Scans from thedarkroom.com -- seeking your input

[aly324]

I'm new to film photography and recently had a few rolls of film developed and scanned (at 2048 x 3072, JPEG @ about 1MB per file) by thedarkroom.com. I shot Fuji Velvia 50 on a Contax G2 and Kodak Ektar 100 on a Contax RTS.

When the scans came back I was a little disappointed at the resolution. The Velvia seems to do better than the Ektar, but I can still see the grain. I am attaching two 100% center crops--first G2/Velvia and second RTS/Ektar. G2 was autofocus, and RTS was focused at infinity. So I don't think focus was off.

Setting aside the relative merits of the film types and lenses at the moment, was I wrong to expect higher resolution? If not, was there something wrong with the development, the scanning, or the JPEG compression?

Is the problem simply that they made too-small prints to scan--so the grain is of the print, not the film?

Thank you!

[std]

The scan doesn't look very good - are you sure that the leaves on the first crop are in focus - how do they look on the film?
About second one it looks like very over sharpened and then saved as low quality Jpeg.

Usually those kind of results you see from a flatbed scanner - a dedicated film scanner should give better image.

[Excalibur]

Well the neg is scanned not the prints and a file size of 1mb would suggest a much lower scan than 2048 x 3072, esp with that detail in the shots....also sharpening is usually needed after scanning but too much and it looks terrible.
Also it's hard to tell from your shots whether it's scanning digital noise or grain.

[philslizzy]

Its not likely to be grain at this level of magnification. I have some old KodacolorII negs scanned by Kodak in the mid 90's they don't show grain until at least 20x magnification. Sharpening causes all kinds of weird stuff on your shots. I think its that and low res pixels.

[Excalibur]

On my flatbed scanner if you scan a very good 6 X 4" print it gives a better looking picture compared to quite a few neg scans. Mind you the print is about 15 years old and probably done the old way i.e. not digital.

[aly324]

Thank you. It seems that thedarkroom.com is a rip-off... I actually paid an extra $5 per roll for these "premium" scans. Lesson learnt.

[Attila]

Best if you scan by yourself if you are ready to have own scanner let us to know your budget what format you need and we able to try to help what is best serve you well.

[mfman]

I was about to use thedarkroom.com to develop the first ever roll on my first ever film cam Konica FS 1. Thanks for posting this...I'm going to stay away from this company. I hear scancafe is best in the US. But they only scan, so I need to find some place that will develop my color films.

[Excalibur]

[iangreenhalgh1]

You are best investing in a scanner so you can scan your own negatives. With great cameras like the Contaxes you have, that's the best way to do them justice. Supermarket scans are okay for web use or making small prints, but pretty poor compared to what a decent scanner can produce. The Plustek Opticfilm 35mm scanners are about the best value imho, I have a old 7600i and really like it.

Here's a 16mp scan I made with my Plustek:




They are about 400usd unless you can find a good deal on a second hand one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plustek-783064365321-Opticfilm-8100-Clr-35mm-Film-Perp-Slide-7200dpi-1-45x1in-/231094453237?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item35ce4d83f5

[pd1987]

Leaves look like there was a lot of JPEG compression or poor size increase. Generally - I guess that company doesn't do it's best.

For scanning negatives I use macro bellows for M42 with 85/1.7 @f8 Beroflex lens. It covers a bit more than 24x36 mm 135 frame on my Olympus E-3.
The most important part is light source. I used a few ideas and the best one was flash light with big diffuser far behind a roll in a holder.

If you shoot RAW "scans" you can get a lot from a frame scanned that way.

I'd like to show how it looks, but at the moment, that "device" is at my parent's. When I get back it I'll upload a tutorial on how to use that. For now, I hope those two photos might show the results. Both taken with Lomo LC-A (original, not Lomography one).
You can see a lot of dust, because those weren't "pro" shots, just some snaps. Also negative was the cheapest I could find.



Better sharpness here: