pixel structure for printing/up-rezing).

you are better off getting a scan on Noritsu or Frontier and then having your drum scan color corrected in post to match

Sounds sad but could be true.

But drum scans are NOT a better scanner when it comes to film

In theory they should be better, since they are fully adjustable to cope with any imaginable density and so on. but yes, they need a way more skilled / experienced operator, while the minilab tech was most likely automated, to be operated by quickly trained folks.

Sometimes you do need a lot of pixels, even if they are just interpolation.

Most often, though, not so many.

 

If the digital resolution is higher than the optics can support, it is too much.

If it is more than the film can support, it is too much.

 

The supplied MTF curves go out probably farther than they should, so if the pixel

resolution is twice the end of the MTF curve, that should be enough.

(That is, the Nyquist limit.)

 

If you are going to post them on PN, or even FB, you don't need 32 megapixels.

(All my uploads to FB use their higher resolution option.)

 

Most often, though, I do scan at the highest resolution that the scanner is

meant to supply. (Not including interpolation or other extra resolution modes.)

 

If I go to the work of using a scanner, at least for film, usually the highest.

 

Scanning prints maybe not. I have scanned 8x10 prints at 3200 dpi, which

is too much.

Shutterfly Help Center

 

has the Shutterfly minimum recommendations. More is good, but less than

this people are likely to complain and ask for a refund.

 

Note that they say 2000x1600 is enough for 11x14 up to 20x30.

 

Larger prints are normally viewed from farther back, so more isn't always needed.

 

More practically, maybe 6 megapixels for 8x10, and 12mp for 16x20 or 20x30.

The theoretical end-goal, at least with film, is to go to print. Clearly the ideal is make the print from the negative, right? However, as noted, some (most?) labs do not make prints from negatives (lab prints) and use files. Just for kicks, and it wasn't expensive, I had a reasonably large (16 inch by 16 inch) ink-jet print made from a file and it came out far better than I anticipated.

The theoretical end-goal, at least with film, is to go to print. Clearly the ideal is make the print from the negative, right? However, as noted, some (most?) labs do not make prints from negatives (lab prints) and use files. Just for kicks, and it wasn't expensive, I had a reasonably large (16 inch by 16 inch) ink-jet print made from a file and it came out far better than I anticipated.

 

In the film days, the end-goal might have been projected transparencies, and in the

digital days might be digitally projected images, or viewed on a video screen.

 

Inkjet is pretty good, though it isn't so easy to get lighter colors. Better inkjet printers

have light magenta and light cyan inks to make it easier.

 

I suspect that dye sublimation is more linear than inkjet, and is somewhat

popular for many printers these days, especially for 4x6 prints.

 

But laser scanned silver halide wet processed prints are still pretty common.

The data sheet for Crystal Archive gives the characteristics both for seconds and

microseconds exposures.

Last year, I tried a website called www.thedarkroom.com for developing a bunch of E6 and scanning the frames. They offer scans in three sizes, 1024x1536, 2048x3072, 4492x6774 for 35 mm. I opted for the lowest resolution for the entire rolls. It was the most cost effective and decent enough to asses the quality of every shot, but not very suitable for serious post processing.

 

My strategy would be to scan the entire rolls at the lowest resolution. Then select the frames that I want and send back for higher resolution scanning. If you do post processing, I would strongly recommend getting the scans done in 16 bit tiff files, instead of jpegs. I own a dedicated film scanner, so I use that for scanning purposes.

A scanner isn't that expensive. I don't think film shooter would shoot a lot (if the OP does I like to know how many shots per month). No lab can do a scan better than you can do it yourself. The Noritsu and Frontier scanners are decent and their quality is on par with good flat bed scanner like the Epson V600 etc.. Labs use them because they are much faster than a home flat bed scanner. Drum scanners are significantly better but since the lab operator isn't you, he/she can never scan a negative that is best for you.

No lab can do a scan better than you can do it yourself. The Noritsu and Frontier scanners are decent and their quality is on par with good flat bed scanner like the Epson V600 etc.

 

I'd say the average person who rarely scans can probably get consistently better scans out of a Frontier or Noritsu than they can a V600, especially in 120(with the notoriously poor Epson 120 holders).

 

That doesn't necessarily hold for an experienced scanner operator, and I think it's a skill well worth learning if you're shooing film. Still, though, I think Nortisu/Frontier scans are going to look better than someone who took their V600/700/800 out of the box an hour ago.

I've been scanning film, 35mm on a Minolta Scan Dual III, and medium format and 4x5 on an Epson 2450 flatbed. The Minolta will scan a 35mm neg at about 2580 x 3800 pixels, which is about 8.5 x 12 inch print at 300 ppi with no upsizing of the pixels. I've use PS to upsize to 16x20 inch print at 300 ppi with excellent results that look a lot like a darkroom print at either size. The Epson will make a scan of a 2 1/4 neg at about 5200 x5200 pixels, and a 4x5 neg at 11,000 x 8800 pixels. The flatbed scans are a little less sharp, but at that size they can easily be sharpened when reducing them to the desired print size. Even though I bought these scanners over a decade ago before digital cameras were readily available, I am very pleased with the results still today when working with my lifetime of negatives. BTW I have been using Hamrick's Vuescan for scanning software.

I have a ScanDual III and IV, both bought used a few years ago.

(OK, a little more than a few. But in the digital camera days.)

 

I also have an Epson 3200, mostly for larger negatives, including 120, 116, and 122.

