Does the photo lab do a bad scan job?

[raphaelaaron]

I just got my images back from being processed. I do the usual and get it straight to CD, no prints.

I have a question regarding what I got back. The scans on disc seemed horrible. The lab uses a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for its medium format images. If I'm not mistaken these are one of the better dedicated film scanners available. I was wondering what exactly was wrong? Is there quality lost in the process of using their services? Have you had similar experiences with your lab?

I'm seriously just thinking about getting an epson 4490 or v700. The only reason I haven't yet is because I'm currently only working from a laptop, and don't know if it'd be slow just to get each image loaded at full quality.

Am I just delusional? Am I really just blaming the photo lab for this image quality because in reality I can't shoot a decent image?

I've shot all kinds of 35mm in the past with great results, especially on scans, and have just started dipping into medium format territory a year ago. It's only really taken off in the past several months.

If only I had the space, the time and the money, I'd build my own darkroom and do the images all myself.

Anyway, I just loaded a new roll of 400nc. Maybe it's something I need to keep working at.

Any tips?

 

[Larry.Manuel]

In my neck of the woods, good scans at ye ole camera store cost big money [several dollars per frame]. So, I get what I pay for, and I don't have my films scanned. I've found even quick and dirty wet prints [by me] much more interesting and beautiful [to go out on a limb] than the scans or digitally-processed prints. Disclaimer: I have never had high quality scans or prints done [the ones that cost $40+ for an 8x10 print]. And yes, darkroom work takes a huge amount of time. So everything is a compromise. No real surprise there.

A very high-quality scan of a 6x6 cm negative might cost close to 10 dollars around here. Each file would be 15 to 30 MegaBytes. [I'm digitally illiterate]

 

[fotch]

Well, maybe its the negatives. Take them to another lab and have them scan them. See if its the same. Even Walfart, with all their mishandling and scratches, still came out pretty good. Of course, I also wanted better and starting scanning myself.

At this point, you need to find out if its your negatives or their scanning at fault.

 

[BetterSense]

It should be pretty easy to scan medium format. I get pretty good results on my flatbed. 35mm on my flatbed is suitable only for small prints and web use.

It's my theory that the lack of good commercial film scanning creates a "scanning hole" that is deliberately perpetuated by the photography industry in order to make digital look more attractive. If it was easy and cheap to get actual good-quality digital files when developing film, people would have more incentive to shoot it, but as it is, they are better off buying a digital camera if they want digital files, because it's so difficult to get good files from their film.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

What was wrong with the scans? I have the LS-8000ED, which is the predecessor to the 9000. Like all film scanners, the files straight from the scanner need to be fine-tuned in an editor like Photoshop. They usually look flat and low in contrast, especially from negatives (scans from slides look closer to perfect). If they're doing them cheap, they probably are not editing them....they're expecting you to do it.

 

[archphoto]

Check your negatives with a loupe and if this "lab" is the only one in your neighbourhood and they do a lousy job, buy a V700.

Peter

 

[markbarendt]

If you are using C-41 film my bet is that this is a matter of expectations mismatch not shooter error, I'm betting your film is very workable.

Labs will scan only good enough to do "the job at hand", if you ask for 4x6 proofs, the scans will be just enough for that and no more; unless you asked for and paid for larger scans you may have even gotten just the basic super low res index/contact sheet scans.

I use Richard Photo Lab for wedding and event processing and it costs well over $30 bucks a roll but I get 40meg scans that won't have to be redone, and every frame gets a well adjusted & corrected proof that I can show the client with confidence, and I don't have to do any PSing. It's not free but it is a really great deal in my mind. They will do smaller scans cheaper but I don't bother.

I'd suggest talking with your lab and if needed shopping for one that will do what you want.

 

[DavidM]

Mark (markbarendt) is right on the money - " talk with your lab"

Show some interest in how they do the scan - treat them like they are experts (even if they are not) they will probably be happy to show you what they are doing.
Act dumb and say - can you please do me a favour ? then pause and wait for the person to say "sure".................. can you show me how YOU use that high tech scanner thingy over there !!

You will learn a bit about scanning ( you may also learn that the operators have no idea how to use the scanner and software that drives it)

If the film is colour negative C41 then they may need to allow for the type of film- each film has a different orange mask/cast.
Good scanners and software have profiles for the common C41 colour orange masks.
Do they calibrate the scanner before scanning each roll, batch , frame ?
Do they calibrate (or clean) their monitor?
Shoot a roll of slide film and compare the scans with the slides on a light box - use the labs light box-table.
Scanning slides is much much easier as you can compare the digital outcome to the analogue original easily.

PS spending some time to get your lab to scan properly, or finding one that does scans well will be worth more than a new scanner and the hours & hours of scanning when doing it yourself.
- I have no labs within 600km that can even develop medium format let alone scan so can spend as much time scanning a 120 roll of slides as i did shooting it .!.

 

[keithwms]

The coolscan should provide very good results, but scanning is not just a push button thing: a scanner is only as good as the operator, the time he/she puts into optimizing the scan, and the software he/she uses. Why not send your negs somewhere reputable and see what they get. You should definitely also speak with the scan operator in the lab and see what's up, maybe they can give you some tips or you can judge whether they know their stuff.

The flatbeds will not be able to compete with the coolscan. Particularly for 35mm, I think they are a very poor choice.

If you want a reference point to see just how good your scans can be (i.e. how much info you are losing when scanning by other methods, esp. flatbed), my suggestion is to get a drum scan done on some particularly cherished frame.