Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Req: High resolution 35mm -> TIFF/RAW film development

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 6, 2005 2:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

I'm looking for a way to develop my 35mm film to high quality (at least
2000 x 3000) TIFF or RAW images. Most of the chains only provide 1000
x 1500 or worse, and the format is in highly compressed Jpeg.
Post-processing is impossible if you ever hope to print an 8x10 from
it. The obvious answer is to drop another few thousand dollars on a
digital SLR and all the lenses, but I'd prefer to avoid that if
possible. Going from film to print isn't an option since I need to do
post-processing.

The best I found so far is a site that offers "descrete" film
development to TIFF ( 2000 x 3000) at about $1/TIFF:

http://www.filmdevelopingbymail.com

Since I'm not doing anything racy, I'd prefer to avoid the "descretion"
premium. Has anyone on these groups found a good developer that offers
35mm -> RAW/TIFF for less than $1/image? Ritz, Fuji, Walgreen's,
Walmart?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

I tried a scanner and the results (from negative) were too poor. Plus
I had to pay $7 to develop the film. I was hoping to find some place
where you mail in the roll of film, and they mail back the negatives
and the high res images on CD. Of course these exist with the
exception of quality RAW images at 2000 x 3000 resolution.

Honestly I've thought that Wal-Mart and big chains like that were
making thier prints from digital scans anyway. Just a matter of
burning the CD *BEFORE* they reduce the resolution.

I haven't worked in photo development so I may be way off base in that
assumtions though.
May 7, 2005 12:21:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Have you ever considered buying a scanner?
An Epson 4189 flat bed does a reasonable job on 35mm originals for less than
$150. A dedicated film scanner that will produce even better results can be
obtained for a bit more.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 3:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

The product you want is Kodak Photo CD or the higher resolution Photo
CD Pro. Do not confuse these with Picture CD which is a low-end
consumer product.
May 7, 2005 3:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dan" <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115402116.174939.206680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm looking for a way to develop my 35mm film to high quality (at least
> 2000 x 3000) TIFF or RAW images. Most of the chains only provide 1000
> x 1500 or worse, and the format is in highly compressed Jpeg.
> Post-processing is impossible if you ever hope to print an 8x10 from
> it. The obvious answer is to drop another few thousand dollars on a
> digital SLR and all the lenses, but I'd prefer to avoid that if
> possible. Going from film to print isn't an option since I need to do
> post-processing.
>
> The best I found so far is a site that offers "descrete" film
> development to TIFF ( 2000 x 3000) at about $1/TIFF:
>
> http://www.filmdevelopingbymail.com
>
> Since I'm not doing anything racy, I'd prefer to avoid the "descretion"
> premium. Has anyone on these groups found a good developer that offers
> 35mm -> RAW/TIFF for less than $1/image? Ritz, Fuji, Walgreen's,
> Walmart?
>


Hi there.

As has already been suggested the sensible option, and probably the cheapest
in the long run, would be a Film Scanner. Once you have had your films
developed, the only other cost would be blank Cd R, and they are dirt cheap.

You don't even need to get your films printed, just developed, and ask for
the film to be cut into 6 neg strips or returned uncut. Most Scanners work
with 6 neg strips.

For Archiving purposes it is best to use the Gold Cd Rs rather than the
Silver or Green ones. They cost a little bit more, but are still cheap.

In the old days, Scanners used to be much better at slides than negs, but
that no longer seems to be the case. Almost any of them will give you even
more pixels than you need.

Have a look at the Minolta Dimage range.

Roy G
May 7, 2005 2:58:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The scanner is an interesting option and I will check it out. Since
this is for professional work, I have my doubts. I've generally gotten
high resolution with scanners, but find the quality is below par when
comparied with the larger comercial machines the photo shops use.

But I've been out of the scanner market for a few years, so that may
have changed.
May 7, 2005 3:04:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> The product you want is Kodak Photo CD or the higher resolution Photo
> CD Pro. Do not confuse these with Picture CD which is a low-end
> consumer product.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

In article <1115413396.040997.120340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Dan Bryant" <dkbryant@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I tried a scanner and the results (from negative) were too poor.

What scanner did you try and how were the results unacceptable? It's
possible you were using a poor scanner, poor software, or poor settings,
and you'd get acceptable results by making some changes. OTOH, it's also
possible you're just very demanding and wouldn't be happy with anything
short of a very expensive scanner's output.

> I was hoping to find some place
> where you mail in the roll of film, and they mail back the negatives
> and the high res images on CD. Of course these exist with the
> exception of quality RAW images at 2000 x 3000 resolution.

Most "photos on CD" products deliver in the ~1000x1500 format. To go
beyond that, you'll need a higher class of service. I'm pretty sure that
Dale Labs (http://www.dalelabs.com) will do this, but I've not used their
film scanning service, and I haven't verified that they can do this
resolution. More generally speaking, you could look for a lab that
advertises Photo CDs. These are higher resolution than the Picture CDs
that most outfits deliver. Chances are you'll need to go to an outfit that
caters to higher-end photographers, not Wal-Mart or the like.

> Honestly I've thought that Wal-Mart and big chains like that were
> making thier prints from digital scans anyway. Just a matter of
> burning the CD *BEFORE* they reduce the resolution.

I suspect that they scan at lower resolution than you want in order to
speed things up, even if their equipment is able to do higher resolution
scans.

