got first roll back. WTF?

[richard_wrede]

<p>I got my first roll of film back (Kodak Elite Chrome 200) I have a light leak problem but what I'm concerned about is, I had the Lab "scan to CD" and what images did turn out ok (exposure wise) look like crap because they scanned them at 72 dpi that can't be normal can it? the images are totally grainy I can't even see any detail at all at 100% resolution and there's pixelating. Should I take the CD back and ask the lab WTF or am I missing something? I was using an Electro 35 GSN manually set to infinity (not using the rangefinder) and it looks dull, like they were taken with a dang Kodak Intstamatic..</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Scanning is an art... Labs are in for not the art.</p>

[mtk]

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

For starters, a sample of your scan(s) posted here would be helpful. Next, as a fellow Electro 35 GSN shooter a couple of thoughts...since this is your first roll back from the camera,.....did you verify or are you 100% sure that the shutter is working properly? Remember this is an electronically controlled shutter and if you are having any battery issues at all exposure(s) can be off. Also keep in mind that your exposure latitude is much narrower with Chrome films than print films. The way to check to see if your shutter is working properly is to hold a finger over the electric eye window while pressing the shutter release. If your lens is set to the "A" and you release the shutter while "blacking out" the window you should here a slight "whirr" or very slight sound. This is the electronic shutter staying open trying the keep the leaves open to make the correct exposure. Or simply try shooting at night to see how the shutter reacts.<br>

I am guessing that the problem is with the camera, not the scans. Simply take back a few and have them re-scanned and see what the result is.<br>

IMHO the Electro series are fantastic bargains with an extremely fast sharp lens and are VERY capable shooters when working right.<br>

I wish you well! Let us know what you find out!<br>

Mark</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Although it is possible the lab scanned them at 72 dpi, are you sure you are not looking at thumbnails and the higher resolution scans are not in another directory on the CD?</p>

<p>Yes, you should ask the lab about it, but you might phrase your inquiry slightly differently. <grin></p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The typical CD scans are like 1200 by 1800 pixels, just enough to make a decent 4x6 print. Anything more costs a LOT more, since the scanners are designed to do that size fast, but higher resolution costs more time, and "time is money".<br>

"dpi" means nothing on a digital image. What matters is pixels.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I do have a rule in another place I have a steak in it is called... Give all details ....</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Brooks is probably correct and it sounds like you are looking at thumbnails. </p>

<p>However, it would be more useful if you gave us the total pixel dimensions. You might have a 6000 x 4000 pixel scan, but it's showing up at 72 ppi which is your native screen resolution. (I'm probably saying that all wrong, but some guru here will no doubt correct me!)</p>

<p>If your scans are indeed crap, the folks here can suggest labs you can use that will do excellent developing and scanning. I like North Coast myself.</p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Images help...</p>

[richard_wrede]

<p>I looked at the file properties, 3626x2422, 72dpi 6mb. they are not thumbnails either, I'll try to post a full resolution. I asked another fellow somewhere in Flickr, he said he used to get 72dpi discs from somewhere, thought his camera was bad. went somewhere else, shoot you can see a bumble bees wings from 30 feet away now and crystal sharp leaves, branches, etc. I think I'm gonna check the light seals and use film next time.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>(i) The fact that it opens at 72dpi is not in itself a big deal. You should be able to get a decent 8 x 10 from a file that size. To do that, you would just open it in your editor and resize it at 300dpi and a print size of 2400 x 3000.</p>

<p>(ii) That would be assuming the scan was good, but I think that one is less than stellar. Compare the scan with the chrome, using a loupe. If you had an image you wanted to keep, you could get it redone by an expert scanning service.</p>

<p>(iii) I think nothing's pin-sharp in that image, but to me it looks like the barbed wire in the foreground is sharper than the elk in the background. Is your camera focusing OK?</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Possibly the scan resolution was not recorded properly in the picture files provided for you, and the 72 dpi was placed there for you as your most likely viewing resolution on a computer screen.</p>

<p>From the picture size, you can compute the possible picture resolution you get. Do your own computations, and trust no one.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>This may be a useful link for you. http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/repair.html</p>

 

[Colin O]

<p>" <em>"dpi" means nothing on a digital image. What matters is pixels.</em>"<br>

This is correct.<br>

DPI is just an output instruction. It's got nothing to do with how large your digital image is <em>capable</em> of being printed. You can change the DPI setting in a digital image to 1 DPI or 7000 DPI, but the pixel dimensions don't change - you still have a 3626x2422 image. Changing the DPI setting is not resizing - you still have a 3626x2422 image - you are just changing the output setting.<br>

(Of course, you wouldn't <em>want</em> to change the DPI setting to 1 DPI or 7000 DPI. These would give you output sizes of 3626in by 2422in and 0.518in by 0.346in, and of course, both would look terrible.)</p>

 

<p>Pixel dimensions matter. These tell you how large your image is capable of being printed.<br>

In the case of your 3626x2422 image, you can get good quality output at a print size of 12in by 8in. To explain... If your image has 3626 pixels along its long edge, and you output this to a print 12 inches long along the long edge, that means that just over 300 pixels from your digital image are squeezed into each inch of your print. 300 pixels per inch is plenty for good quality output.<br>

