Great scans by NCPS

[jackm1]

<p>North Coast Photographic Services - Ken Rockwell raves about them so I decided to give them a try.<br>

Velvia 50, Leica IIIf, Elmar 50/3.5. This scan approaches my 5DII for quality - something I've not seen before from various attempts at film. I tried to focus on my daughter's face, and it's acceptably in focus, but check out the towel fabric and my wife's hand:<br /> <br /><a href="http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Fourth-of-July-2011" target="_blank">http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Fourth-of-July-2011</a><br /><br />(haven't uploaded the rest of the roll yet) Roll your mouse over the large image and a menu will slide in from the right. Click the folder icon to save the original (19mb) to your computer. Then view it in whatever program you usually use.<br /> <br />I'm impressed.</p>

[jackm1]

<p>err, use this link:<br>

http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/Family/Fourth-of-July-2011/18165842_9dSD5H#1395280842_K9DFt4g</p>

<p>the one above will just go to the gallery, and that will be confusing once I upload more.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The scan not good. It has noise artifacts that are not film grain. I would have them rescan them with all post-processing options turned off.</p>

<p>Compare your to the results from a Coolscan (21MP scan from 35mm negative):</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/New-2008-Ektar-100-35mm/6499685_dJwsh#412869552_SU8dE-O-LB</p>

[jackm1]

<p>I did USM at 48%, radius 1, threshold 1, if that matters. I'm happy with it.<br>

Your scans are great though, where did you have them done?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I scan myself. I think you USM is very good (I use 50%-100%, radius 0.9, threshold:0); I think they did something to it before they sent you the scans. Compare the skin:</p>

<p>Coolscan in the back, NCPS small crop in the front. Both 100% of 21MP scans.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Let me clarify, the scans they sent you are not excellent but they are not bad. They will likely print up to 11x14 comfortably.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>For your file, I would add the USM on a separate layer with the skin and out of focus areas masked out ( the mask should only let through the ring, eyebrows, hair, edge of the lips and nose. And maybe towels).</p>

<p>You can create the USM at 200%-1-0 and then you can control the intensity with the layer opacity.</p>

<p>Once you are done, select everything, do copy merged and paste, and apply a new USM at 20%-70-2 to control contrast.</p>

<p> </p>

[randrew1]

<p>I appreciate the discussion. I'm still working on scanning a large collection of personal and family negatives and slides.</p>

<p>I have a different question for you. Both of your links allow access to all of your public smugmug galleries. I keep most of my family and personal picture in unlisted galleries. Have you ever had any problems or concerns with public access to personal pictures? I'd be interested in the experience of others.</p>

<p>FWIW, here's my smugmug site: <a href="http://photos.randrews4.com/">http://photos.randrews4.com/</a></p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ron, I only post a small subset of my pictures on Smugmug (the ones I need to share). Still, ttou can enable protect mode so they cannot by copied or dragged at full resolution.</p>

<p>Most pictures that are not for share you can make them private.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Your 16MP NCPS scans are far better than what I've seen from non-professional labs (6MP crap with noise and blown highlights), but I have to agree that Mauro's 20MP Coolscan scans are better. </p>

[jackm1]

<p>to be fair, 16.8mp. ;) I agree Mauro's are better. Sadly I don't have $6k for a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED.</p>

<p>But Mauro, what camera and lens are we looking at there? Also I'm not sure if it's fair to compare Velvia 50 against Ektar 100.</p>

<p>At any rate, suffice to say that NCPS has bested my local lab by a significant margin, so until I find $6k for my own scanner I will be using NCPS.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I would be interested to see the scan before unsharp was done. I think the scan you have is much better than you would get trying to scan with a cheap flatbed. It certainly looks better than my V500 scans from 35mm. At the end of the day though as long as the web size images look good 1200 pixel long dimension and the prints look good I would not worry too much about how the full res 100% crops look.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I've been happy with the scans I get from NCPS and Precision Camera. Are they as good as the ones I'd do at home on my Coolscan V? Probably not. But for an extra couple bucks a roll, I don't have to spend all the time it takes to get them scanned. I just scan a couple of the frames that need rescanning at home.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I think this is an excellent scan for the price. They only charge $11.95 plus processing for this service.</p>

<p>It is hard to compare different images as a test of scanning process especially when one is so much softer than the other. I would like to see your image prior to sharpening. It would also be interesting to see if NCPS will do scanning without any sharpening.</p>

<p>I think I will give them a try.</p>

<p>Here is a small crop of your image.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here is the small crop.</p><div></div>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>Jack:<br /> I will never understand pixel peeping or people who instinctively bristle at "Ken Rockwell". I have to say I've learned at lot of good, valuable stuff from his website.</p>

<p>On my Dell 198WFP calibrated digital monitor that measures 10x16 inside the monitor frame, this photo, and your pretty subjects, at the largest size available at your site, came out superb.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jack, the shot I posted was taken with Ektar 100 and a Canon 70-200mm 4IS.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Can you post a link to the image as they sent it to you? I'm interested to see in what they are delivering. Although it doesn't seem as good as a home film scanner, is not a bad inexpensive alternative.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Marc, for the comparison you asked, I downrezed the file to match the 17MP resolution and added some sharpening but none of the artifacts on the NCPS scan appeared on the Nikon scan:<br>

Here:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/New-2008-Ektar-100-35mm/6499685_dJwsh#1398457001_hnFXZ9V-X3-LB</p>

<p>Note that at f4 and 200mm the DOF is very shallow (focus is on the sweater and top cheek).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Marc, here is another scan with the Coolscan at 21MP (focus on front eye). Certainly no artifacts, shadow noise, or blurriness as NCPS.<br /> http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/New-2008-Ektar-100-35mm/6499685_dJwsh#412875932_PajwY-X3-LB</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>My Coolscan 9000 is 6 years old. If Nikon decided to release a new scanner at one point, with the advents in technology from this decade, quality and speed would likely be even better.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jack, regarding you point on Velvia 50; this is a crop from V50 scanned with the Coolscan:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Cancun-09/8082545_jEvxG#534328742_oqV4X-X3-LB</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Thanks Mauro</p>

<p>What are your thoughts between Velvia and Ektar?<br>

I had a look at your Velvia 50 image you posted. Would it be fair to say that a digital camera would be able to see more hair detail around the man's face? Your Ektar shot appears to show bit more detail than the Velvia.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Velvia 50 is higher resolving and has tighter grain than Ektar. Both are very high though. (TMAX is higher resolving and tighter than both color films)/.</p>

<p>A top of the line 20MP DSLR will get similar detail than both films on a portrait. The DSLR will get lower detail on things like landscapes with high concentration of high freq single tones like grass or branches. A DSLR will probably capture more detail on low contrast subjects like lint on a lightly colored couch.</p>

<p>Regarding the hair on a persons face, it will depend on contrast. Hair that is subtle to the skin tone will be better on a DSLR, hair with contrast or highlights will be better defined on film.</p>