Comparing my scan to my local developing shop's scans: WHY ARE THEY SO DIFFERENT????

[Salt&Light]

So Below are two scans of the same negative. The first one was done by my local developing shop. I wasn't sure at what PPI they scan at. I wanted to make some large prints, so I took the scanning into my own hands to scan at 3200 PPI with my V600 Epson using Silverfast.

I'm still new to scanning and post editing, but I'm wondering why the scans look so different. Both of these were shot using Illford FP4+ (125 ISO) on a very bright Florida day.

LOCAL SHOP SCAN:

MY SCAN:

I love the way the whites, blacks, and sharpness came out on the LOCAL SHOP's scan. Why isn't mine like this? Is it because I messed up with something on the histogram or graduation?

 

[LolaColor]

Your local shop probably uses a Noritsu or Frontier. Both of these minilab scanners are optimised (like auto settings on a camera, but usually more successful) to generate a scan that makes a pleasing print with little or no input required from the person doing the scanning (although they can adjust density, colour balance and contrast if desired... Noritsu has a greater range of adjustments than Frontier).

This usually means bright, contrasty and highly sharpened scans when scanned at default settings.

There is no single correct interpretation of a negative. Any scanning process requires that decisions be made about these parameters. The minilab scanners do a very good job of making pleasing prints automatically..... most of the time.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This may not be what you want to hear, but even without the sharpening applied by the shop in the scan above, the scanner used (be it Fuji Frontier, Noritsu etc) has far better sharpness performance and useful (as opposed to wishful spec sheet) resolution than any Epson scanner.

 

[ced]

You might with the correct gradation setting arrive at pretty much the same. (Here fiddling on a screen capture, it maybe much better on your original scan).

 

[jim10219]

Ced is right. You scanned it, but you didn't work it enough to your liking. Your scan is actually a better scan (Though the resolution may or may not be as good. It's hard to tell on a computer). Your scan has more room to work with, as the contrast isn't bumped up so high and the image hasn't been pre-sharpened.

Half of good scanning technique is the actual scanning process. The other half is manipulating the photo afterward in software. Some people balk at this, thinking it's some form of cheating. They're wrong. Most professional scanning labs and many consumer scanning softwares will apply presets to the image to give the impression of a better scan. But, if you start off with a good, workable scan, and have the tools and knowledge to work it yourself, you can usually do a better job than the professional labs. It just takes time, experience, and the right equipment. And whether the post production work comes from your carefully considerated manipulations, or a software's blind presets, doesn't really matter. All that maters is the final image.

 

[Salt&Light]

Wow, all your replies have been so educational and helpful. I am very thankful. @ced what did you use to work on the graduation, Photoshop or Lightroom? Photoshop is kind of intimidating, so I've mostly been using Lightroom for post editing and Photoshop just for sharpening.

 

[Wallendo]

I find that I generally prefer my own scans to lab scans. I used an Epson for years, but now use a Plustek film scanner for 35mm.
The professional equipment used by labs has the capability of making a good scan, but the labs tend to push the contrast, push the saturation and turn up the unsharp masking. My scanning goal is to capture as much of the image data into a TIFF file (trying to capture highlights and shadows) and then adjust the image in Lightroom to achieve the effect I want. The effects of lab scan enhancements often clip the highlights and crush the shadows. Unsharp masking, if used, should be the last step of editing. If the labs scans have overdone the unsharp mask, further image manipulation leads to a noisy image. I tend to avoid unsharp maskinging in general, and stick to increasing clarity (microcontrast).

 

[Kino]

Scanning is an image capturing system onto itself and apart from the negative you scan.

There is no such thing as a generic "scan" profile that all scanners use apart from monochrome or color and no two scanners will match exactly without intensive calibration to an agreed upon standard using identical targets.