--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dan" <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115488731.092808.293970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The scanner is an interesting option and I will check it out. Since
> this is for professional work, I have my doubts. I've generally gotten
> high resolution with scanners, but find the quality is below par when
> comparied with the larger comercial machines the photo shops use.
>
> But I've been out of the scanner market for a few years, so that may
> have changed.
>

You haven't tried a decent 4000dpi scanner. Results are stunning.

Not as good as a high-end D2X or 1DsMkII, but darn good.
May 9, 2005 6:04:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

I used an older scanner, so I'm sure that the new ones will likely be
better.

One of my issues with the use of a scanner is the up front costs and
effort. I'd prefer to pay $10 / roll to have someone else do it.

The reason I've been so disapointed with the quality in the past is
because of the lossy aspects of jpeg compression. If I pull a jpeg
into photoshop make some changes then save back to jpeg, you get two
lossy compression runs.

Film -> RAW -> (loss) Jpeg -> RAW -> photoshop -> (loss) Jpeg.

When I try to take a image that has been through that path and produce
an 8x10 from it, the results are terrible. I could produce the print
from the photoshop file (to avoid the second loss), but then there's
the problem of finding a shop to print from photoshop (which is another
premium to pay).

The idea of finding a place that produces Photo CD's is a good one, but
Kodak discontinued this standard last year, and I haven't found many
retailers maintaining it.

I agree that there are lots of workarounds, but the ideal path seemd to
be a film -> RAW retailer. But it sounds more and more like that is
rare to nonexistant.

Thanks for your help though.

Rod Smith wrote:
> In article <1115413396.040997.120340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dan Bryant" <dkbryant@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > I tried a scanner and the results (from negative) were too poor.
>
> What scanner did you try and how were the results unacceptable? It's
> possible you were using a poor scanner, poor software, or poor
settings,
> and you'd get acceptable results by making some changes. OTOH, it's
also
> possible you're just very demanding and wouldn't be happy with
anything
> short of a very expensive scanner's output.
>
> > I was hoping to find some place
> > where you mail in the roll of film, and they mail back the
negatives
> > and the high res images on CD. Of course these exist with the
> > exception of quality RAW images at 2000 x 3000 resolution.
>
> Most "photos on CD" products deliver in the ~1000x1500 format. To go
> beyond that, you'll need a higher class of service. I'm pretty sure
that
> Dale Labs (http://www.dalelabs.com) will do this, but I've not used
their
> film scanning service, and I haven't verified that they can do this
> resolution. More generally speaking, you could look for a lab that
> advertises Photo CDs. These are higher resolution than the Picture
CDs
> that most outfits deliver. Chances are you'll need to go to an outfit
that
> caters to higher-end photographers, not Wal-Mart or the like.
>
> > Honestly I've thought that Wal-Mart and big chains like that were
> > making thier prints from digital scans anyway. Just a matter of
> > burning the CD *BEFORE* they reduce the resolution.
>
> I suspect that they scan at lower resolution than you want in order
to
> speed things up, even if their equipment is able to do higher
resolution
> scans.
>
> --
> Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
> http://www.rodsbooks.com
> Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:14:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

"Dan" <dkbryant@gmail.com> writes:
> One of my issues with the use of a scanner is the up front costs and
> effort. I'd prefer to pay $10 / roll to have someone else do it....
> I agree that there are lots of workarounds, but the ideal path seemd to
> be a film -> RAW retailer. But it sounds more and more like that is
> rare to nonexistant.

RAW is a camera format, for scanners you'd get TIFF files. Scanners
usually have separate ccd's for RGB and don't need de-mosaicing.

Any digital lab will scan film for you, but if you want quality scans
it will be quite a bit more than $10/roll.

Film scanners aren't that expensive, maybe you should just buy one.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

I would approach a local independent lab, rather than a large chain. We
offer this service here in the UK but charge a lot more than £10 a roll.

Gaz.


"Dan" <dkbryant@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115402116.174939.206680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm looking for a way to develop my 35mm film to high quality (at least
> 2000 x 3000) TIFF or RAW images. Most of the chains only provide 1000
> x 1500 or worse, and the format is in highly compressed Jpeg.
> Post-processing is impossible if you ever hope to print an 8x10 from
> it. The obvious answer is to drop another few thousand dollars on a
> digital SLR and all the lenses, but I'd prefer to avoid that if
> possible. Going from film to print isn't an option since I need to do
> post-processing.
>
> The best I found so far is a site that offers "descrete" film
> development to TIFF ( 2000 x 3000) at about $1/TIFF:
>
> http://www.filmdevelopingbymail.com
>
> Since I'm not doing anything racy, I'd prefer to avoid the "descretion"
> premium. Has anyone on these groups found a good developer that offers
> 35mm -> RAW/TIFF for less than $1/image? Ritz, Fuji, Walgreen's,
> Walmart?
>
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.misc (More info?)

Wasn't it Dan who said...
> I'm looking for a way to develop my 35mm film to high quality (at least
> 2000 x 3000) TIFF or RAW images.

Call Rob at The f/Stop near Baltimore (410-882-6110) He'll do
what you're looking for. I use him for printing and he's top-
notch.

Good luck!

--
Joe Pucillo
Baltimore, Maryland USA

To reply by email, please remove the .xx
!