Prints of Bad Quality

[jessica_jones7]

<p>I have been shooting with an Olympus OM1n, and recently purchased a 24mm lens for a trip to Ireland with my family. Typically I shoot C41 film and get it developed at Walgreens, when I am not printing B&W film myself at school. I took some slide film and Porta, slide film, and Fuji with me to Ireland for better photos, and paid for them to be printed and scanned at our only professional lab here in Jacksonville.<br /> Over 2 weeks later I get the scans and prints back and they look TERRIBLE. They are grainy & so flat in color, it literally looks pixel-ized in the prints and the scans. I don't know if it is a mistake on my part, or if there is a problem with my new lens or maybe suddenly I am a terrible photographer. All I know is they look awful and I am terribly bummed.<br /> I was hoping for an opinion or two. I know you cannot tell much from the computer, but you really have no room for zooming in either because of how pixel-ized it looks. Any advice would be appreciated!</p>

<p><img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b377/killer___tofu/25070004_zps1f9b11e0.jpg" alt="" width="772" height="512" /><br>

<img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b377/killer___tofu/25070003_zps04112c08.jpg" alt="" width="772" height="512" /><br>

<img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b377/killer___tofu/25070001_zps97a0f596.jpg" alt="" width="772" height="512" /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That's a problem with film processing, printing and, particularly, scanning, not a problem specific to Olympus equipment.</p>

<p>What resolution and file sizes are the scans? Without knowing more specific information we'd just be guessing at problems and solutions.</p>

<p>Also, some pro labs will deliver low and high resolution scans: low for sharing online; high for editing and printing. Check to see whether you got duplicate scans in different qualities.</p>

<p>In the long run if you plan to continue film you'll need to take control of as much of the process as you can yourself. While it isn't necessary yet to do your own color negative film processing, it may be a good idea to scan your own negatives to get the best results. The same has been true of b&w processing for many years, which is why many of us who still use b&w film do our own processing and scanning, if not our own optical enlargements in the darkroom.</p>

<p>As for color, etc., those samples look about right, maybe very slightly dark. If the actual scenes were brighter, more contrasty, etc., you can adjust that in editing. But getting better finished results really depends on the lab and whether the price covers custom work.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Incidentally, I just checked the metadata for your sample photos. The lab uses a Noritsu QSS-30, a fairly ordinary minilab for processing, printing and scanning color film. If your prints appear pixelated it's because the operator did a poor job. More than likely the Noritsu is set up by default to scan at low resolution to save time and money, which may be fine for producing web sized JPEGs but terrible for even small 4"x6" prints.</p>

<p>Unfortunately most of our local minilabs deteriorated the same way before finally discontinuing film processing completely. They stopped training new employees and set up the minilabs to scan at low resolution. Then the operators made prints from those low resolution scans, which looked terrible.</p>

<p>I'd suggest returning to the lab and asking them politely to redo the prints and scans.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Did you get the slides back and if so, how do they look?</p>

<p>I would venture a guess (but 99% certain) the problem is the scanning was done at too low a resolution. The problems you are noting are classic for not enough information in the files to produce a good print.</p>

<p>It's been forever since I had film scanned at the local pro lab here in Dallas, but when I did, high quality scans were very expensive, to the point I purchased my own film scanner, got the necessary software and learned all about multi-pass scanning, digital ICE, dust spotting that ICE didn't take care of and all the other niceties about scanning film I've not had to think about now for 9 years.</p>

[jessica_jones7]

<p>Lex I had no idea you could grab that kind of information from the image like that! In a lot of the photos with people in them, it looks like they've got almost a duplicate ghost image outlining them, like a really messed up digital image. When I try and zoom in it's all pixels but it also looks like it's a scan from the print and not even the negative, like the bumps from the paper are present, but what do I know.<br /> Greg, holding up the slide film to the light, it looks bright and colorful. I use a darkroom at the university for my black & white prints, but they have a scanner I have yet to venture over to. I think I may take my negatives there & try out the scanner.<br /> I'd love to purchase my own one day but since I'm new to that I don't want to end up shelling out too much money for a crappy product. I've noticed more and more smaller handheld negative scanners popping up on the market, but I also have polaroid negatives I would love to scan as well so I will definitely need something more suitable for that.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There isn't much metadata attached to scans from film or prints - just basic info about the scanner, resolution, date, etc. You can check metadata for digital camera files or scans using online EXIF viewers like <a href="http://regex.info/exif.cgi"><strong>this one</strong></a>, or browser add-ons or plug-ins ("EXIF Viewer" for Chrome is pretty good and easy to use).</p>

