Devloping 35mm film into digital pics: SnapFish vs Ofoto vs Shutterfly

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dan Irwin, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. Dan Irwin

    Dan Irwin Guest

    Hi

    This summer I went to California for a few weeks with my digital
    camera. After a few days I managed to lose my battery charger and was
    thus forced to use disposable cameras for the rest of the trip. When I
    got home I started looking around for a best way to get the pictures
    on the disposable cameras onto my computer in the highest quality.
    After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.

    Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    quality digital pics?

    Thanks for the help,

    Dan

    p.s.

    I don't care about getting actual prints, just getting the highest
    quality computer pics possible
     
    Dan Irwin, Sep 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dan Irwin

    Steven Guest

    On 19 Sep 2004 17:06:16 -0700, (Dan Irwin)
    wrote:

    >Hi
    >
    >This summer I went to California for a few weeks with my digital
    >camera. After a few days I managed to lose my battery charger and was
    >thus forced to use disposable cameras for the rest of the trip. When I
    >got home I started looking around for a best way to get the pictures
    >on the disposable cameras onto my computer in the highest quality.
    >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
    >
    >Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    >experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    >quality digital pics?
    >
    >Thanks for the help,
    >
    >Dan
    >
    >p.s.
    >
    >I don't care about getting actual prints, just getting the highest
    >quality computer pics possible




    I just checked snapfish to busy to check the others. After seaching
    all over the site I found that they scan your negs at 1536 x 1024 and
    say its good for a 8X10. Local labs will be a little more but I think
    at a better res. Call and find out. Walley work should be at a better
    res than this.

    Steve
     
    Steven, Sep 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dan Irwin

    Mark Sieving Guest

    (Dan Irwin) wrote:

    >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
    >
    >Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    >experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    >quality digital pics?


    I don't know about Snapfish and Shutterfly, but Ofoto will NOT
    give you high resolution digital images. They will develop your
    film, send you the negatives, and post low resolution images on
    their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
    printed.

    Mark Sieving
     
    Mark Sieving, Sep 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Dan Irwin

    Todd H. Guest

    Mark Sieving <> writes:

    > (Dan Irwin) wrote:
    >
    > >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
    > >
    > >Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    > >experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    > >quality digital pics?

    >
    > I don't know about Snapfish and Shutterfly, but Ofoto will NOT
    > give you high resolution digital images. They will develop your
    > film, send you the negatives, and post low resolution images on
    > their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
    > printed.


    Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
    quality for my purposes, however.

    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/
     
    Todd H., Sep 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Dan Irwin

    Dan Irwin Guest

    so i guess that makes Snapfish the winner?

    (Todd H.) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Mark Sieving <> writes:
    >
    > > (Dan Irwin) wrote:
    > >
    > > >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > > >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
    > > >
    > > >Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    > > >experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    > > >quality digital pics?

    > >
    > > I don't know about Snapfish and Shutterfly, but Ofoto will NOT
    > > give you high resolution digital images. They will develop your
    > > film, send you the negatives, and post low resolution images on
    > > their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
    > > printed.

    >
    > Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
    > quality for my purposes, however.
     
    Dan Irwin, Sep 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Dan Irwin

    Joe Pucillo Guest

    Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...
    > After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.


    Where are you located? Many times, you'll be able to find a
    local shop which can produce what you need without having to send
    you film through the mail.

    I've used three such labs here in my area that can develop the
    film and produce high quality 6Mp scans for less than $10 per
    roll. If you post your location, you might be able to find a
    better option.

    Incidentally, I have not been impressed with the work done by any
    of the three online houses you mentioned, but I do use
    printroom.com for some of my digital printing needs.

    --
    Joe Pucillo
    Baltimore, Maryland USA

    To reply by email, please remove the .xx
     
    Joe Pucillo, Sep 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Dan Irwin

    Dan Irwin Guest

    I live in north NJ. The techs at my local supermarket photo dpt are
    not that smart so I doubt they would even know the answer to these
    questions. Furthermore most places by me do not make photo cds without
    prints, thus jacking the price up to 11+ dollars per roll (2/3s of
    that price being for prints I don't want) and since I have about 20-30
    cameras and that price can get pretty high (and its all out of my
    pocket, my parents blaming me for losing the charger).

    Joe Pucillo <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...
    > > After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > > using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.

    >
    > Where are you located? Many times, you'll be able to find a
    > local shop which can produce what you need without having to send
    > you film through the mail.
    >
    > I've used three such labs here in my area that can develop the
    > film and produce high quality 6Mp scans for less than $10 per
    > roll. If you post your location, you might be able to find a
    > better option.
    >
    > Incidentally, I have not been impressed with the work done by any
    > of the three online houses you mentioned, but I do use
    > printroom.com for some of my digital printing needs.
     
    Dan Irwin, Sep 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Dan Irwin

    Joe Pucillo Guest

    Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...
    > Joe Pucillo wrote...
    > > Wasn't it Dan Irwin who said...


    > > > After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > > > using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.


    > > Where are you located? Many times, you'll be able to find a
    > > local shop which can produce what you need without having to send
    > > you film through the mail.


