Film Negative Question?

[salacious]

Not sure if posting in the right place but only saw Digital Photography section.

I recently bought a Konica S2, I got some film and shot with it and got it scanned to CD along with the negatives, now the files on the CD are very small less than 1MB iv read that it should be bigger around 15MB or so, its also at 72 DPI is this because i have used a regular camera shop to process the film?

Does this mean I need to send the negatives to a Proper film lab or are the negatives affected (I literally just got into film last week and have half of no idea what im talking about)..

the images are ISO 400 so I understand they wont be the greatest but some look very blotchy..

 

[Bending Pixels]

Unless you specified how you wanted the negatives scanned, chances are the camera store scanned them at the lowest settings. If you shoot a lot of film, get your own scanner that can handle film. Otherwise, find a camera store that can scan at a higher dpi.

 

[salacious]

Unless you specified how you wanted the negatives scanned, chances are the camera store scanned them at the lowest settings. If you shoot a lot of film, get your own scanner that can handle film. Otherwise, find a camera store that can scan at a higher dpi.

so would the lower scan cause the image to be blotchy cause i have seen the same film and camera images and they are much better quality?

 

[Meister]

so would the lower scan cause the image to be blotchy cause i have seen the same film and camera images and they are much better quality?

72dpi is pathetic. And that will certainly influence image quality.
Tell them to redo it properly.

 

[Designer Dale]

Talk like you know what your'e doing (even if you don't). Tell them to scan it at 300 dpi. If they say anything other than "OK" or "Sure", go somewhere else.

A good shop will ask you this and explain the difference before taking your money.

Dale

 

[phrehdd]

72 dpi might be "okay" for low level newspaper print but is as another put it - pathetic.

If you take a look at various film scanners you will see that they offer much higher scan resolution as measured in dpi. Some go up to 7200/9600 interpolated and 2400 or 4800 native etc. Flatbed scanners often scan at 1200 or 2400 native dpi which furthers that point that 72 dpi just aint cutting it.

The ideal scan would either come close to the grain of the film or surpass it. I have scanned many a negative and transparency (slides etc.) over the years and also had some done by high end professional equipment. I just can't imagine 72 dpi for anything of value.

My scanning equipment Epson Perfection V750 flatbed and a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 I film scanner. While I have these more top end prosumer devices there are far less film and flatbed scanners out there that do excellent work. If you plan to continue to scan film to digital, you may want to investigate some options that will pay for themselves over time. Sadly, the better film scanners (Canon, Nikon, Minolta and one model of Polaroid) are no longer made but some present day choices are quite acceptable.

 

[acearchie]

From a 35mm neg ask for at least 600ppi if you want to print it at at least 6x4.

 

[ChrisA]

Talk like you know what your'e doing (even if you don't). Tell them to scan it at 300 dpi

300 DPI is HORRIBLE quality.

Think for a second about this.... A 35mm negative is 24x36mm in size. Basically it is 1 inch tally 1.5 inches long. If you can at 300DPI you get 300x450 pixels.

For 400 ISO film you can scan at 2,000 DPI. This will give you a 6 megapixel image. This will be good enough for most uses. 2400 DPI is a good resolution that most film scanner can do. This gives a file that is 2400 x 3600 pixels in size or 8.6 megapixels. TIFF format files will be about 24MB size. JPG will be much smaller.

A 35mm film camera is what they call a "full frame" sensor. When you scan the film you should expect file sizes about like you'd gets from a Nikon FX sized dSLR.

 

[bhtwo]

Scan at the highest res possible... lately I've been dealing with images of around 4000 ppi for book production.

 

[Meister]

Scan at the highest res possible... lately I've been dealing with images of around 4000 ppi for book production.

That is more like it.

@OP
Go back to the printshop and get your money back. If they decline report them to the better business bureau. Scanning a negative at 72dpi is completely inacceptable.
Then go to another shop and get it done properly.

 

[Gav2k]

A 4x6 print from most labs would be a standard 600dpi. You've been stiffed

 

[Edge100]

There seems to be an enormous amount of confusion here.

"72 dpi" means nothing until you've made a print. ALL that matters when it comes to scanning (with respect to resolution) is how many pixels you've used to digitize the negative.

An example:

If you scan a 36 x 24mm (1.4 x 0.95 inches) negative at 4000ppi (pixels per inch), you get a file with pixel dimensions of (roughly) 5600 x 3800.

If you print this at 360 dpi (dots per inch; 360 is the standard for Epson printers), you get a print of 15.6 x 10.5 inches.

If you print at 200 dpi, you get a print of 28 x 19 inches.

If you print at 72 dpi, you get a print of 77.8 x 52.8 inches.

So that original 5600 x 3800 scan can be made into prints of virtually any size, depending on the dot density you prefer. When Photoshop tells you you have a "72 dpi" file, that itself is meaningless unless you also look at where it tells you the SIZE (in inches) of the corresponding print at 72 dpi.

So my question is: what are the PIXEL DIMENSIONS of your scan?

 

[Meister]

There seems to be an enormous amount of confusion here.

"72 dpi" means nothing until you've made a print. ALL that matters when it comes to scanning (with respect to resolution) is how many pixels you've used to digitize the negative.

An example:

If you scan a 36 x 24mm (1.4 x 0.95 inches) negative at 4000ppi (pixels per inch), you get a file with pixel dimensions of (roughly) 5600 x 3800.

If you print this at 360 dpi (dots per inch; 360 is the standard for Epson printers), you get a print of 18.6 x 10.5 inches.

If you print at 200 dpi, you get a print of 28 x 19 inches.

If you print at 72 dpi, you get a print of 77.8 x 52.8 inches.

So that original 5600 x 3800 scan can be made into prints of virtually any size, depending on the dot density you prefer. When Photoshop tells you you have a "72 dpi" file, that itself is meaningless unless you also look at where it tells you the SIZE (in inches) of the corresponding print at 72 dpi.

So my question is: what are the PIXEL DIMENSIONS of your scan?

Good point. I assumed the OP meant 72ppi.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

My guess is you will find that the files are either 1024 x 1536 or 2048 x 3072--these are the most common sizes for photo cd's. Usually the default is the smaller size unless you ask for more--just enough for a small machine print. To get more than that you will likely have to go to a pro lab with better equipment, but of course it will cost more. A drug store lab may not actually offer any better.

Do you see the blotchiness on the scans or also on the negatives? If it's on the film it may mean the machine is not being maintained properly, a significant risk these days.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I just looked at one of my photo CDs. 1536 × 1024, and everything's less than a megabyte. 72DPI too.

I'm surprised that's still the case 11 years later.

I had blotches on my stuff back then too. It can be the machine or the person that is the issue. Definitely go for a proper lab next time.

 

[salacious]

Having investigated more it would seem this is the shops standard scanning for that branch so they are basically crap, I haven't looked at the negatives, the pictures are indeed blotchy and 72dpi with a resolution of roughly 1000 x 900 something, iv decided to invest in a Epson v500/550 whatever I can get my hands on and scan myself to save costs.

Thanks everyone.


Ps don't use snappy snaps for your film !!

 

[ChrisA]

Having investigated more it would seem this is the shops standard scanning for that branch so they are basically crap, I haven't looked at the negatives, the pictures are indeed blotchy and 72dpi with a resolution of roughly 1000 x 900 something, iv decided to invest in a Epson v500/550 whatever I can get my hands on and scan myself to save costs.

Thanks everyone.


Ps don't use snappy snaps for your film !!

If the image is "roughly 1000 x 900" then there is no way it is also "72 DPI" It is closer to 1000 DPI. Just do the math. The negative is about 1 inch tall and it there are 900 lines then it is 900 per inch.

Buying a scanner and doing it yourself is MUCH harder than you think. It is more then simply pushing a button. Expect to spend about 4 minutes per image after you get good at it. Every frame needs some hand work, dust is to be cloned out and color balance set and then you have to think of some keywords and other meta data and of course there is the time to handle the film and put it in those PrintFile ages, clean and dust the scanner glass. Four minutes per frame is working fast.

If yu are going to do this a lot do NOT get a flat bed scanner. Go with a "real" film scanner. There are several reasons
1) Time required for film handing is reduced
2) The dynamic range is better (this matters a lot)
3) with a flat bed the frames need to be "cut aparts" using some software that finds frame edges. This is never perfect and takes some hand work on each scan. You may also have to "straighten" the frames using software.

Also look for one that has a feature called "ICE" it was developed by Kodak and license to Epson, HP, Nikon and the others. It is basically a fourth color channel for IR light that is used to detect dust and scratches on film negatives. The system can fix 80% of this saving you tons of time. All the better film scanners have it, none of the low-end flat bad scanners have this.

What do I do? I send my film to ScanCafe. They scan it at 3000 DPI for $0.22 per frame. Not only do they scan it but they spend a few minutes in Photoshop on each scan to correct the color, exposure and remove some dust/scratches in critical areas. Basically they just do a visual human in the loop quality check of each frame.

MOST cheap scanning service never have a human even look at the scans and you can get "junk". All the better labs do visual checks of each frame to verify the automation "got it right"

For 22 cents I can't be bothered to scan by own film. If I did my own work I'd save about $4 for every hour I worked at the scanner. I'd do better getting a second job at McDonalds. I'm having ScanCafe work on my collection of film in batches of about 1000 to 1,500 frames per job. After they come back I still have to put the files into my library (I used Aperture for now) and enter meta data. Then I give them another 1000 or so frames to scan. I'm mostly done.

