Hi End scanning service

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
    to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
    prints. I see two options:

    1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
    need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)
    2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.

    >From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

    the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
    would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
    number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
    cost effective to outsource it.

    So, can anyone recommend a high end pro lab that can give me amazing
    scans from my E6 film?

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Sam Carleton" <> wrote:
    >I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
    > to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
    > prints. I see two options:


    There's a third option. Shoot 6x7 and scan on either an Epson V750 or get
    professional scans.

    And a fourth option: Shoot with a Canon 5D.

    And a fifth option: Shoot with any 8MP or higher dSLR, mount the camera
    vertically on the tripod, and shoot three frames and stitch.

    > 1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
    > need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)


    For slide films, Nikon Scan is fine. I find negative films harder to scan.

    I scan E6 (Fujichrome Provia 100F mostly) on a Nikon 8000, and I don't like
    how the scans look for 24x36mm of film enlarged to 12x18. That's a 13x
    enlargement, and in my experience, slide films look really really wonderful
    at 7x and really really iffy at 13x.

    I'm assuming that your 12x18s will be hung on a wall and people will be able
    to walk up to them. If you can keep people 3 feet or more away, 35mm will be
    fine.

    > 2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.
    >
    >>From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

    > the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
    > would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
    > number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
    > cost effective to outsource it.


    Scanning isn't rocket science, and, IMHO, is worth putting in the time to
    learn. You'll learn a lot about photography. Since you've got the 5000, I
    strongly recommend doing it.

    On the other hand, if you have a deadline, just getting scans done
    professionally is the better part of valor. The other thing about getting
    pro scans done is that it gives you a benchmark to shoot for. So it's worth
    the money for a few of your sharper frames.

    One word of advice: a 4000 ppi scan is an extremely high magnification view
    of your film. Get a cheap 60x or 100x microscope to check sharpness. An 8x
    loupe simply isn't adequate. You don't want to pay pro scan prices for scans
    of soft images.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Sam Carleton <> wrote:
    >1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
    >need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)


    In my experience it is not the scanning that is hard, but the post processing.
    Well exposed slide film (I use mainly Provia and Astia) scans very well
    on an LS-4000, and I expect that the LS-5000 will not be any worse.

    But when you have the scan, you also have to know how to change the color
    balance, contrast, how to sharpen, etc. And you probably want to know about
    noise reduction as well.

    If you ever want to do digital photography, you have to get those skills
    as well.

    For scanning slides, NikonScan plus Photoshop should be good enough.

    >2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.


    If you don't know anything about digital printing, it might be
    a good idea to try outsource the complete process from slide to print.

    >>From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

    >the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
    >would prefer to spend behind the camera.


    Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
    should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.

    But post processing in general requires the ability to see how the image
    you got differs from what you want, and knowing how to correct is.
    And that requires quite a bit of training.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 29, 2006
    #3
  4. On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:55:43 +0100, (Philip Homburg)
    wrote:


    >Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
    >should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.



    Jeez, there's both you and Dave L. saying that.

    Personally, I find slides harder because of their
    much greater density.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote:
    > (Philip Homburg) wrote:
    >
    >>Scanning negatives is hard. Scanning well exposed slides on an LS-5000
    >>should not be any harder than using a RAW convertor for a digital camera.

    >
    > Jeez, there's both you and Dave L. saying that.
    >
    > Personally, I find slides harder because of their
    > much greater density.


    With a slide, you know what you are looking for, so you can correct for it.
    With negatives, you never know if it was a bad batch of film or developing,
    or you were having an off day with scanning. I've had some Reala go
    hideously orange on me.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/41640617/original

    I don't think the foliage was that orange that day. It might have been, but
    I sure don't remember it that way.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:04:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:


    >With a slide, you know what you are looking for, so you can correct for it.
    >With negatives, you never know if it was a bad batch of film or developing,
    >or you were having an off day with scanning. I've had some Reala go
    >hideously orange on me.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/41640617/original
    >
    >I don't think the foliage was that orange that day. It might have been, but
    >I sure don't remember it that way.



    I dunno. That image looks fine to me, and apparently
    you have one other reviewer who likes it as well.

    I checked this image with the Info tool to see if the
    neutrals are really neutral. I assume that most of the
    rooftops should be at or near neutral.

    Some are closer than others but there's no systematic
    color cast that I can discern.

    Overall the color balance is very nice (to my eyes)
    although you have blown out the highlights a bit --
    which you can see in one of the clouds. (And in
    the histogram.)

    I don't know what time of year this shot was taken
    but clearly the sun is fairly low, which would add
    warmth in any case.

    AIUA, most chromes have a deliberate bias
    toward blue, because they are (or were) meant
    to be projected with incandescent bulbs.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 29, 2006
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Raphael Bustin <> wrote:
    >Personally, I find slides harder because of their
    >much greater density.


    In my experience, well exposed Provia and Astia scan very well on
    Nikon scanners.

    With well exposed, I mean that everything you need is within the 5 stops
    where slide film has a more or less constant gamma.

    I switch to print film for anything that has more contrast than those
    5 stops.

    Of course, all to often there will be details in high lights or
    shadows that you want to save.

    But if OP is going to make slides with the intention of making high quality
    prints, then he simply has to make sure that the contrast does not
    exceed what the slide can handle, or he should switch to print film.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    Philip Homburg wrote:

    > But when you have the scan, you also have to know how to change the color
    > balance, contrast, how to sharpen, etc. And you probably want to know about
    > noise reduction as well.
    >
    > If you ever want to do digital photography, you have to get those skills
    > as well.
    >
    > For scanning slides, NikonScan plus Photoshop should be good enough.
    >
    > >2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.

    >
    > If you don't know anything about digital printing, it might be
    > a good idea to try outsource the complete process from slide to print.


    I have been digital capture now for about two years, shooting the Nikon
    D2H. There are two reasons for returning to film:

    1: The Nikkon 35-18 f/3.5~4.5 is a LOT cheaper then the 12-24/4. It
    looks like I can pick up a used one for about $200~$300 on eBay,
    compared to a new 12-24/4 for about $1000.
    2: I simply LOVE shooting film, there is nothing like looking at chrome
    on a light table!
    3: I do beleive that with a good scan and correct PP I can get better
    detail out of Velvia then I can my 4.1MP Nikon D2H. Mind you, I am
    targetting 13x19 and maybe larger prints.

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Sam Carleton" <> wrote:
    > >I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
    > > to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
    > > prints. I see two options:

    >
    > There's a third option. Shoot 6x7 and scan on either an Epson V750 or get
    > professional scans.
    >
    > And a fourth option: Shoot with a Canon 5D.
    >
    > And a fifth option: Shoot with any 8MP or higher dSLR, mount the camera
    > vertically on the tripod, and shoot three frames and stitch.


    Well, the later part of the 5th option won't work, for what I am
    shooting is NOT landscape, I have to capture it in one click, cannot
    stitch...

    The main reason I am NOT using my current dSLR (Nikon D2H) is not
    because of the lack of MP, but because of lack of funds for the correct
    lens for the project. I did consider shooting 6x7, but when I looked
    at the cost of the equipment, it would cost me more then the Nikon lens
    I need. Like I said in my other posting, I am in need of an ultra wide
    zoom for this project. And then there is the Canon 5D, great camera, I
    would love to have it, but it minus well be the Leica M8 (which I would
    opt for before the 5D).

    > Scanning isn't rocket science, and, IMHO, is worth putting in the time to
    > learn. You'll learn a lot about photography. Since you've got the 5000, I
    > strongly recommend doing it.


    You know what, I have been playing/learning about photography for years
    and years now. I am 35 and have been behind a camera camera sinse I
    was 14. This project is what I plain to use to launch me into a
    professional career as a photographer, so my goal is to invest my money
    and time in the best possible way. I don't think learning to scan film
    is the best use of either my time or money right now. I also think
    that I could use the $$$ for the 12-24 in film scanning and prints.

    Maybe my best bet is to find a lab that can simply print my chrome
    dirrectly and skip the whole digital phase of things all together.

    Sam
    http://www.miltonstreet.com
    http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
    http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Sam Carleton wrote:

    > I have been digital capture now for about two years, shooting the
    > Nikon D2H. There are two reasons for returning to film:
    >
    > 1: The Nikkon 35-18 f/3.5~4.5 is a LOT cheaper then the 12-24/4. It
    > looks like I can pick up a used one for about $200~$300 on eBay,
    > compared to a new 12-24/4 for about $1000.


    Smart money goes on the Tokina 12-24 ($475 NEW) since the Nikon 12-24 is an
    utter dog. The Tokina blows the Nikon away in every respect except AF
    speed, which isn't a concern at WA.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Sam Carleton

    ASAAR Guest

    On 29 Oct 2006 07:49:55 -0800, Sam Carleton wrote:

    > The main reason I am NOT using my current dSLR (Nikon D2H) is not
    > because of the lack of MP, but because of lack of funds for the correct
    > lens for the project. I did consider shooting 6x7, but when I looked
    > at the cost of the equipment, it would cost me more then the Nikon lens
    > I need. Like I said in my other posting, I am in need of an ultra wide
    > zoom for this project. And then there is the Canon 5D, great camera, I
    > would love to have it, but it minus well be the Leica M8 (which I would
    > opt for before the 5D).


