Who knows how my local minilab's scanner works?

[runswithsizzers]

My local camera shop has a minilab where they still process C-41 film, make prints, and they offer scanning with development. They use Fuji equipment which I was told is "30 years old" - but I don't know which exact model.

The guy who runs the minilab has been doing it for a long time. While discussing some issues I have seen with their scans, I was told their scans are unaltered files from the scanner with no color profile, level or sharpening adjustments of any kind.

He also said a flatbed scanner can produce better scans than his Fuji minilab (35mm).

Q1: In a small minilab workflow, would the scanner most likely be part of the Fuji processing equipment workstation - or would it more likely be a separate hardware/software module purchased from someone else?

Q2: Was / is there much variety in Fuji processing equipment of the kind that would be found in a small lab 30 years ago? That is, can we make general assumptions about what kind of scanning equipment is being used, or would any discussion of scan quality be pointless without knowing the exact model number of his equipment?

Q3: Does the operator of a small, 30-year-old Fuji minilab have the ability to make any software adjustments to the output of the scanner? (Color profile, levels, sharpness, etc.) Or would the scanner output parameters be set by the manufacturer with no option to be changed by field operators?

Q4: Is it true that the output from a Fuji minilab scanner is no better than a flatbed scanner? I know, flatbed scanners vary a lot in quality, but the distinction I am trying to make is this: Would the quality of the minilab scan be more like a consumer flatbed scaner or more like a consumer film scanner?

 

[cramej]

If it's really 30 year old equipment, then it is very likely that a newer flatbed could produce better scans. A standard of more recent mid-range minilabs would be a Fuji SP-2000 scanning unit which is very good, though limited in resolution. Those have options to apply auto-corrections and such and typically produce good results. I haven't the slightest clue what kind of scanning to a computer workstation would have been possible in the mid 80's besides high end flatbeds and drum scanners.

Question 4 has a lot of variables. The quick answer is No. Something like a V750 might be comparable at certain print sizes but, as has been proven, their true resolution is far lower than advertised and ends up being comparable to the SP-2000. It would probably take quite a bit more work to get the V750 file to look the same as an auto-corrected and sharpened SP-2000 file. If you're talking speed then there is no comparison. A Fuji or Noritsu can scan an entire roll at the highest resolution in a few minutes. I would take slightly lower resolution minilab scans over a consumer flatbed any day. The high resolution Noritsu scans I get from North Coast Photo are quite nice and print at decent sizes without much mucking around in Photoshop.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Update: I was able to read on the front of one Fuji machine: "Fuji Frontier DL650 PRO Dry Minilab" and the other: "FP363SC AL"
Apparently, the first one is an ink jet printer and the second one is the film processor. Looking at Fuji's brochures for each, neither mentions a scanner. <Frontier DL650> <FP363SC AL>

So maybe the scanner is a third piece of equipment - maybe made by Fuji, maybe not?

If the lab's printer is an inkjet, then the negative must get scanned somehow, right? Even if the customer does not request scanning (?)

The point of all this is, I am trying to understand some artifacts I have seen in scanned color negatives from two different minilabs. My theory is, the artifacts are created by processing done to the output of the lab's scanner. But according to my local mini-lab guy, *no* processing is done to the scanner output. I'm pretty sure that is not correct, but I am hoping someone with more knowledge can explain what happens in a typical minilab between developing the negative and handing the customer a CD with scans of those negatives on it.

 

[cramej]

What kind of artifacts?

 

[runswithsizzers]

I hesitate to include this first one because it was an old roll of Kodak Gold 400 from the freezer, which may have had some adverse affect on grain. This is a 100% magnification crop (600x600px) from a 3637 × 2433 pixel scan (5.1MB JPEG) provided by my hometown minilab.

This is a 100% crop (600x600px) from a fresh roll of Portra 160; it's a 4492 × 6774 pixel scan (33.5 MB JPEG) done by Dwayne's Photo in Kansas. I don't know if Dwaynes uses a Fuji Frontier minilab, or something different. Despite the higher resolution (and much bigger file size), to me it looks no better than my local minilab results.
The grainy / speckled / reticulated texture is not present when I scan the same negative at home with my 18-year-old Dimage Scan Elite film scanner at it's maximum resolution of 2588 × 3622 pixels (27MB TIFF). I can't say for sure the two photos suffer from the same problem, but unless my home scanner is somehow masking the problem, I am sure the speckled effect seen on the second photo is not present on the negative.

Something looks over-sharpened to me, which is why I am asking if minilab operators have any control over how much sharpening their scan files get.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

A definitive answer would be possible if you could examine the negative itself under very high magnification. I used to do this at work with a microscope when I thought a lab totally botched my printing and I wanted to prove to them that the negative had more detail in it that they should've been able to print.

Is this mottling actually on the negative? Is it simply grain?

 

[runswithsizzers]

A definitive answer would be possible if you could examine the negative itself under very high magnification. I used to do this at work with a microscope when I thought a lab totally botched my printing and I wanted to prove to them that the negative had more detail in it that they should've been able to print.

Is this mottling actually on the negative? Is it simply grain?

In the first photo it MAY be grain, but if it is, it looks exaggerated to me. That was ISO 400 negative film, so some grain would not be unexpected. Because I had only a few rolls of expired film from my freezer, I did not spend too much time testing that - assumed it was bad film and threw it away.

But the second image is from fresh ISO 160 Portra, which not known for being a grainy film. Because I could not reproduce the mottling seen in the second photo on my home scanner, I'm thinking it is not on the negative.