I do also have a film scanner but use it ONLY when I want quick turn around.

So do it yourself but you only save 22 cents every 4 minutes you work. That for minute figures assumes you are good it it and can handle the film and photoshop work while the scanner is running so you have no waiting time. If you don't multitask is goes much slower.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

I just looked at one of my photo CDs. 1536 × 1024, and everything's less than a megabyte. 72DPI too.

I'm surprised that's still the case 11 years later.

I'm not. A roll scan is done by the machine that does the processing at the same time. The default is for it do a scan that's just good enough to produce the 4x6 print that comes out the other end. Making a higher-res scan slows down the machine. And, indeed, requires the operator to have a clue. I've used A&I in the past when I wanted roll scans, but they aren't cheap (when I don't need a roll scan, I send my color to Praus in Rochester). The assumption is that the customer going to Walgreens or wherever cares more about cheap and fast than about having it done right, and just wants some half-decent jpeg's they can email to grandma.

If budget is an issue (and it often is) I'd suggest checking out Dwayne's Photo. It won't be the greatest scans you've seen, but it will be better than what you got, and the processing will be reliable and not expensive.

 

[dwig]

If the image is "roughly 1000 x 900" then there is no way it is also "72 DPI" ...

Yes it can be very easily.

First of all, digital image NEVER have a DPI (Dots Per Inch) despite Photoshop's long history of using the term incorrectly. Instead they have PPI (Pixels Per Inch). They don't have "dots", only printers and similar output devices do. Electronic image files have "pixels".

Second, the PPI recorded in a digital image's header has nothing directly to do with image resolution. A digital file doesn't have any real inches so it has no real PPI. It is only when the image is printed or placed in a page layout program that has the concept of a virtual inch on its virtual page that an image's PPI comes into play. Still, it is only the pixel count that has anything to do with the images overall resolution.

Third, the PPI recorded in an image's header does not necessarily have anything to do with the scanning resolution. Some scanning applications do insert a PPI into the file's header and some don't. Those that do often insert some fixed default (72ppi, 300ppi, ...) and some insert the actual scanning resolution.

Fourth, all programs that display PPI info have to display something when they encounter images that don't have a PPI specified in their header. A PPI specification is not a requirement of any common image format. When such programs encounter such files they have to display something. It is quite common for such programs to default to displaying 72ppi and to display the pseudo-inch sizes accordingly. PS uses this 72ppi as its default in such cases.

Good scans of 35mm format film are generally done between 2400ppi and 6400ppi; that is pixels per actual physical inch on the film original. This results in files between roughly 2400x3600 pixels and 6400x9600 pixels.

Good quality digital prints generally are done at 300-360ppi, where the inches are the real final inches measured on the resulting print. A 4"x6" print at 300ppi would require a file that is 1200x1800 pixels.

 

[Edge100]

Yes it can be very easily.

First of all, digital image NEVER have a DPI (Dots Per Inch) despite Photoshop's long history of using the term incorrectly. Instead they have PPI (Pixels Per Inch). They don't have "dots", only printers and similar output devices do. Electronic image files have "pixels".

Second, the PPI recorded in a digital image's header has nothing directly to do with image resolution. A digital file doesn't have any real inches so it has no real PPI. It is only when the image is printed or placed in a page layout program that has the concept of a virtual inch on its virtual page that an image's PPI comes into play. Still, it is only the pixel count that has anything to do with the images overall resolution.

Third, the PPI recorded in an image's header does not necessarily have anything to do with the scanning resolution. Some scanning applications do insert a PPI into the file's header and some don't. Those that do often insert some fixed default (72ppi, 300ppi, ...) and some insert the actual scanning resolution.

Fourth, all programs that display PPI info have to display something when they encounter images that don't have a PPI specified in their header. A PPI specification is not a requirement of any common image format. When such programs encounter such files they have to display something. It is quite common for such programs to default to displaying 72ppi and to display the pseudo-inch sizes accordingly. PS uses this 72ppi as its default in such cases.

Good scans of 35mm format film are generally done between 2400ppi and 6400ppi; that is pixels per actual physical inch on the film original. This results in files between roughly 2400x3600 pixels and 6400x9600 pixels.

Good quality digital prints generally are done at 300-360ppi, where the inches are the real final inches measured on the resulting print. A 4"x6" print at 300ppi would require a file that is 1200x1800 pixels.

THIS!!!

(Which, as it happens, is almost precisely what I wrote 7 posts ago).

----------

If the image is "roughly 1000 x 900" then there is no way it is also "72 DPI" It is closer to 1000 DPI. Just do the math. The negative is about 1 inch tall and it there are 900 lines then it is 900 per inch.

