Film developers scan service - sizes based on resolution or file size?

[Hallsy]

For those that have sampled a few film dev & scan services, do all of them base their size (and so price) structure on final file size rather than scan resolution?

I have used filmdev for my colour films so far and been really impressed by their service so far, nice quality scans, fast turn around and download service - great!

However, what I find a bit annoying is that I have had both 35mm and 120 developed, always at 'medium' scan quality.

Now in my mind, the small/medium/large structure would apply to the scan resolution and so the possible final image size. But in practice they seem to base this on overall file size, maybe due to the cost of hosting larger files.

Either way, I feel a bit short changed when a 35mm medium scan has a larger resolution (and so final print size) than a 120 6x6 medium scan - from a quick calc earlier it seems to equate to approx 2400dpi for 35mm (3091x2048) and around 1000dpi for 6x6 120 (2079x2048).

I appreciate that a larger format negative printed at the same size as a smaller format negative would show less grain (do I have that right?), but if the larger negative has been scanned at a lower resolution to match the file size of the smaller negative, surely any gain from the larger format is lost?

Or am I talking rubbish

Is this standard practice?

I don't mind paying for large scans for my medium format, but I can never guarantee they are worth it until I get them back

 

[Lemaildetom]

So if you buy medium quality of 35mm you get 3091x2048 and if you buy medium quality of a 6x6 you get 2079x2048? There must be something wrong!

I appreciate that a larger format negative printed at the same size as a smaller format negative would show less grain (do I have that right?)

Yes you are. If it's the same film emultion, shot and developed in the same way then you should get exactly the same grain of the same size on the negative. If you print both at the same size, the smaller negative need to get blown out more and the grain are enlarged. Really it's the same as if you were to take a 35mm negative and print it and take a large crop in it and print it at the same size.

but if the larger negative has been scanned at a lower resolution to match the file size of the smaller negative, surely any gain from the larger format is lost?

Not really, you just get a rubbish scan. Look if you scan it at 1dpi you won't see the grain anymore! You won't see much anything...

 

[skysh4rk]

Now in my mind, the small/medium/large structure would apply to the scan resolution and so the possible final image size.

Well, I think surface area of the film is important here.

As 6x6cm is roughly four times the size of a frame of 135 format, to scan at the same DPI would result in much greater cost in terms of time, money, and effort (e.g., bigger files, more dust, more hard drive storage, more internet bandwidth for downloads, etc.).

I believe that the lab's scanning options and outputs are also constrained by the hardware.

Even with lower DPI though, a medium format scan has to be enlarged less, so you will still see sharper images, better tonality, and less grain, all other things being equal. I can certainly see a difference and that's why I don't shoot 135. I ordinarily opt for large scans though from CFL for my medium format.

 

[Hallsy]

So if you buy medium quality of 35mm you get 3091x2048 and if you buy medium quality of a 6x6 you get 2079x2048? There must be something wrong!

I've had a few of each film type scanned, all at 'medium' and that's how it is!!
Thinking about it, my thoughts about it being based on file size and the cost of hosting doesn't wash either.....because at only 12 images, they could be scanned at a higher res and have the same overall file size as 36 135 exposures!

Not really, you just get a rubbish scan. Look if you scan it at 1dpi you won't see the grain anymore! You won't see much anything...

Good point

 

[Hallsy]

Well, I think surface area of the film is important here.

As 6x6cm is roughly four times the size of 135, to scan at the same DPI would result in much greater cost in terms of time and money (e.g., bigger files, more hard drive storage, more internet bandwidth for downloads, etc.).

I believe that the lab's scanning options and outputs are also constrained by the hardware.

Even with lower DPI though, a medium format scan has to be enlarged less, so you will still see sharper images, better tonality, and less grain, all other things being equal. I can certainly see a difference and that's why I don't shoot 135. I ordinarily opt for large scans though from CFL for my medium format.

Film surface may well come into it, but as above, the final resolution from a 6x6 is smaller than that from a 135...and that's with only 12 images to scan and upload, versus 36 from the 135!!

In this particular case the medium format scan is smaller than the 135, so if both printed at 300dpi, the medium format has a smaller maximum print size!

 

[skysh4rk]

Film surface may well come into it, but as above, the final resolution from a 6x6 is smaller than that from a 135...and that's with only 12 images to scan and upload, versus 36 from the 135!!

In this particular case the medium format scan is smaller than the 135, so if both printed at 300dpi, the medium format has a smaller maximum print size!

I guess you will need to pay for a bigger scan, if that is what you need. I ordinarily pay for the size that I require for printing (which is usually 12"x12").

As I understand it, Fuji Frontiers, which are the scanners that most labs use, are set up for printing, not saving to file. As such, labs actually select print sizes on the unit and then the machine scans at the appropriate resolution to achieve 300DPI prints at that size. Because medium format is bigger than 135, if you select the same print size for these two formats, the resulting scan DPI for medium format will be much lower, as the large film area will require less enlargement to achieve the desired print DPI.

At any rate, to me, a medium 6x6cm scan just means that the scan size is in the middle of the available size offerings for 6x6cm (or it should anyway). A medium 6x6cm scan doesn't necessarily say anything about how it compares to scans of other formats such as 135 and vice versa. Perhaps the lab could use a different naming convention to avoid confusion or between-format comparisons, but I'm not sure what this would be.