<p>If these are the largest scans provided by the lab (772x512 pixels), they're okay for web display and email but much too small for printing. (I'm assuming your Photobucket account didn't automatically downsize them.) At 180 dpi, the minimum most folks would consider acceptable for prints viewed at snapshot size or on the wall at home, that would give you a fair quality 3"x4" print and a poor quality 4"x6" or larger print.</p>

<p>By the way, don't worry about the dpi or ppi. All that really matters is the actual pixel dimensions of the scan. Generally speaking, the higher the better. The lab should automatically adjust for the desired print size, usually 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10.</p>

<p>A minimally satisfactory scan for a 4"x6" print would need to be around 1200x800 pixels. A minilab like the Noritsu or Fuji Frontier should be able to deliver a 3000x2000 scan from 35mm negatives. That's good enough resolution for prints up to 8x10 (with some cropping).</p>

<p>For comparison, the last time I used a pro lab to deliver high quality proofs and scans from 35mm color negatives they delivered high quality 4535x3029 pixel scans, large enough for prints up to 15"x10" at 300 dpi. The same lab also gave me a second set of scans at 512x342 resolution, good enough for web display and email. This was in 2005. Unfortunately it's more difficult to find genuinely professional quality labs now in my area.</p>

<p>Check your CD or whatever media they gave you to be sure you didn't get higher resolution scans. If not, return the negatives, etc., explain the problem and ask them to scan at a higher resolution (3000x2000 is good), print from the higher resolution scans and give you a copy of the hi-rez scans on CD. If they can't do that, it's time to find another lab.</p>

<p>Try to be patient with the lab - chances are the employees will have no idea what you're talking about. Minilab operators aren't receiving much training anymore, and it's not getting any better. My local Walgreens and CVS dumped their film minilabs completely last year and switched to some sort of ribbon type printers that are more expensive and poorer quality. One of my 70 year old friends finally ditched her film camera this month and bought a very nice Olympus P&S digicam, and I showed her how to make good prints at Walmart, which still has a very good Fuji printer and very reasonable prices.</p>

[darin_cozine]

Jessica, I have an Olympus OM2 and the 24mm f2.8 lens. I can tell you that these systems are capable of great images.

The samples you posted appear to be properly exposed. Even if the lab machine automatically adjusted for an under or over exposed negative, the color

balance would not be right and the contrast would be different.

 

Labs these days really suck. The prints arent even optically printed in many cases. They scan the film at low resolution and hen print them on 4x6.. most

people cannot tell the difference.

 

I have some standard 4x6 prints about 10 years old taken on consumer film and printed optically from minilabs that are fantastic.

The ones i had printed last week just suck.

 

Its not to say that the film scanning process cannot output quality images, but the minilab machines where slow to improve in digital scanning quality.

[jessica_jones7]

I cut these photos in half in my mac's quick view because they post so large on here, or I just don't know how

to do it correctly, but even viewing in 100% you can see all the horrible flaws of the scans, just as much as on

my tiny prints. I haven't said anything to the lab yet, and it was a professional developing lab, not a pharmacy

that I usually go to, in the case that my negatives don't scan well at school either.

 

Darin I love my Olympus! It hasn't failed me yet, so I really couldn't believe the fault could be placed on it. I do

think the contrast and color is just terrible.

 

I am hoping that for the future, my own personal scanner will do the trick, unless it is likely that it wouldn't be

much better than what I got from the lab.

[wblynch]

<p>Jessica, can you hold a strip of negatives up to a light source (like a computer white screen or fluorescent panel light) and take a digi-photo to post?</p>

<p>If we can see the negatives we might be able to help a little more.</p>

<p>Oh, I see you are using an OM-1N. The wrong battery will trick the meter into thinking you have too much light. Unless your camera has been converted or you're using Hearing Aid batteries, don't trust your meter.</p>

<p>While not completely accurate, setting your ASA dial to 1/2 film speed (ex: 100 for 200 film, 200 for 400 film) will get you a lot closer.</p>

<p>-Bill</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>About 6 years ago I had old Agfa film scanned and printed at Walgreens on their Fuji Frontier minilab and was horrified at the quality of both the scan and print. I compared their print to an existing optical print I had of the same negative made about 15 years back from a similar one hour lab. See below.</p>

<div></div>

[jessica_jones7]

<p>Wow that is quite the difference!!<br>

I am in the process of scanning the negatives on the scanner at the University & they are coming out much better than the ones I paid for.</p>