 

With all the scanners, I suspect that focus, including keeping the film flat and in the

appropriate plane, is a pretty important part in the final resolution.

 

But yes, for most uses, the DS III, DS IV, and Epson 3200 have enough resolution.

I'd say the average person who rarely scans can probably get consistently better scans out of a Frontier or Noritsu than they can a V600, especially in 120(with the notoriously poor Epson 120 holders).

 

That doesn't necessarily hold for an experienced scanner operator, and I think it's a skill well worth learning if you're shooing film. Still, though, I think Nortisu/Frontier scans are going to look better than someone who took their V600/700/800 out of the box an hour ago.

 

Ben if someone has a bunch of film needed to be digitize then I think having someone else doing the scanning is a good idea. However, for someone who shoot about 1 roll of film a week or so then the time spent to learn and to scan those negs are well worthwhile. Scanning is in a way similar to printing in the darkroom. One may want to print a negative in many ways and so does one wants to scan a negative in different ways.

Ben if someone has a bunch of film needed to be digitize then I think having someone else doing the scanning is a good idea. However, for someone who shoot about 1 roll of film a week or so then the time spent to learn and to scan those negs are well worthwhile. Scanning is in a way similar to printing in the darkroom. One may want to print a negative in many ways and so does one wants to scan a negative in different ways.

 

No disagreement on the volume of film you state, or I'd even say that the break even point on learning to do it yourself is probably a couple of rolls a year.

 

At the same time, though, I know my local lab gets a lot of business from customers who are shooting the first roll of film they've shot in their life and chances are once the novelty wears off it will be their last or one of their last rolls of film. THAT customer is throwing good money(and time) after bad if they buy a scanner and try to do it themselves. That customer is probably a lot better off having the lab scan it.

 

Also, on the very rare occasion that I shoot APS, I have the lab scan it. I could do it on my Coolscan 4000(I actually bought that somewhat redundant scanner because it can use the long roll attachments, although my interest is more in the 35mm uncut and the slide stack feeder) but I have zero interest in spending a pile of money for an APS attachment for it when I shoot maybe 1 roll a year and remember how terrible it is :) .

No disagreement on the volume of film you state, or I'd even say that the break even point on learning to do it yourself is probably a couple of rolls a year.

 

At the same time, though, I know my local lab gets a lot of business from customers who are shooting the first roll of film they've shot in their life and chances are once the novelty wears off it will be their last or one of their last rolls of film. THAT customer is throwing good money(and time) after bad if they buy a scanner and try to do it themselves. That customer is probably a lot better off having the lab scan it.

 

Also, on the very rare occasion that I shoot APS, I have the lab scan it. I could do it on my Coolscan 4000(I actually bought that somewhat redundant scanner because it can use the long roll attachments, although my interest is more in the 35mm uncut and the slide stack feeder) but I have zero interest in spending a pile of money for an APS attachment for it when I shoot maybe 1 roll a year and remember how terrible it is :) .

 

Actually what I meant is that the fewer film you shoot the more likely scanning yourself is a good thing. You have all the time to try and try to make the best out of your few negatives.

Actually what I meant is that the fewer film you shoot the more likely scanning yourself is a good thing. You have all the time to try and try to make the best out of your few negatives.

 

Yes.

 

But many of us also have many negatives from years long past.

 

I even have a box of black and white negatives from my grandfather, and I know my father

has many negatives, too.

 

But also, at the prices most charge for doing them, it is too expensive to have

them do the whole set.

Well I like the idea of having a scanner at some point- much the same as I like the idea of having my own darkroom at some point.

 

Is the biggest gain from scan the conversion to digital? of creation of something you can then make a digital print of? Rather than a lab or silver gelatin print?

Is the biggest gain from scan the conversion to digital? of creation of something you can then make a digital print of? Rather than a lab or silver gelatin print?

 

On the printing front-

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a lab that optically prints color negative anymore. I'd like to do it myself, but that's on hold at least for the time being. For quite a long time(I'd say since the early to mid 2000s) labs that print on RA-4 paper usually use something like a Fuji Frontier printer that exposes the paper from a digital image. Even if you take a negative in to a lab to be printed, there's a very good chance this is what's going to happen(any lab that doesn't do it that way probably advertises as such).

 

RA-4, which is designed to print from a color negative, is still a reasonably common process, and the material(both paper and chemistry) is not that difficult to find. There use to be a direct-to-positive optical process called at various times either Ilfochrome or Cibachrome. Done properly, the results from it are beautiful(I've not seen anything else that looks quite like a good Cibachrome) but it was also expensive and had a reputation for being a rather cantankerous process. Neither the paper nor the chemistry have been commercially produced for a number of years.

 

So, at least with color, scanning is in many cases the best way to actually print an image.

 

Many folks also do it so that they can share online or otherwise share digitally too.

Last year, I tried a website called www.thedarkroom.com for developing a bunch of E6 and scanning the frames. They offer scans in three sizes, 1024x1536, 2048x3072, 4492x6774 for 35 mm. I opted for the lowest resolution for the entire rolls. It was the most cost effective and decent enough to asses the quality of every shot, but not very suitable for serious post processing.

 

My strategy would be to scan the entire rolls at the lowest resolution. Then select the frames that I want and send back for higher resolution scanning. If you do post processing, I would strongly recommend getting the scans done in 16 bit tiff files, instead of jpegs. I own a dedicated film scanner, so I use that for scanning purposes.

Which scanner do you own.?

Thank You

Which scanner do you own.?

Thank You

 

It’s the Canon FS4000.