I do happen to have a microscope, so I will try to take a closer look tomorrow. However, not being experienced looking at film under higher magnifications, I'm not sure I'll be able to interpret the results.

 

[Ste_S]

First off, you should be able to pull the type of scanner from the exif data in the scanned file

Secondly, I've had similar I think. If you push the sharpening slider in your processing software, does it just amplify the artefacts rather than sharpening the image ?
If so, yes it most definitely is a scanning issue. Due to the lab setting the contrast and/or sharpening levels too high.
It's one of the three common lab scanning errors I've had. The other two being halos between light and dark areas, and the scanner raising exposure/shadows to try to pull details from shadows that aren't there.

Try working with the lab to let them know what you want. Some people want scans that are optimised for prints and/or web use. Others (like me) want scans that are flat and unsharpened that you can then work on in post-processing software

 

[calebarchie]

Looks typical of a poor lab scan, a lot of them have baked in strange artefacts usually something to do built-in grain reduction processing or poor D-max/noise performance and resulting noise reduction algorithms. Some you may be able to turn off deep in the settings, the one I used to operate had a TIFF-OUT 16-base /MAX quality setting but even then the artefacts were still present at pixel level, you would never see these is a 4x6 or 8x12 wet print so the machine is fit for purpose.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The first one may have had some base fog if it was old film, or it may be underexposed. Either would account for the blacks being weak and it looking grainy. The second one definitely looks over sharpened.

 

[runswithsizzers]

First off, you should be able to pull the type of scanner from the exif data in the scanned file

Secondly, I've had similar I think. If you push the sharpening slider in your processing software, does it just amplify the artefacts rather than sharpening the image ?
If so, yes it most definitely is a scanning issue. Due to the lab setting the contrast and/or sharpening levels too high.
It's one of the three common lab scanning errors I've had. The other two being halos between light and dark areas, and the scanner raising exposure/shadows to try to pull details from shadows that aren't there.

Try working with the lab to let them know what you want. Some people want scans that are optimised for prints and/or web use. Others (like me) want scans that are flat and unsharpened that you can then work on in post-processing software

The EXIF data is a great idea, but I can't find any specific scanner info in the metadata. In addition to what EXIF data Photoshop shows, I have three third-party EXIF data viewers - and none of them show any "camera" data from either lab. (Including Jeffrey Friedl’s “Metadata Viewer” Lightroom Plugin <available here>)

As far as working with the lab, I was trying to start a conversation with that goal in mind, but when he insisted that their scan files are straight from the scanner with no software manipulation of any kind, I could see that approach was going nowhere.

Which goes back to my original question. Does a Fuji employee set the scanner output at the time the lab equipment is installed, and after that, operators can't access those settings? Or can a properly trained lab employee adjust the output? This guy has been operating the photolab for a long time, so it seems strange to me that he seems to be unaware that the scanner output can be modified.

Anyway, the answer probably does not really matter, because my local lab appears to be either unable or unwilling to work with me. Now, my choices are to either find another lab or scan the negatives myself.

 

[MattKing]

Does the lab offer a choice of file types for their scans? If so, ask for one roll of the other type(s), even if the file size is smaller. There may be EXIF data embedded in those files.
And ask them to physically point out what machine they are using to get scans from. They maay have an auxiliary scanning unit added to their film developing unit.

 

[cramej]

I hesitate to include this first one because it was an old roll of Kodak Gold 400 from the freezer, which may have had some adverse affect on grain. This is a 100% magnification crop (600x600px) from a 3637 × 2433 pixel scan (5.1MB JPEG) provided by my hometown minilab.


This is a 100% crop (600x600px) from a fresh roll of Portra 160; it's a 4492 × 6774 pixel scan (33.5 MB JPEG) done by Dwayne's Photo in Kansas. I don't know if Dwaynes uses a Fuji Frontier minilab, or something different. Despite the higher resolution (and much bigger file size), to me it looks no better than my local minilab results.
The grainy / speckled / reticulated texture is not present when I scan the same negative at home with my 18-year-old Dimage Scan Elite film scanner at it's maximum resolution of 2588 × 3622 pixels (27MB TIFF). I can't say for sure the two photos suffer from the same problem, but unless my home scanner is somehow masking the problem, I am sure the speckled effect seen on the second photo is not present on the negative.

Something looks over-sharpened to me, which is why I am asking if minilab operators have any control over how much sharpening their scan files get.

Those look pretty typical of minilab scans. Keep in mind that your 100% view for the tomato would be a 10x15 print at 240dpi and the engine would be 18x24 at 240dpi. If you were to compare the two scans at the same print size, Dwayne's would look better, though I personally was not completely satisfied the last time I ordered scans from Dwayne's.

There is definitely sharpening applied to both. I believe Dwayne's uses a Noritsu scanner. One can control the amount of sharpening to a point but it really impedes the workflow to change settings for one roll and then change it back for the following. For the price you pay, it's asking a lot to stop production and do something out of the ordinary. These scanners are running the entire roll in the time it takes you to finish one frame on your Minolta. After having worked in a minilab for a couple years, I found that prints from these scans look better at about 2/3 or 3/4 the size of the 240ppi file.

The image below is a crop from a Portra 400 120 negative scanned at high resolution (4824x3533) at North Coast Photo on their Noritsu scanner. The enlarged portion is 600px of that scan.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thanks again to all who replied!

But I think I'm done with minilab scans. I was hoping for the speed and convenience of machine scans (especially during this time of year when there is grass to mow and weeds to pull in my garden), but I've decided I can probably get better quality with less effort if I just scan them myself - or photograph the negatives with a closeup lens on my digital camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since you have talked with the operator, why not just asking him?