Home scan vs. Photofinisher scan

[art_thomas1]

<p>Post deleated due to trouble adding photos to post. </p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>Another try?</p>

<p>Back awhile ago we had a similar discussion under the topic of: <br /><br />"Send out my 35mm film to be scanned and processed or DIY ? by Jon Kobeck | 2011-03-20 | 21 Responses. "<br /><br />Many people gave their opinions. I'm revisiting the subject because I now can show a definitive difference. <br /><br />Mr. A. T. Burke (Photonet member) showed me some slides he did last year in Florida. They were processed by a reputable photofinisher with a deservedly stellar reputation. Mr. Burke ordered the extra cost "Kodak Premium Processing" and CDROM. He had taken the photos on a hot and muggy day after getting the camera out of his cool car. The "blooming", especially with white on black was terrible. Was it frost on the lens? Was it a bad lens (a 50+ year old Xenon, premium in its day)? Was the film or processing bad? Was it a bad scan from a GREAT photofinisher? <br /><br />The results are in. Look at the difference in the scans, made at the same resolution. The "Professional, Kodak Premium Processing" bloom. The home scanner does not. The rest of the home scan looks a LOT better also.</p><div></div>

[art_thomas1]

<p>OK, that is better. Here is the home done scan: </p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>Art, I am not trying to defend anyone here but the Kodak scanned image seems to have noticeable noise. Perhaps it is a low resolution scan or the wrong setting had been used by the lab?</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Unless they have upgraded their equipment (which I doubt) Kodak Premium Processing scans 35mm images at 1024x1526. That limits the resolution, but I don't believe that is the main problem here. This looks like excessive flair from a dirty optic in the scanner. When I bought a used Nikon III scanner last year, the resolution lived up to the 2800 ppi, but the flair was extreme. After cleaning the internal mirror, the results were much improved. </p>

<p>I'm sure there are labs that produce good scans, but I found it worthwhile to buy a film scanner. </p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>Yes, gentlemen, I did pick out a bad examples. That was the whole point. In an earlier post on a similar subject, I had talked about the 6 mp scans done by Costco as having been great, right after they had a day-long machine CLR, and pretty poor a year later. </p>

<p>The point is, when you go into Joe's Drug Store, Sam's Camera Shop, or a big chain store, you never know who is using the machine, whether they ever clean it, or even if they have it under service contract. The poor example I gave above came from an extremely responsible processor that has properly earned a good reputation over many years. Yet, it happened. It still comes down to the fact (as Oliver Hardy used to say) that if you want something done right, do it yourself. That was my answer to the original topic</p>

<p>I don't know what size scan Kodak premium processing used to have. Actually, it is irrelevant, as I took a 640X480 pixel section out of both scans so that it would fit within Photonet's requested limits. Although the EXIF data on one shows it was scanned at 250 ppi and the other shows 4000 ppi, there was obviously an inaccuracy. My machine is advertised to scan at 4000 ppi, even though I sized it at 250 ppi so viewers could compare like with like. I suspect the scanner's EXIF software simply states the machine's maximum advertised resolution. Mr. Burke's recent Kodak Premium Processing Picture CD scans that I saw all measured 1808X1236 pixels on the disc. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I can screw up my own scans, I don't need any help from anybody.</p>

<p>Seriously, if you want it done right, do it yourself, they say. I'm a believer it it anyhow.</p>

<p>Some scanners can be set to scan beyond their physical limits through "interpolation". I think this really gains nothing; quite the opposite in my experience.</p>

[charlie_novice]

<p>Several scans by North Coast Photo Services (they have a website) over several months have all been done cleanly.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Agree with Charlie. North Coast got me to retire my flatbed.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>North Coast does a great job. I use Richard Photo Lab myself.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>I see flare on both. It is more subtle on the home scan, but definitely still there.</p>

[peter_gilbert3]

<p>I gather the scans from North Coast are JPEG not TIFF. Maybe Richards is the same. I would see that as a limitation to further post process.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

I am using North Coast and they do a great job. The scans are jpeg indeed. But its getting costly for me to the point I

am thinking about buying an Epson 750. I shoot about 30 rolls of 120 per month and at $13.00 a roll I can't afford it

any more