    > I live in north NJ. The techs at my local supermarket photo dpt are
    > not that smart so I doubt they would even know the answer to these
    > questions. Furthermore most places by me do not make photo cds without
    > prints, thus jacking the price up to 11+ dollars per roll [...]


    Develop and scan in a dust-free shop is going to run you about
    that much in most places for hi-rez images. But, you might want
    to check with Adorama in Manhattan (www.adorama.com) They have a
    digital lab that might be able to help you.

    Also, you might want to check with some of the mid-level camera
    stores in your area (stay away from the mall stores like Ritz, et
    al...) who would probably be able to either do your work or steer
    you in the right direction.

    While I wouldn't personally recommend them, I was once so
    stressed for time that I walked into a local CVS drug store and
    asked for a develop and lo-rez scan (no prints) and they charged
    me $8.95 (three for develop and 5.95 for the CD.)

    Maybe someone in the group from your area can help with more
    specific info on other providers. Good luck!

    --
    Joe Pucillo
    Baltimore, Maryland USA

    To reply by email, please remove the .xx
     
    Joe Pucillo, Sep 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Dan Irwin

    starlord Guest

    I've got over 500 photos online at snapfish and can get hi-rez copys on cd's
    from them for a extra fee. But I've been happy with them for 5 years now.

    Topcon Super D user


    --


    "And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke."
    Arthur C.Clarke 2062:eek:dyssey three

    SIAR
    www.starlords.org
    Telescope Buyers FAQ
    http://home.inreach.com/starlord
    Bishop's Car Fund
    http://www.bishopcarfund.netfirms.com/

    "Dan Irwin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > so i guess that makes Snapfish the winner?
    >
    > (Todd H.) wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Mark Sieving <> writes:
    > >
    > > > (Dan Irwin) wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >After I looked around the best [and cheapest] way to do this were
    > > > >using one of three sites: SnapFish, Ofoto, and Shutterfly.
    > > > >
    > > > >Now I have to decide between these three. Has anyone had any
    > > > >experience with them? Which will turn the 35mm film Into the highest
    > > > >quality digital pics?
    > > >
    > > > I don't know about Snapfish and Shutterfly, but Ofoto will NOT
    > > > give you high resolution digital images. They will develop your
    > > > film, send you the negatives, and post low resolution images on
    > > > their website so that you can choose which pictures you want
    > > > printed.

    > >
    > > Shutterfly is the same way. I've been quite happy with their print
    > > quality for my purposes, however.



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/04
     
    starlord, Sep 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Dan Irwin

    Udie Lafing Guest

    Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
    in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?



    In article <>,
    "starlord" <> wrote:

    > I've got over 500 photos online at snapfish and can get hi-rez copys on cd's
    > from them for a extra fee. But I've been happy with them for 5 years now.
    >
    > Topcon Super D user
    >

    --
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    LOL
     
    Udie Lafing, Sep 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Dan Irwin

    Dan Irwin Guest

    because at one point 35mm film does have to be devloped in a DARKROOM.

    Udie Lafing <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
    > in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?
    >
    >
    >
    > In article <>,
    > "starlord" <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've got over 500 photos online at snapfish and can get hi-rez copys on cd's
    > > from them for a extra fee. But I've been happy with them for 5 years now.
    > >
    > > Topcon Super D user
    > >
     
    Dan Irwin, Sep 23, 2004
    #11
  12. Dan Irwin

    Udie Lafing Guest

    Assuming he uses film.

    In article <>,
    (Dan Irwin) wrote:

    > because at one point 35mm film does have to be devloped in a DARKROOM.
    >
    > Udie Lafing <> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    > > Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
    > > in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?

    --
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    LOL
     
    Udie Lafing, Sep 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Dan Irwin

    starlord Guest

    If he doesn't know that a 1968 ( bought in PX while in Vietnam ) Topcon
    Super D uses FILM, then he sure doesn't know his cameras very well.


    --


    "And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke."
    Arthur C.Clarke 2062:eek:dyssey three

    SIAR
    www.starlords.org
    Telescope Buyers FAQ
    http://home.inreach.com/starlord
    Bishop's Car Fund
    http://www.bishopcarfund.netfirms.com/

    "Udie Lafing" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Assuming he uses film.
    >
    > In article <>,
    > (Dan Irwin) wrote:
    >
    > > because at one point 35mm film does have to be devloped in a DARKROOM.
    > >
    > > Udie Lafing <> wrote in message
    > > news:<>...
    > > > Good for you. This applies to rec.DARKROOM How? Sitting in the dark
    > > > in your underwear while your computer uploads the images?

    > --
    > ?
    > ?
    > ?
    > ?
    > LOL



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/04
     
    starlord, Sep 29, 2004
    #13
    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. Teresa

    Shutterfly, Ofoto, or Snapfish? . . .

    Teresa, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,725
    Webkatz
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. Dan Irwin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    Dan Irwin
    Aug 24, 2004
  3. Robert J Batina

    shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto Prints

    Robert J Batina, Aug 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,035
    c0smic
    Aug 27, 2004
  4. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    117
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  5. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    116
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page