I'm lazy and paid well for it

[kshapero]

Too lazy to develop my own film (I used to), I stumbled on Costco a few weeks ago. Cd scan, 3.6 to 4 megs a scan at 3048 by 2120 pixels. beats Walgreens. Nice to be lazy.

[charjohncarter]

My Costco has Noritsu scanners that are very expensive. I buy their Fuji film by the car load at $1.33 per roll. Develop and scan costs $4.83, so I shoot about one-half rolls per day. Maybe a little less. It's great. The only problem is you lose respect for film and start shooting like it was digital. So, as you say you get lazy. You don't pay attention to details. My New years resolution is to be more careful and deliberate.

[kshapero]

Well it least my ZI doesn't have auto bracketing, auto winder or continuos whatever. So we are meant to be a little more deliberate.

[gb hill]

Originally Posted by kshapero

Too lazy to develop my own film (I used to), I stumbled on Costco a few weeks ago. Cd scan, 3.6 to 4 megs a scan at 3048 by 2120 pixels. beats Walgreens. Nice to be lazy.

I need to learn this technical jargon. I understand the pixels but I don't quite get the3.6 to 4 megs part. I just got a roll developed and the prints look better than the cd. I don't understand? It's usually the other way around. I just posted 2 in the gallery and the prints are sharp as a tack, but when I uploaded cd to the gallery they look a bit out of focus. Oh well!!

[Tuolumne]

Akiva,
Was this B&W or color?

/T

[SolaresLarrave]

Originally Posted by gb hill

I need to learn this technical jargon. I understand the pixels but I don't quite get the3.6 to 4 megs part. I just got a roll developed and the prints look better than the cd. I don't understand? It's usually the other way around. I just posted 2 in the gallery and the prints are sharp as a tack, but when I uploaded cd to the gallery they look a bit out of focus. Oh well!!

GB, Ah feel your pain...

The same happens to me. There was a time when I was about to smash my cameras on the wall... why was it that everyone was posting magnificent photos on the web, and mine looked so soft?

One day I printed a photo recently scanned and saw just what you say: prints were incredibly sharp, jpgs just weren't. Then I thought: "if, like good ole Ansel says, the negative is the score and the print is the performance... I'd rather have really good performances!"

Problem solved. Of course I kept my gear. Do you really believe I was going to throw them against the wall?

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by Tuolumne

Akiva,
Was this B&W or color?

/T

That was color but B+W was 2.8 to 3.1 megs. With that kind of size scans I have something to work with. I can resize the pixels from 72 dpi to 240 and hold the quality. And all that for $4.36 a roll.

[charjohncarter]

tuolumne, my Costco ONLY does C-41, but if you develop your own B&W they will scan for 26 cents (or maybe 29 cents) per frame. But as with all B&W scans they are never what you think they are going to be.