But the print size you eventually go for is in no way restricted by the DPI setting in your digital image. When you receive scans back, you should ignore the DPI setting in the images.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Never look at the DPI tag in a JPG file. It has no meaning. DPI is dots per inch (it's actually being used incorrectly, we should all be saying PPI for this, but that's okay). Dots, in this context, are pixels.</p>

<p>Your image doesn't have a real DPI number until you print it, because as long as it's just an image file it has a size in pixels but it doesn't have a size in inches! When you print, the DPI of the image is the number of pixels on a side divided by the number of inches on that side. So say your image were 3600x2400 pixels, and you made a 12"x8" print. You've got 300 DPI (3600/12 or 2400/8). If you made a 36"x24" print you'd have 100 DPI.</p>

<p>So why do JPG files always say they're 72 DPI? That's the default setting. A long time ago, monitors had less resolution than they do now and it was commonly believed that 72 DPI was standard, and most JPG files at the time were for use on monitors, so that just became the default to put in that tag.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If it's 3626x2422 you have a normal high resolution scan. It's the total number of pixels, not the pixels per inch, that's important. For that size, it's about 50 inches wide at 72 ppi, but a normal 12 inches wide at 300 ppi, which is more or less standard for making prints. Open the file in Photoshop, go into Image Size, turn off Resample and type in 300 ppi where is currently says 72. Close the dialogue box, save the file and reopen. You'll have an 8x12 or so at 300. Zooming in to 100 percent should give you all the detail you want.</p>

[richard_wrede]

<p>Thanks everyone, I'm convinced it was a lousey scan from a Lab that doesn't care, the negs/slides look sharp. I right click "File Properties">> Resolution: 72 dpi, it's not "maybe this or maybe that" I was taught along time ago you can't get a decent print out of 72 dpi, no matter how large the file is, 72 dpi is reserved for online/computer viewing. 300 dpi is minimum for printing. On a positive note, when I reduce them down to a decent viewing size they look much better and the scan lines disappear, but in the future I may send them off to that place Ken Rockwell suggested.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Richard,<br>

To make up for the disappointment, Isuggest you find an old slide projector - either a relatives or pick one up at a local second hand store for next to nothing (I paid $8 for a Kodak model that was a $500 pro unit a decade ago).<br>

Darken the room, pop in you slides and watch in awe ate the 5 foot wide image with such impact it will be jaw dropping. Or at the very least, a very satisfying experience for you. The majic of slide film is not understood until the slides are projected - no scan or computer monitor image can ever come close.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I was taught along time ago you can't get a decent print out of 72 dpi, no matter how large the file is...300 dpi is minimum for printing."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You were "taught" incorrectly. Please re-read the replies from Colin O, Andy L and Craig Sherman. If you print an 8x12 from the file you posted, you <strong>are</strong> printing it at approximately 300dpi.</p>

[tim_bradshaw1]

<p>One way to see that the 72dpi thing is a red herring is to consider this: let's say I make a scan which claims to be, say 300dpi in its metadata. That's a good scan, right? OK, so now I go in and edit the metadata and set it to 72dpi: is it now a worse scan?</p>

[richard_wrede]

<p>Wow, sorry to open a can of worms. Thanks for the responces though. Most of the good labs or a good home slide scanner Canon, Epson Perfection, etc... scan at 3200 to 4800 dpi or more. I just got a good magnifying glass (Lupe?) at a yard sale and looked at my slides. There is nothing wrong with my camera, that's the most important thing. The Lab screwed up my disc, I'm just not going there any more. Thanks</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>We like cans of worms.. we learn.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Worms are also useful for fishing. :)<br>

-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Most of the good labs or a good home slide scanner Canon, Epson Perfection, etc... scan at 3200 to 4800 dpi or more.</em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But seriously, 72dpi is the *<strong>display</strong>* or screen resolution. It is an entirely separate property from the *<strong>scan</strong>* resolution. That's why the 72dpi is completely irrelevant for printing purposes. What matters is the pixel dimensions (xxxx X yyyy file size), not how those pixels are displayed on a screen.</p>

[Colin O]

<p>The reason a film scanner scans film at such high DPI is logical...</p>

 

<p>Say you ultimately want a 12in x 8in print. You know the output size, so you know what dimensions your scanned image needs to be -- 300 (or so) pixels per inch of output for good quality. 300 pixels multiplied by 12 inches is 3600 pixels along the long edge, and 300 pixels multiplied by 8 inches is 2400 pixels along the short edge.<br>

So you know you need a 3600 x 2400 pixel image out of your 35mm frame. But the 35mm frame measures only 36mm x 24mm -- roughly 1.4in x 0.9in. In order to extract 3600 pixels out of that 1.4 inches, the scanner needs to extract 2540 pixels out of 1 inch of that frame. So you're scanning at 2540 DPI or thereabouts.</p>

 

<p>That's why a film scanner will scan at 4000 DPI or whatever.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>And don't forget exaggerations of both scanners and printers and the papers....</p>

[Colin O]

<p>So you scan at 2540 DPI and you print at 300 DPI, but the image size is constant - 3600x2400 pixels. That's why DPI is kind of meaningless. It's just a translation - for converting from <strong>dots</strong> to <strong>inches</strong> - whether that's in scanning or output.</p>