Lab Scanning vs Self Scanning

[tcdonline]

Hi all,

Am new to film photography and just developed my first roll of colour film at a reputable local lab (recommended in CS), and also got my film scanned (at 16 base) into a CD. I noticed that while the dimensions scanned is 3091 x 2048, the resolution is only 72. Each file size is slightly above 1 MB.

This makes me wonder if I am better off buying a scanner and do my own scan? Does anyone know if self scanning is better/worst off than scans done by local labs? And if it's better doing my own scan, does anyone have any experience with the Epson V700 or any other scanner?

Appreciate your kind input.

PS Pardon me if this post should go to digital darkroom

 

[kgston]

Firstly, the "resolution" parameter can be quite confusing for most amateur photographers. It is not referring the resolution of the scan, but the default print resolution when you print the image on paper. I don't think I should side track into the world of printing, so it should suffice to say that it has no real meaning if you are looking at the digital files only (aka you can just ignore it ) The real resolution lies in the pixel dimensions. Take length x breath divided by a million and you have a familiar number called megapixels which is the same thing most people talk about when buying digital cameras. In your case, it is around 6MP, which is correct for 16base scan. In dpi, that is about 2200dpi. The file size is also around 1MB is because it is JPEG and probably has a medium-high quality setting (aka some lossy compression is involved).

Moving on to your actual question, is scanning by yourself better than scanning at the lab? That depends on how you value your time, how much the lab charges you, the kind of quality and output you are looking for (or willing to spend to get) and whether you have the patience (and time) to experiment, research and learn.

Long answer short, a flatbed film scanner like the Epson V600 or V700 or Canon 9000F is slightly better than than a 16 base scan in terms of scan quality. Firstly, you get at least 4000dpi resolution or more (approximately >20MP) according to the scanner specs. But there is also the optical resolution which the box does not say; most people report it to be around only 2000 - 3000 dpi, so essentially it is about the same resolution as the lab scan if not slightly more. So what this means, is that you get a larger output file, but not necessarily an increase in actual resolution (like taking a 10MP file and interpolate into 20MP). But that is not to say it is pointless to use a flatbed scanner, because you get other advantages such as the ability to control the colour output, compression levels and your cost (if you plan to shoot a lot of film). If you are serious about getting good quality out of your scans, consider getting a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan or a Plustek, they have much higher optical resolution than flatbeds, but of course the cost outlay is higher.

But one important thing to remember, is that film scanning is a time consuming and rather tedious process. A Epson V700 takes about an hour to scan 4 strips of 35mm film at max resolution with digital ICE. Then you still have the post processing stage. It will take quite a bit of experimentation to get your workflow sorted out and to achieve an output that is acceptable to you. So if you are up for the challenge, then by all means get a film scanner. It can be a very good way to learn more about your own photography by controlling (and tweaking) all the variables from start to finish. But if you are only keen on taking photos and don't want to get your hands "dirty" with all the miscellaneous things, perhaps it is better to get a lab to scan your film.

Hope my "overview" will give you a complete picture so you can make an informed decision.

 

[tcdonline]

Thanks Kgston for your detailed explanation - it very well answers my question especially on resolution!

Yes, 1 hour is a pain on Epson V700 is a pain and I can only imagine worse for the Plustek, which scans 1 negative at a time. I decided to shoot film so that I won't be bogged down in front of the computer, so I probably would go the lab route considering that the difference in resolution is not vast. I am not sure if the labs can do higher resolution so I'll ask around.

 

[catchlights]

Thanks Kgston for your detailed explanation - it very well answers my question especially on resolution!

Yes, 1 hour is a pain on Epson V700 is a pain and I can only imagine worse for the Plustek, which scans 1 negative at a time. I decided to shoot film so that I won't be bogged down in front of the computer, so I probably would go the lab route considering that the difference in resolution is not vast. I am not sure if the labs can do higher resolution so I'll ask around.

if you are bothered by amount of time spend on post production digital images, you just need to practise "Get it RIGHT" during the capture of images, and set up a workflow to increase productivity.

if you are thinking of shooting in film will cut down your digital workflow, I think you will be very very disappointed.
beside the higher cost, you will need to
#1, buy film,
#2, load film,
#3, forward / unwind / unload film
#4, send the film for processing
#5, wait for the film to be processed/ scanned ready
#6, load the digitalize images into computer
#7, view and selected keepers and discard junks.

don't forget, there is no instant feedback for film photography, usually we bracket a lot of frames if the shots are important, if you are new to film photography, one or two frames are keepers is consider very good success rate.
Of course if you lower your expectation, you will have more keepers.

and also, if you don't mind wasting some unexposed frames, else you will have wait till finish a whole roll of 36 frames, than you send the film for processing. so it may takes some time for most people just to finish a roll of film.

in the end, you will spend even more time and money for switching the medium.

 

[tcdonline]

@catchlight: makes me think too much work behind film! My objective for not being too bogged down by computer is relating to post processing/editing. I was more interested in converting photos to scans. And yes to getting right in camera. Do you recommend scanning yourself or batch scan by local lab? I wasn't too pleased with the result I got but I should try a few more to get a better sense.

 

[catchlights]

@catchlight: makes me think too much work behind film! My objective for not being too bogged down by computer is relating to post processing/editing. I was more interested in converting photos to scans. And yes to getting right in camera. Do you recommend scanning yourself or batch scan by local lab? I wasn't too pleased with the result I got but I should try a few more to get a better sense.

What I'm telling you is you will have more works for shooting in film and scan to digital images, don't forget scanning the negative is also like capturing images and transform the data into digital.
you still have bad exposures, off color balance on your film, the people who scan your negatives are fixing that for you, but nobody is perfect, the outcome may not to your liking.
but if you scan your own, than you still have to fix everything yourself.

my advice is; if you want to keep it simple, get it right in camera and shoot in digital.

 

[kgston]

catchlights has a point; if you want to focus on pure image creation, digital can be a lot simpler, but that is not to say film photography is without its merits. You just need to find out for yourself what film can do for you that in digital, you cannot seem to achieve. Also, whether for that advantage, is it worth the hassle, time and money to go the film route? It really depends on what you want out of your photography journey. Every film photographer has their own unique reason for shooting film; some is for the equipment, some is for the film look, some is for the variety of films, some is for the cost (yes, film can be cheaper if you don't shoot a lot e.g. medium format) and etc.

But like catchlights mentioned, there are many drawbacks to using film. But many people use these drawbacks as a learning opportunity to improve their photography skills As you advance in photography, you will realize that it is essentially about increasing control over your images. So if you want to have less control, perhaps you need to climb back down the ladder. Nothing wrong with that really; for different people, photography means different things

 

[tcdonline]

@kgston & @catchlights: I can so see the hassle of film! Let me give it a go and see how bad the time and money hassles are. There's something about film which cannot be reproduced in digital even with Nik Software's Silver Efex and VSCO plugins.

 

[paapoopa]

@kgston & @catchlights: I can so see the hassle of film! Let me give it a go and see how bad the time and money hassles are. There's something about film which cannot be reproduced in digital even with Nik Software's Silver Efex and VSCO plugins.

i kind of agree to that,
and i find that besides the result, alot of film shooters enjoy the process of shooting film more, from choosing what film to shoot to how/what developer to process it to getting it print out in darkroom.
although i still hate the scanning part.