Question about lab developing

jamesoliverstone

jamesoliverstone

Messages
2,145
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I just got my first roll of 120 back from the lab, and I am somewhat dissapointed.

Basically, I paid for development and hi resolution scanning. I was told that the scan would be 50mp+ so I was expecting to see nice high resolution files come back on CD, but what I got was 16mp JPG files at around 3mb in size.

Before I go back to them, is this what you would expect? To be honest I was expecting huge TIFF files, and not compressed JPG's

Is this right? I was hoping that MF would give me giant detailed scans...

not to mention they were also covered in dust marks and scratches...
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Hi all, I just got my first roll of 120 back from the lab, and I am somewhat dissapointed.

Basically, I paid for development and hi resolution scanning. I was told that the scan would be 50mp+ so I was expecting to see nice high resolution files come back on CD, but what I got was 16mp JPG files at around 3mb in size.

Before I go back to them, is this what you would expect? To be honest I was expecting huge TIFF files, and not compressed JPG's

Is this right? I was hoping that MF would give me giant detailed scans...

not to mention they were also covered in dust marks and scratches...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be happy with that. What lab was it? If you have paid for a service I would ask them to sort it out.
 
Well, I was recommended AGPhoto as they do these 50mp+ scans on some £10,000 scanner apparently...

I used them as it was only a test and I wanted to see what a high resolution MF scan would look like... not impressed really...
 
They can be made to look bloody amazing! Click through this one from Pookeyhead (not on your phone). I'd try to get them to rescan if possible, from the sounds of it I get better scans from my £100 v500.
 
Agreed, I get bigger scans from my v700. I would speak to them on the phone and ask why the scans were so small and of such a poor quality, especially with marks etc showing up. How do the negatives look? Are they dirty or scratched?
 
Can you post an example, especially of the 'dust marks and scratches'? It's very very difficult to get rid of the former, although I'm surprised by the appearance of the latter - a lab should not be making those kind of mistakes, especially when amateurs don't make them.

Also, I've seen people fall into this marketing trap before about scans, it is usually the size of the scan uncompressed in the imaging software that they quote (how ridiculous is that). Have a look at this link:

IMPORTANT: It is standard practice to quote the file size in Mb when the file is OPEN (being viewed on screen) in Photoshop or other software, NOT the file size on disk, which is smaller. JPEG files are very clever and collapse to a smaller size when closed - read more below.
Click to expand...

So, the files you supply are Jpeg - I thought these were "inferior" files?
No, Jpeg is a very superior file type as it compresses large image files so that they are easier to store and send. As long as you do not keep saving a jpeg multiple times, it is an ideal file format.
Click to expand...

Personally I think that is just making excuses for why they don't want to bother with TIFF - yes, JPEG is very good at compressing, but it's very good at compressing files in a lossy way, which is hardly ideal. Additionally, they talk about being easier to send, but they send the scans back on a CD anyway... they aren't uploading them to the web!

Bear in mind it isn't only AG that does the 'image size when opened' trick - check out Peak Imaging doing the same as well: http://www.peak-imaging.co.uk/
 
Faster fingers than me FC2 :)
 
I think most of the F&C lot know that this is an uncompressed size. However, a file that should be 80mb or so is quite heavily compressed to get it down to 3mb. IQ will have suffered a lot at that point and it will look bad. I quite often end up with jpegs 3 to 5 times that size when outputting at high quality from a raw or tiff scan.
 
I'm no expert on this (at my age I get confused very easily by technology) but when I scan 120 negs at 4800dpi on my Epson V500 I end up with 30mp+ jpeg files and even bigger TIFF ones so why they are coming back so small from AG is very strange.
Also, the negs should not be scratched or overly dusty, very poor show.

Andy
 
James,

What they scan at and what you can open at are two different things, you need to look at there small print, my own developer states what he scans at X and then what the Jpeg file is when opened, much clearer in my opinion.

Richard.
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
I had lab scans done once and then bought a scanner to do it myself! Mind you I abandoned labs completely when I stopped shooting colour film.
Click to expand...

And Jim that was your downfall.(y):D;)
 
Thanks for the replies all.

I have emailed them (as the havent been answering the phone for 2 days now) to let them know that I am very dissapointed.

I suppose nothing will come of it, but I am more annoyed as it was my first roll of MF and I was expecting more quality... (I do understand about file sizes and megapixels, that wasnt my issue). The problem was they stated it would be a 50mp hi-res scan, but its not its 16mp compressed JPG, which is not what I paid for.