Buying a scanner and doing it yourself is MUCH harder than you think. It is more then simply pushing a button. Expect to spend about 4 minutes per image after you get good at it. Every frame needs some hand work, dust is to be cloned out and color balance set and then you have to think of some keywords and other meta data and of course there is the time to handle the film and put it in those PrintFile ages, clean and dust the scanner glass. Four minutes per frame is working fast.

If yu are going to do this a lot do NOT get a flat bed scanner. Go with a "real" film scanner. There are several reasons
1) Time required for film handing is reduced
2) The dynamic range is better (this matters a lot)
3) with a flat bed the frames need to be "cut aparts" using some software that finds frame edges. This is never perfect and takes some hand work on each scan. You may also have to "straighten" the frames using software.

Also look for one that has a feature called "ICE" it was developed by Kodak and license to Epson, HP, Nikon and the others. It is basically a fourth color channel for IR light that is used to detect dust and scratches on film negatives. The system can fix 80% of this saving you tons of time. All the better film scanners have it, none of the low-end flat bad scanners have this.

What do I do? I send my film to ScanCafe. They scan it at 3000 DPI for $0.22 per frame. Not only do they scan it but they spend a few minutes in Photoshop on each scan to correct the color, exposure and remove some dust/scratches in critical areas. Basically they just do a visual human in the loop quality check of each frame.

MOST cheap scanning service never have a human even look at the scans and you can get "junk". All the better labs do visual checks of each frame to verify the automation "got it right"

For 22 cents I can't be bothered to scan by own film. If I did my own work I'd save about $4 for every hour I worked at the scanner. I'd do better getting a second job at McDonalds. I'm having ScanCafe work on my collection of film in batches of about 1000 to 1,500 frames per job. After they come back I still have to put the files into my library (I used Aperture for now) and enter meta data. Then I give them another 1000 or so frames to scan. I'm mostly done.

I do also have a film scanner but use it ONLY when I want quick turn around.

So do it yourself but you only save 22 cents every 4 minutes you work. That for minute figures assumes you are good it it and can handle the film and photoshop work while the scanner is running so you have no waiting time. If you don't multitask is goes much slower.

Scan your film with a DSLR.

Seriously. It's better than everything than a top end drum scan, and takes FAR less time (and money).

http://mfphotography.ca/blog/2014/1...9GOCF9CTZ2LGF4SH12I0CR6Y7Y9XPT99IQ83WAWODFDHP

 

[MacCruiskeen]

THIS!!!

(Which, as it happens, is almost precisely what I wrote 7 posts ago).

----------



Scan your film with a DSLR.

Seriously. It's better than everything than a top end drum scan, and takes FAR less time (and money).

http://mfphotography.ca/blog/2014/1...9GOCF9CTZ2LGF4SH12I0CR6Y7Y9XPT99IQ83WAWODFDHP

I've seen some discussion of this kind of set up. I think his procedure could probably be improved further. For instance, I use a Better Scanning glass holder with my Epson, and it improves performance rather dramatically over the flimsy stock holders. It even allows for wet mounting if you're so inclined (I haven't tried it yet). Flatness and perfect focus are key to good scanning. A good mounting plate and a frame that would allow geared movement rather than by hand would increase accuracy. Heck, I suppose you could whip up a little arduino-type controller to control moving the frame and clicking the shutter without having to touch the setup. Also, I wonder if variable-light and multiple exposure would increase d-max.

I suspect that as we are unlikely to see much improvement in the offerings of scanner makers and the good stuff goes away and ages, these DIY solutions will be needed.

But that's rather way off the op, which was about getting a good roll scan at processing. I guess it depends on what you want the scan for. I like the roll scan as a kind of pseudo-contact sheet and for general web use. For a nice print or prepress work you will need better.

 

[apphotography]

300 DPI is HORRIBLE quality.

Think for a second about this.... A 35mm negative is 24x36mm in size. Basically it is 1 inch tally 1.5 inches long. If you scan at 300DPI you get 300x450 pixels.

For 400 ISO film you can scan at 2,000 DPI. This will give you a 6 megapixel image. This will be good enough for most uses. 2400 DPI is a good resolution that most film scanner can do. This gives a file that is 2400 x 3600 pixels in size or 8.6 megapixels. TIFF format files will be about 24MB size. JPG will be much smaller.

A 35mm film camera is what they call a "full frame" sensor. When you scan the film you should expect file sizes about like you'd gets from a Nikon FX sized dSLR.

This.

 

[bhtwo]

nice web aron...

 

[apphotography]

nice web aron...

Down for new design and blog right now. I linked Instagram for the time being.

 

[salacious]

Great responses, thanks guys.

For now film is a pet project that I want to get into and learn, I feel the Epson is good enough for my situation so I can have a little fun with trial and error, should I seek top professional results I will seek professional services.

Also it's definitely 72DPI shop confirmed it.

Especially nice to see the film community is still passionate makes a change from sticking in a bit of plastic and metal and getting instant results.