35mm processed to digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Donald, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. Donald

    Donald Guest

    I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
    developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
    then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
    in one zip file.
    It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
    it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
    your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
    and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
    Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
    I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
    they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
    offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
    Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
    reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
    I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
    cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
    option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
    roughly $5-6.
    Hoping someone can help.

    Donald
     
    Donald, Mar 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donald

    Beano Guest

    Don't use Walmart. They have caused thousands of U.S. jobs to be moved
    overseas.

    "Donald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    |I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
    | developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
    | then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
    | in one zip file.
    | It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
    | it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
    | your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
    | and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
    | Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
    | I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
    | they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
    | offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
    | Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
    | reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
    | I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
    | cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
    | option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
    | roughly $5-6.
    | Hoping someone can help.
    |
    | Donald
     
    Beano, Mar 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I like these guys. http://www.dotphoto.com/PricingAndReturn.asp#film

    I have not used their film developing, and I am not sure if you can download
    your photos. Ought to be possible though...they seem to be able to do
    everything I ask of them. They return email too so ask them how its done.

    "Donald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
    > developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
    > then get off their website with one click to download all the order's

    files
    > in one zip file.
    > It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that

    makes
    > it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
    > your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
    > and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
    > Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
    > I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
    > they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
    > offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
    > Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
    > reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
    > I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
    > cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
    > option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
    > roughly $5-6.
    > Hoping someone can help.
    >
    > Donald
     
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 7, 2005
    #3
  4. Donald

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Donald wrote:
    > I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
    > developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
    > then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
    > in one zip file.
    > It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
    > it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
    > your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
    > and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
    > Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
    > I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
    > they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
    > offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
    > Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
    > reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
    > I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
    > cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
    > option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
    > roughly $5-6.
    > Hoping someone can help.
    >
    > Donald


    Kind of sums up some of the reasons I had for abandoning film completely
    for digital....


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Donald

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:12:53 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >Donald wrote:
    >> I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
    >> developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
    >> then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
    >> in one zip file.
    >> It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
    >> it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
    >> your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
    >> and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
    >> Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
    >> I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
    >> they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
    >> offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
    >> Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
    >> reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
    >> I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
    >> cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
    >> option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
    >> roughly $5-6.
    >> Hoping someone can help.
    >>
    >> Donald

    >
    >Kind of sums up some of the reasons I had for abandoning film completely
    >for digital....



    The odds are against film but film can still
    be worthwhile -- if you have clean processing,
    and if you're willing to scan it with the care
    it deserves.

    Once you move to MF or LF film, it's no contest,
    digital capture can't compare to well scanned film.
    With 35 mm it's still a fair contest.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Mar 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Donald

    TAFKAB Guest

    "rafe bustin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:12:53 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    > wrote:

    snip
    >
    >
    > The odds are against film but film can still
    > be worthwhile -- if you have clean processing,
    > and if you're willing to scan it with the care
    > it deserves.
    >
    > Once you move to MF or LF film, it's no contest,
    > digital capture can't compare to well scanned film.
    > With 35 mm it's still a fair contest.


    And that's precisely where I've landed. Canon 20D for most stuff, and a
    Mamiya 7II when I want best quality. I haven't seen anything digital that
    can touch the film that comes out of that camera.

    I've got to admit, though, the images from the Canon are what caused me to
    dump 35mm film. They're not quite film, if you shoot ISO 100 film, but at
    higher speeds, it's better than film. Add to that all the usual digital
    conveniences, and it was an easy switch.

    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    TAFKAB, Mar 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Donald

    Donald Guest

    Gene,
    Thanks for the quick reply
    Your about the only post on topic. So far I got some politics and a
    discussion of the merits of digital to film.
    Dotphoto does offer the hi res downloads of digitally processed film but
    they have a disclaimer they may charge for it in the future. Price to
    develop digitally with no hard prints is $3.99 which is not to bad but I
    was hoping to find something a little cheaper. It adds up pretty quick if I
    want a whole role developed $3.99 digital developing + 24 prints @ $.29
    puts me over $10 not even counting shipping. I'll put up with the Walmart
    headaches for that much. My search continues.
    Thanks again.

    Donald

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:46:01 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

    > I like these guys. http://www.dotphoto.com/PricingAndReturn.asp#film
    >
    > I have not used their film developing, and I am not sure if you can download
    > your photos. Ought to be possible though...they seem to be able to do
    > everything I ask of them. They return email too so ask them how its done.
     
    Donald, Mar 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Donald

    Ron Guest

    This sounds terribly complicated to me.

    Given all the time, expense and aggravation why not spend a hundred
    fifty bucks or less on a scanner that does negatives? My local Ritz
    camera will process a roll of 35mm film for about four bucks in a half
    hour or so. Run the negs through the scanner and you'll get great
    results. And, you'll have a scanner to digitize old prints.

    All of this is one reason why I went digital -- I use the film option
    when I need really high speed or to use some of my specialized 35mm
    lenses. And, for the record, I use an Epson 2580 scanner which gives me
    very fine results.
     
    Ron, Mar 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Donald

    rafe bustin Guest

    On 8 Mar 2005 04:15:43 -0800, "Ron" <> wrote:

    >This sounds terribly complicated to me.
    >
    >Given all the time, expense and aggravation why not spend a hundred
    >fifty bucks or less on a scanner that does negatives? My local Ritz
    >camera will process a roll of 35mm film for about four bucks in a half
    >hour or so. Run the negs through the scanner and you'll get great
    >results. And, you'll have a scanner to digitize old prints.
    >
    >All of this is one reason why I went digital -- I use the film option
    >when I need really high speed or to use some of my specialized 35mm
    >lenses. And, for the record, I use an Epson 2580 scanner which gives me
    >very fine results.



