View Full Version : first slides
so, today i picked up my first roll of processed slides, taken with my new bessa r and 35/2.5 lens. i had a cd made of scanned shots at the lab also.
as soon as i got home i slipped the cd into my computer and waited for all glory to behold me.
man, was i disappointed and totally bummed out.
the shots looked bad, low contrast, not really very sharp and poor detail to boot!
i went upstairs quite dejected and had a smoke.
later on, i ventured downstairs into my lair and braced myself for another look.
...they were still bad!
so i searched for my old nikon loupe and thought i'd look at the actual slides.
nice bright colour, good detail and sharp!!
so, is this to be expected from commercial scans?
the real kicker is that the lab put a lovely scratch across pretty much most of the roll. yep, a nice blue line running straight thru most every slide.
at least i hope like heck it was the lab and not the camera.
i already loaded some ilford xp in it so i guess when i get that roll processed (at a different lab) i will be able to tell if it's the camera or not.
anyway, the shots were no great art but the scratch still sucks. i plan to call the lab tomorrow and see what they are prepared to do about it.
Also, bring in the CD... just to check how it looks in their monitor. I've had photos transferred to CDs sometimes, and the resolution is pretty bad.
If they refuse to see the problem and blame your camera instead... well, look for another lab.
Sorry to hear about a bad first roll of film, but I'm sure it's not the camera.
It must be one of those days... some of the slides I got back today had a very faint line across (horizontally). I'm sure it wasn't my camera, but this lab people from the university may be just a little sensitive, so the roll I have currently in my camera will be taken elsewhere. Not until I check and determine it wasn't my camera will I tell the lab people to go clean the rolls in their machine.
Things will improve soon, joe. Remember... put a stiff upper lip! :p
thanks for the encouraging words francisco.
this is one of the better labs in town - hope the next one does a better job though.
hope your next roll turns out better too.
Some businesses need reminding from time to time that the customer does care about quality! If your lab appears responsive to your concerns, you might give them another chance..
I stopped getting the scanned images with my processing for this reason. I actually think they provide such low quality scans to peak your interest, and then try to sell additional services. I think finding a new lab is a good idea. I am glad to hear that the camera is still getting high marks.
I think your best bet is to bite the bullet and get a film scanner. I have an older model Nikon Coolscan III and it does a great job. There are some newer and reasonably-priced Canon and Minolta film scanners that are excellent too.
I think slide scanning is a time consuming job that requires lots of attention to details. I don't think a photo lab that charges cheap (?) price for scanning your roll of slide can afford employing a trained person to spend long hours making good scans.
I had bad experience too with slide scanning service. The shop refunded my money, re-did the scanning, but still it was bad scans I received for the second time. So I gave up, got this lousy flatbed 5000F for scanning my films and it does a better job.
Nevertheless, I have tons of colour negs from the past. I can't stand keeping them all. Most are bad shots but there are some good ones here and there that worth keeping. One day I will get a proper film scanner, scan only those worth keeping then toss these negs into the bin...one day....
i have been looking at scanners. i checked out the epson 2400 and the 3710. they are flatbed scanners with built in adapters for film and slides. they are actually reasonably priced and i may go that route.
anyone have experience with either of these? keep in mind the scans would be for web use only as i most likely would print any b&w negs that i want an enlargement of.
Joe, I got one of those flat-beds w/adapter myself (actually, it was a gift from my wife, who wanted me to get prints from my slide shots). It's a HP4570c, already discontinued, which can be used for fairly nice and dense scans. It's been replaced by a fancy looking scanner that's a bit more expensive and looks like a boudoir mirror. However, prices aren't too high; mine was something around $175 or so. Not only can you scan slides, but also negatives and prints.
Joe, I have a 3170 myself. The soft that comes with it is only so-so, but even with that I'm pretty satisfied.
My only drawback is I've got some traces of the light bulb from the transparency adapter in some cases, mostly when scanning medium format negs or slides. If you're planning on doing only 35mm, a film scanner may be a better choice, but if you have MF stuff you would like to scan, then the 3170 is a good option.
