Are Frontier scans always this bad?

[r.t. dowling]

I took a few negs (Superia-Reala 100) to a pro lab that has a Frontier

and asked them to scan the negs and burn the images onto a CD. I got

the CD back today and all of the images have a strange "texture" to

them. It almost looks like grain, but it has an unusual pattern and

almost looks like some sort of woven fabric. I've viewed my Reala

negs under a 10x loupe and they definitely do not exhibit this

phenomenon. I've attached a crop from one of the scans to show you

what I'm talking about.

 

Basically, I'd like to know if this is what all Frontier scans look

like, or if the lab I went to did something wrong.<div></div>

[r.t. dowling]

The pattern seems to be most noticable in areas that are out of focus, especially if they are dark. Here is another crop that illustrates the pattern I'm trying to describe.<div></div>

[Jerry_]

The scans were probably done at 72 dpi? Check with your lab and see if they can provide a higher-res scan in the future. For internet use, no one will bug you over the grain effect. If you plan on printing from the scans, a large enlargement may be troublesome.

[yourfavephotog]

I operate a Frontier. Every scan I've ever done looks like what is posted above. The Frontier is not a dedicated film scanner and shouldn't be used for that purpose. It's great for quick and dirty stuff. That being said, I've printed '16Base' scans up to 8"x12" (on a Frontier, of course) and have yet to see the pattern show up on a print.

[matthewpereira]

the weakest link on the frontier is the film scanner.

 

the 'texture' is a sharpening of the low res scan, and isn't as obvious at the higher resolution. you can ask if your lab will scan at 16base (rather then the usual 4base) but most labs (including the one i print at) won't scan 16base for customers. anyone who prints on a frontier knows how long those fine scans can take.

 

might be easier to buy/borrow a neg scanner?

[emaxxman]

The few photos that I have in my portfolio are Frontier scans of Reala 35mm. Check them out for comparison.

 

They are unretouched scans. I believe they were scanned in at the "8x10 print" scan setting.

[maxasst]

As above. When taking film to the processor, are the negatives scanned in the same manner then print onto paper? I have noted a difference in quality of CD images made by Walgreen's Frontier which were better than those made by Qualex, which made the same kinds of patterns of like overlapping feathers in blurred out areas. I thought that was "bokehhh".

[igsman]

I have a question to m. pereira. What is 16base compared to 4base? I got my prints back from Wal-Mart in Erie, PA, and all of them looked digitally sharpened, which I think looks nasty, given the fact that my negatives were already tack-sharp.

 

Also, a question to all of you, Frontier guys (and gals), how can you reduce the high contrast of Frontier labs? Does it do auto-levels like Photoshop? And what setting is for NO unsharp-masking?

 

Thanks a million.

[danielneal]

My apologies for resurrecting an older thread, but I thought it better than creating a new thread ...

 

So my local drugstore Frontier just got the capability to make "Pictures on CD" for a nominal charge. I'm perfectly happy with the resulting file sizes (1818 px by 1228 px, equaling a 4"x6" print at 300dpi in a 6.38MB TIFF file), but the scans have the really weird grainy pattern as described above and in the attached snippet I'm attaching.

 

My understanding is that this "pattern" comes from over-agressive sharpening on already sharp negatives. Can I just ask the Frontier operator to turn off sharpening for the prints and scans in order to get rid of this texture? If not, what exactly should I tell the Frontier operator?

 

Thanks!

 

Dan Neal<div></div>

[igsman]

Dan,

 

It seems like some Frontiers produce some really grainy scans while others don't. It also seems like the same Frontier can come out with both grainy and smooth scans from the same roll of film. But the Frontier that I use all the time (Frontier 390 at a local Wal-Mart) does an excellent job of scanning relatively grainless files all the way up to 10 x 15 at 300 dpi. The scans are extremely sharp and they reveal details all the way down to the grain elements of the film. So, depending on the film you use you will see grain at 100% magnification but that grain is part and parcel of what film is. I am very happy with the quality of my Frontier scans. So much so that I have completely abandoned the idea of purchasing my own film scanner. The 13.5 megapixel files that I get can be useful for up to a 16 x 20 image.

 

There are just a couple of things to keep in mind. Any Frontier you use will automatically produce pretty contrasty images, so you want to ask the operator to use "TONE: ALL SOFT" (along with "hypertone"). That will bring more detail out of shadows and highlights but especially shadows. The other thing is, if you don't like how sharp those scans are, you may want to ask the operator to set the sharpness one notch below normal. There are three notches above and three below normal, so one notch below will just take the edge off if that's your preference. I prefer regular sharpness though.

 

And if the operator is really cooperative, he may even go through every single frame and make sure the density and color are right. With most films, the only color correction that is required is blue/yellow and less often red/cyan. Frontiers are extremely accurate colorwise and it's the color balance of your negatives that may need to be corrected.

 

One last note. I have seen those grainy scans that you are talking about, and I am puzzled by how that happens. Luckily, the Frontier I use does not suffer from such an awful affliction.

 

Happy Frontiering!

[danielneal]

Thanks for the reply Strange Man -- the film was Fuji Super-HQ 100, so I'm not complaining about grain per se; just the weird pattern on the scans. I'll give your suggestion a try, however!

[danielneal]

I brought my laptop containing the scans, my prints, and my negs to the Longs and had a very pleasant one hour conversation with the Frontier lab tech.

 

Basically, the pattern that I'm seeing is a result of the Frontier's scanning algorithm, and isn't fixable by the operator. The machine makes two scans of each neg -- one for the CD, and one for the print. The "pattern" that is quite evident in the scans is present but barely visible in the prints themselves (we used a light table and a couple of loupes).

 

While it *might* help if the scans were made as if being prepared to print an 8x10 image instead of a 4x6 image, the techs are not permitted to make these higher resolution scans for customers because of the time involved. The 1818x1218 pixel scans are the best that I'm going to get from a Longs-operated Frontier.

 

Short answer: Nothing they can do.

 

Longer answer: Be grateful for cheap and fast decently-sized scans, since they're better than nothing. The Frontier isn't a replacement high-resolution film scanner, but it does basically give a bonus CD full of halfway decent scans.

 

The disappointing thing is that Walmart is forcing Longs to dumb-down its photo processing in order to compete. While my Longs does color correction on the prints and burns color corrected scans to CD, there is pressure to stop providing color correction at all. Our local Walmart does no color correction on the prints ... and even worse, *only* prints on Luster paper because, in the words of the Walmart photo manager, they can't keep their fingerprints off the prints.

 

:-\

[john falkenstine]

I had several rolls scanned on a Frontier, and after looking them over, threw everything, including the CDs into the trash. You get what you pay for.

[vrankin]

Those who still want to try improving these low-cost Frontier scans to CD might try Neat Image. It's a filtering software that can decrease the textured appearance. unfortunately, some of the sharpness is also sacrificed. But if you experiment with the Neat Image final step before outputting you can add some sharpness back. It's not perfect, but it's better than my hp Scanjet 3570c desktop scanner can do at 2400 ppi.