    As you said that you'll only need 12 images, would it be worth
    considering renting the desired lens for a day or two? I assume
    that each picture won't be taken in a different city or country. :)
     
    ASAAR, Oct 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Sam Carleton wrote:
    >
    > > I have been digital capture now for about two years, shooting the
    > > Nikon D2H. There are two reasons for returning to film:
    > >
    > > 1: The Nikkon 35-18 f/3.5~4.5 is a LOT cheaper then the 12-24/4. It
    > > looks like I can pick up a used one for about $200~$300 on eBay,
    > > compared to a new 12-24/4 for about $1000.

    >
    > Smart money goes on the Tokina 12-24 ($475 NEW) since the Nikon 12-24 is an
    > utter dog. The Tokina blows the Nikon away in every respect except AF
    > speed, which isn't a concern at WA.


    Rita,

    When you say the Nikkor 12-24/4 is a dog, is this from personal
    experience? I have not owned either the Nikon or the Tokina, but I
    have handled both. I found the ring that switches the Tokina from MF
    to AF to be a really crummy design. In a camera store, initially I did
    something where it did not fully engage from one to the other. I did
    not like it, I don't want to be fumbling around like that when I am
    working.

    Also, from all I have read the Nikon is a hair better then the Tokina.
    Is it worth $500 more? It is relative. If you are not making money
    with it and you are simply a hobbies, more then likely not. If you are
    a pro, or someone working on becoming a pro (like I am), then IMHO
    every bit counts, every last bit. I have no problem spending 2X for a
    10% improvement in quality, if I have the 2X to spend. Otherwise I
    would prefer to punt and take another approach: Use equally sharp
    glass that cost 1/5 the price and shoot film. Mind you, I much prefer
    film over digital, I just cannot justify the cost of film for things
    like Senior portraits. For this project I can when I am saving $800 on
    a lens.

    Oh, and there is the last reason: I, personally, do *NOT* buy 3rd
    party lens. I have once or twice in the past and I have NEVER been
    satisfied.

    So, after over ten posts on this subject, I have yet seen an answer to
    my question:

    Where can I find a lab that can provide me with some hi rez scans of my
    35mm slides? I am looking for drum scans, actually. I guess I should
    have said that to begin with, opps;)
    --
    Sam
    http://www.miltonstreet.com
    http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
    http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #12
  13. "Sam Carleton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
    > to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
    > prints. I see two options:
    >
    > 1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
    > need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)
    > 2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.
    >
    > >From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

    > the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
    > would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
    > number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
    > cost effective to outsource it.
    >
    > So, can anyone recommend a high end pro lab that can give me amazing
    > scans from my E6 film?
    >
    > Sam


    Hi Sam,

    I'm surprised nobody suggested that you consider that professional slide
    scanners probably use a drum scanner and that they are the top quality you
    can expect from scanning slides. I've scanned on my Minolta slide scanner
    successfully, but newer scanners, in addition to more color bits, also have
    better dark image results.

    There is an aftermarket software program, providing that your scanner would
    be USB based, that can provide better dust management, I can't remember its
    name, because I didn't buy it(I just blew the dust off).

    Joe
     
    Joseph Rooney, Oct 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Sam Carleton

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Sam Carleton" <> writes:
    > When you say the Nikkor 12-24/4 is a dog, is this from personal
    > experience?


    I dunno whether the 12-24/4 is an outright dog, but I do know that the
    17-35/2.8 Nikkor is supposed to be one of the best Nikkors ever made.
    The 17-35 is around 1.5x the price of the 12-24 but it's a full stop
    faster in addition to having 2x the coverage. That immediately tells
    me the 12-24 is not a good value.

    The Tokina 12-24/4 and the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 have been well received
    on nikonians.org (a bunch of Nikophiles if there ever was one), if
    that matters.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Sam Carleton wrote:

    > When you say the Nikkor 12-24/4 is a dog, is this from personal
    > experience? I have not owned either the Nikon or the Tokina, but I
    > have handled both. I found the ring that switches the Tokina from MF
    > to AF to be a really crummy design. In a camera store, initially I
    > did something where it did not fully engage from one to the other. I
    > did not like it, I don't want to be fumbling around like that when I
    > am working.


    I've been mulling around the idea of getting a 12-24 to complete my bag.
    I'm using the17-35 f/2.8 right now and that is one sweet lens. There were a
    few times I could have used the 12-24, but didn't have it. I was fortunate
    that I was able to creatively make due without it. I've been in the
    "research" stage the last six weeks when it comes to the 12-24.