I guess the problem is that I have seen photos and scans from 120 film shot on this very camera, so I know what the quality of image can look like when treated well.

I guess I will have to put another roll through it and send it to a much better place to be developed and scanned.

You live and learn...
 
James, if you want me to scan them in and send you the tiff files I am happy to try. You can always see if there is any improvement over the lab scanning.
 
My scans usually come out at 50mb+ at 3200 DPI - the ones you purchased should be of a much larger file + without scratches/dust marks - even at uni nobody makes that mistake.
 

TP Scanner Test PP-2 by menthel, on Flickr

Just an example (shot by Danny Mahoney whom used to frequent these parts) of what even my cruddy old canoscan did. Click through for a 2000 pixel long side version. It was a big as I could go with a decent jpeg iq!
 
Let's put it like this - it isn't a coincidence that almost all of us bought our own scanners at some point. A V500 pays for itself very quickly, and still retains its value well in the second hand market.

Poor scanning services continue to push people down that road - is it so difficult to offer decent TIFFs, especially when most lab scanner software will output them automatically if required?!
 
freecom2 said:
Let's put it like this - it isn't a coincidence that almost all of us bought our own scanners at some point. A V500 pays for itself very quickly, and still retains its value well in the second hand market.

Poor scanning services continue to push people down that road - is it so difficult to offer decent TIFFs, especially when most lab scanner software will output them automatically if required?!
Click to expand...

I personally use the university ones as they're readily available, but I wouldn't pay a service to scan them for me, likewise I'd buy my own scanner.
 
menthel said:
James, if you want me to scan them in and send you the tiff files I am happy to try. You can always see if there is any improvement over the lab scanning.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much! I may well take you up on that offer (y)

menthel said:

TP Scanner Test PP-2 by menthel, on Flickr

Just an example (shot by Danny Mahoney whom used to frequent these parts) of what even my cruddy old canoscan did. Click through for a 2000 pixel long side version. It was a big as I could go with a decent jpeg iq!
Click to expand...

Now thats more what I was expecting to be honest, really nice image!
 
Cuchulainn said:
Yeah, but it's only recently that they clarified this. They got very arsey on the phone with me over this very matter and told me that I clearly didn't understand file types or compression. They are definitely on my "never again" list as a result.
Click to expand...

We have so few labs at our disposal to begin with, without needing to be treated like that by those that remain!
 
Cuchulainn said:
Yeah, but it's only recently that they clarified this. They got very arsey on the phone with me over this very matter and told me that I clearly didn't understand file types or compression. They are definitely on my "never again" list as a result.
Click to expand...

That's a shame, I have only had good service from them. Although, I have never had occasion to speak to them on the telephone!
 
If you fancy having a bash at your own dev and scan (or wet print ;)) then I'd be happy to help and just down the road.
 
I've been very happy with the C41 and E6 film processing from Peak Imaging in the past.
 
freecom2 said:
Let's put it like this - it isn't a coincidence that almost all of us bought our own scanners at some point. A V500 pays for itself very quickly, and still retains its value well in the second hand market.

Poor scanning services continue to push people down that road - is it so difficult to offer decent TIFFs, especially when most lab scanner software will output them automatically if required?!
Click to expand...

Plus One

Bought a scanner after some poor output from more than one lab, as above the V500 pays for itself fairly quickly even if a lab is developing your colour negs.
 
Just to say, I had some water marks and dullness on a scan from one of the labs (The Darkroom I think). I complained, and they rewashed and rescanned them and sent me another film, so keep at them. AG have been a bit slow in my experience, and weren't answering the phone for a while, but when I did get through they were very helpful on a different matter.
 
Bad lab work was THE major reason the general public were so ready and willing to switch to digital. Film CAN be great but is so often a disappointment. When even Kodak processing started to be variable in returned quality, then the writing really was on the wall.
 
This really makes me feel lucky to have the facilities readily available at uni to myself, how much does it cost for dev of 120 colour film?
 
New to film scanning and am using CC Imaging at Leeds, I was very disappointed with the 5mp batch scan but when i went and explained my disappointment, Mark was very helpful and understanding and upped the scan res to over 31mp. I still don't think i will get the full monty and I think that is down to time and wanting you to go back for your big picture with them. And who would blame them, as they are trying to make a profit after all!However very approachable friendly staff and their scanners are in excess of 40K apparently. All seem a little longer in the tooth and from an age where the box brownie might have been their first camera, so loads of experience there :) Definitely using them until I decide to fly solo so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top