Slide Scanning

[kiah]

Recently I sent few rolls of slide for scanning into digital at my local photo processing lab. The lab technician was using the scanner of the photo processing (Fuji) unit to do the scanning, the outputs are in bmp format with each of the file of 40mb size. However, i found that the quality of the digital format is not refine and the image seems to made up of dots. I am disapointed with the results as i always think (some photography magazine indicate so) that i can get better and refine image if i shoot in slides and convert the image to digital. My questions:
1. Is the quality of my digital files normal?
2. Will i get a better result if i scan with a flat-bed scanner each as Epson 4870 scanner of a Canon 9900?
3. Is bmp the better format to store my scaned images?

kiah

[steveandbecky]

nt

[etrose]

I have read the dots are typical of Fuji scanning. Try an Agfa dlab if you can find one in your area.

[etrose]

I have read the dots are typical of Fuji scanning. Try an Agfa dlab if you can find one in your area.

[stus]

Hi all,

I'm wanting to ask the same question.

I also took some pro 35mm negs (from wedding) to numerous pro photo labs for scanning to JPG format and have been consistently dissapointed with the results.

Some queries:

- Same problem: the scanned images all at 3360x2240 all have significant graininess when zoomed in on. I'm not talking about zooming to the pixel level, but just zooming in one the head of someone in a portrait shot. Skin tones are shot to bits. How can this be? The printed versions (also done at the lab) come out fine, but the scanned ones are bad.

- How is it that these labs are only offereing 35mm scans at 3360x2240, when desktop scanners such as Minolta DiMAGE series seem to talk of 35mm scans to resolutions like 4700x7000?

- I've read numerous times about pro photographers choosing to stick with film cameras, and then scanning to hi-res digital formats as necessary. How then is it possible that the pro photographer we used for our wedding, who used both medium and 35mm formats (ie. must be taking shots that zoom ok!) could then have negatives that when scanned to digital produces worse graininess than seen in my mainstream 4MP digital camera? It just doesn't make sense to me!

- Does the process of converting processed negative to printed photo involve the same digital scan process as used when scanning to digital format from negative? The operator of one such photo lab told me that it does, but I'd have thought printing from analog film negs to analog photo wouldn't need the digital conversion to be done. Atleast, in my high-school photography days, it didn't.

Unfortunately, I don't know the brands of scanners used at each of these places, but I know one had just upgraded to a new Fuji (scanner) system, and another is a Kodak store.

Plz help.

Stu.

[pgkps]

Pros would get what is called a drum scan and the pro labs would be sure that skin tones matched on the file output.

Don't know what could be causing the problems on the Fuji equipment but could just be an operator that isn't really familiar with using the scanning portion of the equipment.

[pgkps]

Pros would get what is called a drum scan and the pro labs would be sure that skin tones matched on the file output.

Don't know what could be causing the problems on the Fuji equipment but could just be an operator that isn't really familiar with using the scanning portion of the equipment.

[jeanlou]

I use Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus since Years for my slides and films.

The pictures are possible at a very high resolution, and adjustments are very flxible.

No digital camera can make such pictures (!).

You have to buy a professional scanner, then You can expect perfect results.
Jean

[casualcriminal]

i work with an agfa dlab 2 and can answer most of your questions about its file scanning...

the poor quality, although high resolution, files you receive are the result of a setting on the dlab, labeled "JPG HQ STD", which is the equivalent of saving a 3000x2000 image at a JPG Quality of 2 or 3 yield files ~500KB. (Hey, at least it's not camera phone sized ~15-30KB.)

Now, this low of a setting just destroys any details and makes enlargements that make me want to cry out in agony. Of course order processing is quicker because low quality photos are easier to save and transmit to the server through the network.

Good New/Bad News Time:
There is a way to get decent scans from the dlab's high-end scanner.
When I says decent I mean these are still jpgs, and are a bit lossy.

Ok, here's what you should do:
Try to find a photolab that has a dlab (I'm only really familiar with the dlab 2 but I have a feeling the other versions wont be much different if you find them instead.) Ask them to scan your negatives on the printer, and make sure in the configuration that AUTOSAVE is set to "as JPG HQ PRO" not the "STD" setting.

http://recklesswalker.deviantart.com/gallery/: see some samples after photoshop polishing.

I've been searching and tinkering trying to see if I can get the machine to output TIFF files (which are 17.2mb uncompressed at 3000x2000). Anybody?! Now that I don't need to worry about voiding any service contract or warrant (agfa you dopes, what went wrong?) I'll pursue it more vigilantly.

Ok, Thatis All.

[ukexpat]

If I can scan my slides on my Canon flatbed and save them as TIFF files, I am sure a pro lab should be able to do the same.

[rye]

Most photo labs in my neighborhood have upgraded their equipment to process film "digitally". This involves a high-speed scan of negatives or slides, and print the images on photo paper using laser technology. The result: high resolution, especially for large prints. Another advantage is that digital scan makes adjustment of color and contrast much easier. I have some of my negatives processed and printed digitally, and find them to have very good color saturation.

Because these processors have high speed scan capability, I presume your film can be scanned and saved on a CD-ROM with high quality. Why some labs save the scanned images in BMP format is not clear to me.

I found it easier to just scan the film strips on a consumer level scanner, such as a Monolta ScanDual which I am quite happy with. It takes time though, so may not be suitable for large scale processing. I found a resolution of 2880 dpi (max on my ScanDual II) is not even necessary for a 5x7 print. Use the software's recommended resolution to cut time short and save disk space. Film has better dynamic range and can better render detailes in the shadow. I have found no obvious grain on a 5x7 print, from a typical ASA 200 film.

rye