Getting 120/220 Frontier Scans

[paul_lee5]

I may be alone on this, but I like the way Fuji Frontier machines scan negative film. I use them to quickly

post shots on the web. For example: <a href="http://www.designunion.net/kenya">http://

www.designunion.net/kenya</a>

<p>

I have a Nikon 8000 scanner when I need higher resolution files for printing, but I like the convenience

and ease and the general look of Frontier scans (I understand they aren't to everyone's taste).

<p>

I live in Los Angeles, and I go to the A & I lab in Hollywood. They charge $30 for developing a roll of 220

and scanning them to CD on a Frontier machine (each scan is 6mb).

<p>

My question is: Has anyone found a place that develops and scans 120/220 film on a Frontier machine for

less than $30? If anyone knows a place in Los Angeles that provides such a service, please let me know. As

well, if this can be done via mail, that information would be much appreciated as well.

[r.t. dowling]

It stands to reason that medium format film scanned by a Frontier is probably going to look better than 35mm film scanned by a Frontier. I think most people -- myself included -- who dislike Frontier scans have been using 35mm.

[pics]

Don't underestimate the impact of the individual running the machine. I've had MF slide scans from a Frontier that were horrible in terms of dynamic range and sharpness compared to what I could get out of my $130 flatbed scanner.

[robert himmelright]

A and I however send special instructions asking them to set "sharpness low 2" otherwise you'll get that horrible pattern frontier scans have become known for. At my decidedly consumer lab we've taken to doing a seperate scan for the prints and cd's just because of this problem.

[scott_eaton]

<I>I've had MF slide scans from a Frontier that were horrible in terms of dynamic range and sharpness compared to what I could get out of my $130 flatbed scanner</i><P>My epson 1640 flatbed makes the best MF Frontier scans I've had (neg and tranny) look like a joke.

[steven_clark]

And I've had a 1640, replaced with a 4990, and I can testify that is saying quite a bit. That thing sucked on MF slides.

[dorman_studios]

Protek Color Lab in Burbank, CA

 

I get all my scanning and processing from them.

Process AND 100MB Kodak scans, 120 film for $14.00 total.

Now the thing is that they do ZERO correction on their scans, no color, no sharpening,

nothing. They don't even set the white and dark points. But for .85ﾢ per 100MB scan...I

can do it myself.

 

Call em' up

818-763-8963

 

You'll be gald you did!

[nullfinder]

Paul, you're not alone.

 

I ran a frontier for 2 years and I absolutely love the thing.... i've never had a problem with its results except for transparencies. that is its true weakness is scanning chromes

[kim_freeman2]

Someone is right when they say good scans also have to do with the technician, however the major difference in how well the actual scanner scans is the algorithms that are built for the CCD capture. Slides and transparencies are easy, they are positives. The complex situation is negative film where not only do you have to reverse the data that is scanned but then you have to have curves to remove the different grades of orange base material that is inherent in color negative film. No problem right? Except that every different speed and type of color negative film has a different color of orange base. Now add in the ability to process at different times and concentrations, further shifting both the image colors and the base colors of the film. Once you have curves for all of those, you can then tweak them and make them cover someone who shoots "right on" exposure wise or someone who either shoots 3 stops over or under. Basically it is very difficult to get these curves hence relatively inexpensive ($35K) Frontier scanners do an "O.K." job, but if you want great scans, you have to step up and get some serious equipment, such as a Durst Scanner or a Scitex Eversmart. At Allied Photographic and Imaging(www.alliedphoto.com) we have all 3 scanners and great technicians, and the charge is $.52 per frame for a 8-10 MB file on roll film directly after developing. If you want to bump up to the Durst Sigma scanner with digital ICE for your scans it is $1.20 per scan. Digital Ice is not available on the Frontier. Cut negatives are $5.00 up to $90.00 depending on the resolution you need and your yearly volume of work. Through the month of August all roll scans are 50% off. Hope this helps clear things up.