As others have indicated above, learn how to scan for optimum flexibility in rendering your images in a way that is pleasing to yourself.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
I find your question to be really interesting.
When I look at the lab scan and your scan, my immediate reaction is that your scan is much better.
The resolution in your scan isn't great, but the distribution of tones - how shadows transition to mid-tones and mid-tones transition to highlights - is superior to the distribution of tones in the lab scan.
You can easily adjust your scan to look like the lab scan, but it is difficult to adjust the lab scan to look like yours.
I expect that your reaction to the two relates more to the differences between the essentially subjective choices you and the lab made with respect to contrast and density - two things that are easily controlled.
The recommendations above make sense - use the scanning process to obtain a file with maximum information and use the post-scanning process to make the result look the way you want it to.
I too pulled your scan into two different image editing programs that I use regularly (Corel's Paintshop Pro and FastStone Image Viewer) - and it was a straightforward task to change things to taste.
You may want to experiment with different resolutions with your scanner. The 3200 PPI figure is optimistic - try working at 2400 or 1800 PPI, which is much closer to the scanner's true optical resolution.
The most important thing to realize is that this process benefits from experience and knowledge but that experience and knowledge is way better if it is accompanied by lots of fun.
If you find yourself getting frustrated, I and a bunch of others here would be happy to recommend darkroom printing instead .

 

[ced]

I used Pshop. & played around with both gradation & levels then of course USM. I think too that your scan as others mentioned has more flesh to push any way you like to get a good result whereas the lab scan is done (overdone even).
Try PS. and you will get the hang of it.

 

[Salt&Light]

Wow thank you all so much! Joining photrio has been so helpful! @MattKing I will use 1600ppi, which I believe is the scanners true optical resolution. With a scan at 1600ppi, will I still be able to make pretty large prints?

I played around with the tone curve in Lightroom and unmask sharpened in PS, and the scan came out WAY better than the lab's scan. I'm so surprised that lab's don't give you a more raw scan that you can play with more. This was very surprising to me. I will be developing and scanning all my own photos from here on out.

I've never even heard of darkroom printing @MattKing - other than what you see in movies haha.

 

[LolaColor]

If your (or anyone's) lab uses a Noritsu you can ask for a low contrast scan. Noritsu goes from -10 to +10 with default being 0. Frontiers are more limited in contrast adjustment.

However Noritsu also adjusts saturation with contrast. So a -10 contrast has relatively more saturation than a 0 contrast. You'll see this if you match their contrast in Photoshop.

OP, this may not be relevant to you - just mentioning it to anyone else who may be interested.

 

[pbromaghin]

I don't even have the lab do scans anymore, they're so useless.

 

[MattKing]

Wow thank you all so much! Joining photrio has been so helpful! @MattKing I will use 1600ppi, which I believe is the scanners true optical resolution. With a scan at 1600ppi, will I still be able to make pretty large prints?

What size film are you using? And what do you consider large?
If it is 135 film, for big prints you will either have to use the interpolated file out of the scanner, or resize the results manually, using software.
And as for darkroom printing, see if these threads intrigue you:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/darkroom-portraits-part-2.89555/
and
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/bathroom-and-other-temporary-makeshift-darkrooms.35581/

 

[Salt&Light]

What size film are you using? And what do you consider large?
If it is 135 film, for big prints you will either have to use the interpolated file out of the scanner, or resize the results manually, using software.
And as for darkroom printing, see if these threads intrigue you:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/darkroom-portraits-part-2.89555/
and
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/bathroom-and-other-temporary-makeshift-darkrooms.35581/

I use 120 film, and I apologize, I should have clarified what I meant by "large." Specifically, prints around 20x30, 30x30, or 20x20. I'm hoping those aren't as large as you thought.

I will look into those thread tomorrow, thank you.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I use 120 film, and I apologize, I should have clarified what I meant by "large." Specifically, prints around 20x30, 30x30, or 20x20. I'm hoping those aren't as large as you thought.


I will look into those thread tomorrow, thank you.

If those are inch dimensions, no Epson is going to do a good job of that, and it'll be beyond a minilab scanner too. You'll need a scan from either a drum scanner, a high end CCD scanner or a stitched DSLR scan. In other words you need an actual optical 3200ppi of resolution, not a claimed 3200ppi (as Epson does).