    I've played with both and I'm like you when it comes to third party lenses,
    I really don't want one. The issue for me is I can buy either one at a drop
    of the hat, but I'm not going to buy the Nikon since the sharpness and
    saturation is so much better on the Tokina. My feelings are any 12-24 I buy
    is going to be a throwaway when Nikon goes to a full frame sensor. The
    final image quality is the only thing that is important to me. So, the
    Tokina is going to be a stopgap for me till the FF Nikon hits the scene.
    The 17-35mm will be pretty much welded on the body.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 29, 2006
    #15
  16. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

    > I've played with both and I'm like you when it comes to third party lenses,
    > I really don't want one. The issue for me is I can buy either one at a drop
    > of the hat, but I'm not going to buy the Nikon since the sharpness and
    > saturation is so much better on the Tokina. My feelings are any 12-24 I buy
    > is going to be a throwaway when Nikon goes to a full frame sensor. The
    > final image quality is the only thing that is important to me. So, the
    > Tokina is going to be a stopgap for me till the FF Nikon hits the scene.
    > The 17-35mm will be pretty much welded on the body.


    Rita,

    Did you see this article:

    http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_1195.shtml

    FF Nikon does come up and an explaination of why it does not exist is
    give that I had not heard before: "The FF sensors are simply too
    expensive right now" I have a feeling that a FF Nikon is a ways off,
    like two to five years out. I don't think Nikon has written it off, I
    just also think they are not moving that direction real fast.

    Just thought I would let you know what I heard;)

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #16
  17. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    > As you said that you'll only need 12 images, would it be worth
    > considering renting the desired lens for a day or two? I assume
    > that each picture won't be taken in a different city or country. :)


    You know what, that makes a LOT of sense, I had not thought of that
    before. Maybe I could also rent a higher MP camera for the job, too.
    Thank you!

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Sam Carleton

    tomm42 Guest

    Sam Carleton wrote:
    > I am working on a project in which I am shooting 35mm E6. I am going
    > to need to get 12 high quality scans to make museum quality 12x18
    > prints. I see two options:
    >
    > 1: I can learn how to use my Nikon 5000 Coolscan (I am thinking I will
    > need to buy the $350 SilverFast software and a book or two)
    > 2: I could outsource it to a high end lab.
    >
    > >From what I have learned about scanning, it is a true art form. I get

    > the impression that it would take me some time to master it, time I
    > would prefer to spend behind the camera. Considering the limited
    > number of scans I need, I get the impression that it will also be more
    > cost effective to outsource it.
    >
    > So, can anyone recommend a high end pro lab that can give me amazing
    > scans from my E6 film?
    >
    > Sam


    Sam,
    The only way to beat the LS5000 by any apriciable way is to get the
    slides drum scanned. Your 12 images will cost about a grand to do,
    maybe more. As David said, be sure you have sharp images. You might
    want invest that money into a 2nd hand 17-35, as it is a far better
    lens than either 12-24.
    No matter what everyone says the D2H is hampered by low mp. If you want
    to go pro you want to get a camera with more res. A lot of stock
    agencies and magazines want bigger pics. 48mb has been mentioned for
    Getty and other big stock firms. A D2X or D200 will get you there
    easier.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Oct 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Sam Carleton

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Sam Carleton" <> writes:
    > I have a feeling that a FF Nikon is a ways off, like two to five years out.


    Doesn't sound likely. If Nikon doesn't have an FF sensor by next
    year, Canon will simply crush them out of existence and there will
    never be an FF Nikon.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 29, 2006
    #19
  20. Sam Carleton

    Sam Carleton Guest

    "Nikon earnings beat forecasts"

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Sam Carleton" <> writes:
    > > I have a feeling that a FF Nikon is a ways off, like two to five years out.

    >
    > Doesn't sound likely. If Nikon doesn't have an FF sensor by next
    > year, Canon will simply crush them out of existence and there will
    > never be an FF Nikon.


    Paul,

    You need to keep an closer eye on Rob Galbraith's web site. Here is
    one of the current headlines:

    "Nikon earnings beat forecasts"

    "October 26, 2006 12:13"

    "Japan's Nikon Corporation said today that it earned over 50% more than
    it expected in the six months to September on strong sales of digital
    cameras and precision equipment and a weak yen. "

    The rest of the store can be found here:
    http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1026/nikon.html

    I don't think Nikon is going anywhere, any time soon. Back in Feb 2005
    when I went digital with my D2H, I, too, wanted a FF Nikon. I have
    gotten over it. I know there are advantages to FF, but there are also
    disadvantages. I think Nikon knows what they are doing and their
    market, the article above confirms that. I am not expecting the D3
    series to be full frame, personally. I could be wrong, we must all
    wait and see;)

    Sam
     
    Sam Carleton, Oct 30, 2006
    #20
    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. ike lozada
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    650
    ike lozada
    May 27, 2004
  2. Dave

    Measure delay end-to-end

    Dave, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    609
  3. ec
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,780
    shinobi
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. RedRat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    743
    Aaron Leonard
    Feb 1, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
Loading...

Share This Page