    Depends on how much time and effort (and skill, etc)
    you're willing to invest to get the very best image
    from a given piece of film.

    $150 isn't going to get you much of a scanner,
    unless you shop carefully for a vintage model on
    eBay or get very lucky. If that's your budget,
    you may be better off handing the job to Ritz.

    The Minolta 5400 is one of the best scanners
    available for 35 mm, and can be had now for
    around $700. A good scan of a sharp slide
    will easily beat a 6 Mpixel DSLR capture --
    but it will take some effort.

    I won't argue that digicams and DSLRs are
    quite a bit more convenient than shooting
    and scanning film. For "most practical
    purposes" 35 mm film has run its course,
    I agree.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe bustin, Mar 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Donald

    Donald Guest

    On 8 Mar 2005 04:15:43 -0800, Ron wrote:

    > This sounds terribly complicated to me.
    >
    > Given all the time, expense and aggravation why not spend a hundred
    > fifty bucks or less on a scanner that does negatives? My local Ritz
    > camera will process a roll of 35mm film for about four bucks in a half
    > hour or so. Run the negs through the scanner and you'll get great
    > results. And, you'll have a scanner to digitize old prints.
    >
    > All of this is one reason why I went digital -- I use the film option
    > when I need really high speed or to use some of my specialized 35mm
    > lenses. And, for the record, I use an Epson 2580 scanner which gives me
    > very fine results.


    Ron,
    Thanks for the feedback. The price I'm paying at Walmart to have the film
    digitized, I thought quite reasonable. It's the website's poor design
    causing me the frustration. I've considered the scanner option but find the
    time and effort involved to outway the $2 Walmart charges even with the
    downloading hassles. I'm not really interested in having the film processed
    to prints. I just want to get the digital files at reasonable cost.
     
    Donald, Mar 8, 2005
    #10
  11. rafe bustin wrote:
    >
    >
    > Depends on how much time and effort (and skill, etc)
    > you're willing to invest to get the very best image
    > from a given piece of film.
    >
    > $150 isn't going to get you much of a scanner,
    > unless you shop carefully for a vintage model on
    > eBay or get very lucky. If that's your budget,
    > you may be better off handing the job to Ritz.
    >
    > The Minolta 5400 is one of the best scanners
    > available for 35 mm, and can be had now for
    > around $700. A good scan of a sharp slide
    > will easily beat a 6 Mpixel DSLR capture --
    > but it will take some effort.
    >
    > I won't argue that digicams and DSLRs are
    > quite a bit more convenient than shooting
    > and scanning film. For "most practical
    > purposes" 35 mm film has run its course,
    > I agree.
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com



    Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
    film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
    offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
    don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
    people if one doesn't do it himself.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis, Mar 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <> writes:

    >Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
    >film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
    >offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
    >don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
    >people if one doesn't do it himself.


    There seem to be *three* levels of quality available at least. Kodak
    PhotoCD is 3072x2048 from a 35 mm source. Then there's Pro PhotoCD,
    which is 6144x4096. These are both in PhotoCD format which is mildly
    compressed (supposedly visually lossless) and has wide colour gamut (due
    to the ability to store negative values).

    And then there's the "photos on CD" service offered by lots of places,
    which are relatively low-resolution JPEGs. These will not capture
    what the film is capable of.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Mar 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Donald

    Jeremy Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:d0l13j$t2r$...
    > Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <> writes:
    >
    > >Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
    > >film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
    > >offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
    > >don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
    > >people if one doesn't do it himself.

    >
    > There seem to be *three* levels of quality available at least. Kodak
    > PhotoCD is 3072x2048 from a 35 mm source. Then there's Pro PhotoCD,
    > which is 6144x4096. These are both in PhotoCD format which is mildly
    > compressed (supposedly visually lossless) and has wide colour gamut (due
    > to the ability to store negative values).
    >
    > And then there's the "photos on CD" service offered by lots of places,
    > which are relatively low-resolution JPEGs. These will not capture
    > what the film is capable of.
    >
    > Dave


    Is Kodak still offering PhotoCD? Dale Labs discontinued it, and I can't
    order them through my warehouse club (they use Qualex). I thought that,
    with all the scanners now available, Kodak might have dumped this service.

    Anyone know if is still offered?
     
    Jeremy, Mar 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Donald

    Guest

    Donald,

    I had been a frequent user of "download all" for years. Today, I
    realized why they abruptly replaced this with the labor intensive
    method of having to download a single picture at a time. It's because
    they now have a "New" box on the envelopes where you can get a CD for
    about $1 more than what it cost to get the pictures online. So for
    Wal-Mart it was a business decision to make the online downloading
    harder in order to sell their CD service...how nice.

    -Dave
     
    , Mar 30, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Carey Barnett

    Folder being processed annoyance

    Carey Barnett, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,680
    Carey Barnett
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. ParaMind Brainstorming Software

    This folder is being processed....

    ParaMind Brainstorming Software, May 22, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    636
    Leonidas Jones
    May 22, 2004
  3. M. Souris
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    401
    Patrick L.
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. sameer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    12,874
    HRosita
    Sep 13, 2003
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    710
Loading...

Share This Page