I did an interesting test today and I thought someone may find this useful down the track. I have a whole bunch of slides and negatives to turn into a digital format so I figured I'd see how consumer scanners stack up to a propper film lab.
These 3 images are of the same negative scanned through 3 different machines. One is $130, the next $400, and the final was scanned at the time of processing on an Agfa mini lab. You can also get flatbed scanners which do the same job. Unfortunately, I don't have an example, but in my experience with the more expensive flatbeds (eg. Epson V700), they don't have the sharpness to yeild good results at high resolutions (though exposure is usually good).
Generally, you can pay around $25 to get your negatives developed and scanned onto disc through a good mini lab. These machines cost (or used to cost) upwards of $100,000 to purchase, with the choice to go right up near the $500,000 mark if you want to.
The lab generated image below is the cheapest, low resolution option on a reasonable quality lab. Even though it's only a 1.6 megapixel image I'd still prefer this over any other option. I was sooo hoping that the $400 scanner would come out as a good as a lab so I could scan film on the cheap forever :(
These pics are a little on the large side as I originally set them up for an 8x12" print.
$130 Kaiser Baas - instantaneous scan to SD card
$400 Plustek scanner - scanned in 4 separate passes for best exposure and dynamic range(took ages). Super huge resolution without very soft edges like a flatbed.
Developed and scanned by some dude in a lab for $13. I think they upped the density which affects the graph (shown by a gap) on the right side. The peak on the left of the graph suggests it was a little underexposed when I took it.
Although debatable, this is an example of good exposure levels (also affected at the time of taking the photo). The main concern with scanning is that it has smooth curves/gradients (not like the top one).Boring for people who just came to see pictures, but I thought it may be useful enough to share to the internets.
Leath.
2 comments:
Heya man, really intersting post. I've alway found scanning film a bit of a mystery. When I first did it on my scanner (epson V300 about $220?) i was like "what the hell is this?". I was expecting a perfect negative of what I had seen at the time I shot it. But at its natural state the colour are very differnt and there was practically no contrast. It took me a while to figure out how to get the most out of my scans, and I've found that it is extremely time conusming, so I just get them printed from a mini lab (and scan the ones I really like or think that I can save from underexposure) and commisioned stuff I get developed and printed at Atkins (a pro lab here that develops film by hand).
Hey Leath~,
I've been meaning to say "I like your micheal sera illo!" and the stripy illo "reminds me a fusion between beetle juice, cutie honey and cutie honey villan panther claw henchmen!nice" etc. but time has been against me~!
I really don't know much about photography but I have found this post really insightful :) Thanks Leath~! The difference is so crazy... The scanning stuff, does it only affect negatives?
Hope all is well over there~! :D
Post a Comment