Scanning Film/good Quality Printing

[sylvafern]

Hi - I have 100's of films from before I went digital about 2 years ago. Over the last 8 years in Thailand, most my photos more than three years old have faded or discoloured - I guess from taking advantage of the cheap processing here in Thailand. I would love to reprint all my photos but now that I've gone digital and discovered the benefits of photoshop and the likes, I want to be able to touch them up and crop them on the computer first. I don't have a film scanner but even if I did, I'm sure I'd never find the time to get round to scanning all the film. Does anyone know where I could get this done? Also, once I have the photos ready to print, does anyone know where a good lab is that will print photos on paper that lasts longer than the 3/4 baht prints? (don't mind paying a bit more). Last thing, can anyone tell me if film scanning is even any good (i.e. can I expect quality good enough to try selling some of the photos as stockshots, etc?).

Thanks for any help you can give!

[astral]

I believe you local photo shop will be able to do it for you.

Many offer a CD when a film is developed, so they must have

the facility. Make some enquiries.

It may be a good idea to ask what definition they will scan it.

My Canon film scanner gives 2700dpi, which is adequate for 35mm film.

[Crossy]

I've not tried them, but these people seem to have the equipment and know how

http://www.iqlab.co.th/

Not cheap though

[Bull]

Regarding the quality and resolution of the scan, if it is film (and not slide film), the quality will not be acceptable to sell it as photostock, due mainly to very obvious grain.

I second comments about IQ labs. They are the only shop I trust with dealing with my stuff. Wasted enough time shopping around already...

Bull

[sylvafern]

Thanks for the info - it is normal film not slide film. Is it still worth doing it just for touching upo myself on the computer and printing mostly 6x4s for my own albums, or would I be disappointed with the quality. A couple of times when I used to get film developed I asked for them to also put it on CD and it was always bad quality then, but didn't know if that was just the settings they used in the shop.

[cusper]

Hi, a question to Bull and anyone else who might be able to answer.

I also would like to scan 35mm negs......not slides.

I have heard the Epson models do a good job of scanning so I am wondering if Bull's comments

regarding grain are a big hurdle?

What I would like to do is scan and then burn onto a cd and then print upto 14x11 inch.

.

Are you saying the quality would be poor?

Any replies appreciated.

[hughden]

Want to give IQ lab a try and would welcome some help on how to set up a file to submit. Understand it should be jpg and has to be less than 2 MB. Any other tips? How many DPI (300)? CMYK or RGB, or do they convert it? Any suggestions welcome!

I assume they will post prints within Thailand?

Thanks

[astral]

Get the highest definition available.

My slide/neg scanner is 2700 dpi and the latest ones are better than that!

A RAW format would be best, with no compression, but will give large files.

[ColPyat]

Want to give IQ lab a try and would welcome some help on how to set up a file to submit. Understand it should be jpg and has to be less than 2 MB. Any other tips? How many DPI (300)? CMYK or RGB, or do they convert it? Any suggestions welcome!

I assume they will post prints within Thailand?

Thanks

It has to be scanned in RGB. You should only get it in Jpeg if you don't plan to do anything else with Photoshop anymore, otherwise you should get a Tiff file that has no compression. It should be scanned in 300 DPI.

How big the file should be depends on the usage. If you are 100% sure that you won't ever make any bigger prints than 8x10 from a lab than you can get away with the lowest high quality Jpeg (on photoshop 7 it is compression 10 i believe). That would give you a file about 3 to 5 megs.

But if you want the best possible quality you might have to go to a 50 to 120 meg Tiff file.

[ColPyat]

Hi, a question to Bull and anyone else who might be able to answer.

I also would like to scan 35mm negs......not slides.

I have heard the Epson models do a good job of scanning so I am wondering if Bull's comments

regarding grain are a big hurdle?

What I would like to do is scan and then burn onto a cd and then print upto 14x11 inch.

.

Are you saying the quality would be poor?

Any replies appreciated.

No, the grain is no hurdle whatsoever. Grain depends on the film used. Negs actually have more information than slides, more forgiving in exposure.

The epson flatbed scanners are not the best choice if you want to scan 35mm negs. You are better off investing a bit more in a proper negative scanner. Excellent value for money is the minolta dimage 5400 if you can still find it. It gives you a maximum of 5400 DPI with massive 116 meg Tiff files.

But for normal usage an older 2700 DPI scanner will be fine as well. You will get large enough prints.

[hughden]

Thanks for the answers.

I shoot in RAW and convert to Tif.

However, a file submitted to this lab by mail has to be in jpg format and less than 2mb, so I was asking how to get the best image given those restrictions.

[astral]

Start with RAW and then do any touching up in Photoshop,

then compress and size down to a 2M jpg later.

Once you are in jpeg you have already lost data!

[ColPyat]

Thanks for the answers.

I shoot in RAW and convert to Tif.

However, a file submitted to this lab by mail has to be in jpg format and less than 2mb, so I was asking how to get the best image given those restrictions.

Do all the photoshop work in Tiff, save it in as large a size as you can. Than convert it into jpeg with the size and compression needed so you can get below 2megs, save it in a different folder.

One day you may need the larger sized file, for maybe a larger print, and then you won't need to rescan the image if you have it saved already in a large Tiff file.

[astral]

Do all the photoshop work in Tiff, save it in as large a size as you can. Than convert it into jpeg with the size and compression needed so you can get below 2megs, save it in a different folder.

One day you may need the larger sized file, for maybe a larger print, and then you won't need to rescan the image if you have it saved already in a large Tiff file.

This can eat up disk space, but is very sound advice.

[ColPyat]

If i would be a bit more organised, i would safe every picture three times:

One huge Tiff file, one smaller jpeg, and one really small one in 72 DPI screen resolution.

It is an advantage to back them them up on external hard drives without an operating sythem for safety reasons. Fortunately hard drives with cases are not anymore expensive.

If you keep them on unpartitioned hard drives, one windows screw up can destroy everything. Back ups on CDs or DVDs are not safe enough.

[astral]

Preserving photos for posterity is a problem not just for the amateur.

With new standards being developed and media that crashes (hard disks) or degrades (CD and DVD) the whole image industry has a real dillema.

I would suggest a dedicated hard disk, to survive those Windows rebuilds

with periodic backups to DVD.

That is about the best we can do these days.

[ColPyat]

Preserving photos for posterity is a problem not just for the amateur.

With new standards being developed and media that crashes (hard disks) or degrades (CD and DVD) the whole image industry has a real dillema.

I would suggest a dedicated hard disk, to survive those Windows rebuilds

with periodic backups to DVD.

That is about the best we can do these days.

I am still more than reluctant to go digital. I like my negatives. I like the huge dynamic range that negatives give me.