I don't know if the 2450 is discontinued already. That was my first choice but it was discontinued here and you'll need a separate transparency adapter for that one if you want to do MF. That adapter, oth, accepts transparencies up to 4x5 and seems better made than the built-in up to 6x9cm adapter of the 3170, so with that one the bulb trace problem may be gone.
One of my preferred features of these scanners is their capability to batch scanning up to 12 frames of 35 mm at a time.
Overall it's a good scanner, be prepared to the post-process, however, as Kris said quality scanning requires a LOT of time, dust removing, curves and levels adjustments, sharpness, etc.
This pic (when working, seems the server is down now) will illustrate the light trace problem in the bottom of the image http://taffer.eresmas.net/paw/moskva5/File0106.jpg
Yep it can be probably removed by cloning, etc, but it's annoying anyway... :(
Last week I bought a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV for $239.99 at Tri-State here in NYC. It came with propretary software as well as PS Elements 2. So far I am impressed. The results have been excellent.
I thought I might as well submit this as an example of the Minolta Dimage. I resized it down significantly. It was taken last summer at my upstate home with a 42 year old (at least) Exa 1 with a 50mm Tessar f2.8. Its my son and his wife.
The above photo was on print film. Yesterday I scanned some Kodachrome slides of the same young man when he was 1 year old. They are not on this PC so I can't submit them but they came out very well indeed.
i think the cheapest minolta up here is about $499. cdn. too rich for my poor social worker blood.
oscar, i don't see any lightbulb traces in that shot, of course i don't really know what i'm looking for!
as much as i love the www, sometimes i am sooo frustrated with my lack of know how re. things computer driven & software related. i was just hoping to be able to have the lab do the scans for me and then i could just post the odd shot that i liked and wanted to share.
it kinda funny that i'm heading backwards in my photo equipment ( manual screw mount) and need to move forward (scanners and software, oh my) to share them with cyber buddies.
i think i'm missing something here - would this be considered one of life's ironies???
sorry for the whine - i'll bring cheese next time.
I use the 3170; all of the shots posted here are Negatives (Typically Kodacolor xxx) scanned with the 3170. I use Photoshop 6.0, and often have to use an extra 10%~15% saturation increase to match the prints. Of course flat-screen computer monitors these days are not a match for color paper. Maybe I should fire up my OLD IBM Professional Graphics Monitor. 640x480 of the brightest colors I have ever seen on a computer monitor.
Check this photo Joe.
On the right hand side you will see a vertical line running edge to edge. That's what Oscar meant by neon tube leaves a trace. I checked the negs and there is no scratch on it so the line must be generated by the scanner.
I guess for web purpose, Epson 2400 will be more than sufficient. It is similar to my 5000F and i think my scans look sharp on monitor. But if I see a 100% of a 2400ppi scan, it is nowhere as good as when they are projected. Never try printing, so I have no clue how good/bad these flatbed scans are.
i went down to the lab today and showed them my slides and asked what the policy re. scratches might be.
i got a complete refund but not before becoming the object of great mystery. well, at least the slides presented a mystery. they could not figure out what happened. they were pretty sure that it wasn't the camera. they use dip and dunk method so it could not be a scratch from a roller. most scratches show through as clear but these are blue. they ruled out the mounting machine also.
they asked to keep the slides so they could continue the investigation.
a bit of controversy with my very first roll of film with my new bessa...wonder if it's a sign of things to come...?
Joe, sorry I didn't see your question about the light trace but yep, it's exactly what Kris described (thanx Kris!). In the pic I url'ed (wordbuilding is sort of fun...) of the cream color building against the sky, you can see near the bottom an horizontal dark blue line that crosses all the negative.
That one is not on the negative itself, and when you see the full size scan you soon find it's a light bulb trace problem. Sometimes it's there, sometimes doesn't, and I doubt I could get rid of it using the Epson external transparency unit, so the 3170 is going well for me.
BTW that shot is from my Moskva-5, you should see the full scan, you can count the single bricks in that wall ! :)
Keep shooting Joe, as a friend told me, it all about what's IN the pictures. Think about Capa's Omaha beach rolls. All the shots except 11 were ruined as a result of incorrect developement, and those 11 ones were also affected and got some kind of 'fuzzy' character.
But even with that, they are probably among the best war shots in our history.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.