 

[Hallsy]

I totally agree skysh4rk - I probably will start ordering 'large' sized scans from MF, just that I find their sizing structure a little odd, and wondered how other labs compare. Many labs don't really advertise specifics when it comes to scan sizes from what I have seen when looking around online. In the end I picked filmdev as they had a good rep and fast turnaround.

I have no experience of how a lab scanner is setup, but what you suggest makes sense. Filmdev use a Noritsu unless you specify the Fuji.

From what I have received a medium 135 scan will produce a 10.3" x 6.8" print and the 6x6 will produce a 6.9" x 6.8" print, at 300 dpi.

In my head, a 10x7" print from 135 would probably be considered 'medium' sized, but a 7x7 from MF seems closer to 'small' - but as you suggest, that is from considering the input size of the negative, rather than a generic small/medium/large final print size.

Not that it really matters, I was just curious to see if it was the norm. I can always rescan images that I feel are worth it for printing, but my v600 is not going to hold a candle to a lab scanner!

 

[excalibur2]

Well Andy it's nice to have max scans if you have plenty of money but you say "I don't mind paying for large scans for my medium format, but I can never guarantee they are worth it until I get them back".....well the point is:- are they for prints or posting here at 1000px on the longest side?
As you have a decent scanner why not get minimum scans and any winners scan yourself to post here, of course if you are going to have say one or two, say at 12X16 prints, it would cost more for a lab to scan one or two negs (that were not done at the same time as dev) and print them...but how many winners do you get on average using rolls of film?
Without looking it up I don't know the resolution of a decent monitor (not £700 plus pro model) but for me when... 6 X 4.5 and 6X7 and 35mm are squashed down to 1000px on the longest side there is less of a difference in quality esp if 35mm was 100ASA and MF was 400 ASA.
So it all comes down to costs, if you want to keep more money in your pocket why don't you scan with your Epson 600 and get a print done and see what it come out like....what I have to try for a large print (only used them for special offer of 100 plus 100 of 6X4 prints for £5) is this place:-
http://www.aldiphotos.co.uk/photo-prints/ h'mm 12X8" for 32p and 12X18" for 99p can't be bad for those prices but when you send off your jpg you'll have to make sure there are no spots etc as I would think they would just print and no touching up.

 

[Hallsy]

That's just it Brian, I don't often print my images, but it is something I want to make more of an effort to do.

I had a roll of Portra 160 back and there were a couple of images I fancied printing so I was doing the math on what size Is could get at 300dpi....that's when it dawned on me, and I made the comparison between MF and 135 scan resolutions.

In fairness, I had considered saving my money by going with small scans and rescanning any that merit it - I don't mind so much with MF as it's only 12 or 10 frames depending which body I use, but for 35mm I'm happy to pay for medium scans as they are a decent size and saves me a bit of work!! I find that the Epson holders work better for MF than 135.

I do plan to do a bit of test printing this weekend

 

[skysh4rk]

That's just it Brian, I don't often print my images, but it is something I want to make more of an effort to do.

If you want to print more images, I would suggest to make it easy to print images by getting the appropriate-sized scans from the start. If your images aren't worth printing to that size, it's not the scans that are the issue, but your photographic choices, compositions, selectivity, technique, etc. that must be examined and/or developed.

How often will you really go back to scan images, especially if you're already behind on printing? I basically never go back because it's a lot of effort and because flatbeds just can't match the lab scans from Frontiers. I know my Epson is buried in the back of the wardrobe.

I save my special ones for the darkroom (or maybe sometimes a Hasselblad flextight or drum scan for a really special colour photograph), but everything else is basically lab scanned at the largest size for great colour, quality, and easy printing with minimal time and effort.

That all said, there really is no right or wrong way to do it. Choose whatever best suits you and what you want to achieve/experience/do.

 

[Hallsy]

If you want to print more images, I would suggest to make it easy to print images by getting the appropriate-sized scans from the start. If your images aren't worth printing to that size, it's not the scans that are the issue, but your photographic choices, compositions, selectivity, technique, etc. that must be examined and/or developed.

I've only been shooting film for a few months, so I don't doubt my technique needs some development!! I'm learning & experimenting with every roll and that means I can't guarantee a roll of keepers, but I do get a few here and there!!

 

[excalibur2]

That's just it Brian, I don't often print my images, but it is something I want to make more of an effort to do.

I had a roll of Portra 160 back and there were a couple of images I fancied printing so I was doing the math on what size Is could get at 300dpi....that's when it dawned on me, and I made the comparison between MF and 135 scan resolutions.

In fairness, I had considered saving my money by going with small scans and rescanning any that merit it - I don't mind so much with MF as it's only 12 or 10 frames depending which body I use, but for 35mm I'm happy to pay for medium scans as they are a decent size and saves me a bit of work!! I find that the Epson holders work better for MF than 135.

I do plan to do a bit of test printing this weekend

Just AAMOI what you can get away with viewing on a monitor....a filmdev dev and scan ETRS neg (it was 10 year old Fuji film) for 1316 X 1771px, reduced to 1000px longest side to post here, also a 500px crop.

]