kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Hi all I think I may have a solution for those who want go digital (SLR) but do not have the up-front cash (for the DSLR, computer, softwares, ect. ), give up the full wide angle capability or whatever reasons keeping them from going digital. I had the same dilemma and now happily shooting film and have them scanned by Costo for $2.79 in one hour. This way, i have both digital files (1500x1000 pixels)for emailing and web related stuff and negatives if I want prints. Please see the attached picture and judge it yourself. The color is excellent!! and all these were done in 1 hour (processed, scanned and printed). I have tried this at 2 Costco and got the same results on the scans. They are dust free with excellent color. The picture is taken with Kodak Max 400 with filled flash (550EX), 50mm 1.4 at F4(I think). Anyway, I just wanted to share what I have just discovered. Not that I do not want to go digital, but it's too expensive now. Maybe when the 1Ds are around $2000, then I may consider it. Kirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Author Share Posted July 10, 2003 I forgot to mention one thing. There is no other post editing other than adding a border. Thanks for any comments!!!Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 So developed and scanned for $2.79 as well as a set of prints? Maybe I should be making better use of my costco membership. Thanks for the pointer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisham_atallah Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 There seems to be some digital noise in the background. Did you scan the negative or print? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_turner Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Or, at least, do scans from slide film? That would get my EOS-1 out of the drawer more often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Author Share Posted July 10, 2003 Hi Marcus, Sorry I did not make myself clear. The $2.79 is for the Scan to CD only. Processing and prints are $4.49. Processing and Scans are about the same (I think) or no more than $5. Here is another picture taken on the same roll. Kirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Author Share Posted July 10, 2003 Hi Hisham, I think it's more because of the out of focus due to shallow DOF than digital noise and also I reduced the size to 800 pixel width. It was scanned from the negative. Check out the orchid scan. Hi Robert, They do process print from slide film. I do not know if they do scan slide film. If they do, this would be great!!!. I will ask them the next time I go there Kirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_currie1 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Hi Kirk, is that a Kodak picture CD that Costco uses? Also I was wondering how Costco`s print results are? What kind of paper do they use, Kodak or Fuji? Are you from Canada Kirk? Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Those are 1.5 megapixel scans. Hardly a substitute for a 10D or a 4000US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam_deglmann Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Jay, I think his point was that there is an extremely cheap alternative to buying a 10D to make digital photos, not that it was as good as the $1500 alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke_pederson Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 If you were thinking on getting a 6.3mp professional digital camera, and then setteled on a 1.5mp scan from a discount store, I am not sure of your logic? If the scans are good enough for what you are using them for why were you not just considering a $300 dollar digital point an shoot that will give you the same quality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_fitzgerald Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Luke, same quality maybe, but limited to slow lenses of limited focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Kirk yes, if your only objective is to get some decent scans of your photos to email/post of the web occationally, your argument holds true. But cannot compare that to true digital workflow and output. Costo, as much as I spend there w/ 2 kids and all, is hardly a high quality photo development resource. I would be seriously afraid of scratched/damaged negatives, mediocre prints, non consistent results etc. Also, drop a Fuji Reala 100 speed film in that same 7e & 50/1.4 combo and have them developed at a pro place and then enjoy the difference in quality/results. If you cannot distinguish any difference, by all means, keep on trucking with Costo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Author Share Posted July 10, 2003 Hi, Just wanted to make one thing clear. I do not work for Costco.. hehehe. Scott, They use Canon photoCD and use Fuji archive paper, both glossy and lustre finished, but I personally do not like the lustre finished. They texture is too rough for my taste. Their prints quality are ok and can not be compared with pro-lab. Oh yeah sorry to disappoint you but I am from the US. :) Hi Jay, Yes, they are 1.5 megapixel and like I said it is enough (for me) to send email and do web related stuff. They are just a cheap alternative to 10D and the FS4000. I think you know how long for the FS4000 to scan a roll of film and if the FARE does not clean all the dust, then some more time is spent on photoshop. Hi Luke, I wasn't thinking of getting a 6.3 megapixel in particular. I just wanted a digital camera with the SLR capability and it's just happen that the 10D is the best bang for the buck if not the best camera on the market for $1,499. The $300 digital P&S camera will not give me the same capabilities of an SLR therefore it is limited and I do not think the quality is the same. I don't think the quality on the lense of the $300 digital camera is as good or the same as the lenses I have. Hi Patrick, Yes, i just wanted some decent scans and I agree that it can not be compared to the true digital workflow and output of the DSLR. It is just a cheap alternative. I always have my prints developed using the pro-film and pro-lab. I only use Costo to print when I know the people I give the prints to don't care and don't know about the differences to appreciate it. Just like my wife, She just can't tell the differences from the sound comming from the $30,000 audio system from a boom box. :). I can't have the view of the attached picture from a 10D unless i have a 12.5mm lense. Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 I've been using a place that does the Kodak perfect touch printing (reasonably good for bulk lab quality) and slaps them on a CD (again 1.3mpxl scans) but I've been paying around $12 for single set of 6x4 plus CD, overnight. $7.20ish for all that in an hour works for me. When I want a decent size print I'll scan something in, but scanning and touching up photos takes so freaking long I don't want to do it unless I really have to. Oh, and there is no way I can drop $1500 on a camera so that is out of the question. Basically, a decent set of prints and a CD of photos I can email to people suits me fine. Attached is a scan from a Kodak photo CD.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berg_na Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 These scans are off of the finished prints. Since they were not scanned directly from the film they may be fine for emails, but hardly the equivalent of the images from a real digital slr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted July 10, 2003 Share Posted July 10, 2003 Costco sends chromes to Kodalux for developing but can make prints from sides inhouse. I've noticed the techs never wear cotton gloves and barefinger your goodies. The quality varies a lot from tech to tech so it's a crapshoot. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_h Posted July 10, 2003 Author Share Posted July 10, 2003 Berg, These were not scanned directly from finished prints. They were scanned from the film. Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berg_na Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Kirk - That's not what the folks at Costco told me. I tried ordering the digital images without the prints, but was told that I had to pay for the prints too, since they simply scanned the prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primoz Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 As someone mentioned "those were 1.5MP scan and not even close to 6MP of 10D". Ok then take a look different. With shoting Velvia I get nice slide which has as I have read somewhere about 60-80MP. So for most of my use I scan them at home on cheap scanner (cheap compared to prices of 10D, 1Ds...). If I need something more I have friend with few $10k worth scanner, where I get resolution which 10D nor 1Ds won't see in years.<br> So when you compare things like this then don't forget to compare prices. As someone else mentioned scanning is not same thing as digital camera, but it's cheaper alternative. If money doesn't matter then I guess film with really good and really expensive scanner is still better thing. And as I said... with Velvia I have chance to take it to friend and scan it there, or if nothing else pay to someone and get it scanned. With 10D I have 6MP photo and I can blow myself up and I still can't make bigger print. That's one of reasons why I still don't run around screaming "DIGITAL DIGITAL!!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_luvaas Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Just wanted to throw in some support for the job Costco does. I have a youth sports photography business. I shoot about 30 to 50 rolls of 36 Fujipress per week using an EOS 3 and Canon 400 2.8. When I started this business I compared Costco's output to other processors costing much more. Especially considering the cost (about $8.50 per roll of 36 5x7s in one hour) the Costco prints compared very favorably to processors charging much more. The Costco one-hour near me uses a Noritsu digital machine for its prints. I have run thru well over 1,500 rolls in the last year and have had problems with less than 20 of them. Thanks to Costco I have been able to offer very nice prints at extremely reasonable prices to my clients. (No I don't have any interest in them, and yes they do wear cotton gloves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 <<With shoting Velvia I get nice slide which has as I have read somewhere about 60-80MP. So for most of my use I scan them at home on cheap scanner (cheap compared to prices of 10D, 1Ds...). If I need something more I have friend with few $10k worth scanner, where I get resolution which 10D nor 1Ds won't see in years.>> The Canon 4000 scan will have the same resolution as a high-end drum scan at print sizes up to a 13x19 print (the largest non-panoramic size a home printer like the Epson 2200 will do). The printer will simply discard the extra data from the drum scan. So unless you're having prints made larger than 13x19 a drum scan is a waste of money. And even with sizes up to 20x30 I've seen some that have been run through interpolation software that I can't tell apart from a drum scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_strawn Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 <i>With shoting Velvia I get nice slide which has as I have read somewhere about 60-80MP.</i><p>BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, man. Thanks for that. I've got a microscope at work that will read that sucker at about 5,000 MP. You could do billboards at 300 dpi. It would be fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_potter2 Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 I have read elsewhere on the Internet that a Picture CD's 1.5 Mb file (uncompressed) is about the same as a 5 megapixel digital camera image, because two thirds of the digital's megapixels are computed by the camera. The Picture CD file has the same amount of optical information. I have no idea if this is true. I have, however, made excellent 8"X 10" prints (with a Canon I850 inkjet) from these files. I also had some 8" X 10" prints made from the negative (taken on Max 400 with a Yashica T4, which has a very sharp Zeiss lens) for omparison. With a 7X magnifier, I could see little difference in grain on the prints. The colors were slightly different, but neither was preferable. I doubt a print larger than 8" X 10" would be very good, but that's big enough for an unambitious amateur, whose walls can only hold so many pictures, anyway. The drawback to the Picture CD is that it's only available with ptint film and I prefer slide film. The answer is a film scanner. According to Popular Photography, the Minolta 2820 dpi scanner will produce a file of 52Mb if scanned using 48-bit color. This scanner only sosts about $280 and so should do nicely. I attach a nice picture I took recently at the zoo.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick_canis Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 These are the ignorant posts... "Jay . , jul 10, 2003; 05:03 p.m. Those are 1.5 megapixel scans. Hardly a substitute for a 10D or a 4000US. Adam Deglmann , jul 10, 2003; 05:10 p.m. Jay, I think his point was that there is an extremely cheap alternative to buying a 10D to make digital photos, not that it was as good as the $1500 alternative. Luke Pederson , jul 10, 2003; 05:21 p.m. If you were thinking on getting a 6.3mp professional digital camera, and then setteled on a 1.5mp scan from a discount store, I am not sure of your logic? If the scans are good enough for what you are using them for why were you not just considering a $300 dollar digital point an shoot that will give you the same quality?" Now let me educate you. I get all my work done at costco... they are excellent, the manager of the photo department, is a really nice guy, and knowledgable... the woman that work there are curtious, where gloves, listen to your expectations, and preform well. The machines that most of all Costcos use now are the Noritsu. EXCELLENT Scans. This guy was saying that he used the negatives for prints and the digital image for emailing... BTW, buddy, the original poster that is, I don't think you know that you can get the FULL scan image off that cd... right click the drive that your cd is in and select explore, then goto pictures, and they are all in there, full size, without the blue border. Costco prints 12x16 for only 2.99, in which I turn around and sell for $150. Do you know how much profit that is? when framed $200.... Costco is awesome. I consider it a pro lab. I get a pro lab experience when I go there. They print on the same machines as pro labs, use the same materials, I see no reason why I should pay more. I shoot Fuji Reala.. heres one of my shots. From a Costco scanned cs, I figure it shows an excellent result of the scan the photo itself isn't that great though. Quality is what IM talking about.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now