Photo CD'S

carvinrocks2 · Jul 14, 2010

Have any of you all had experience with getting photos developed and getting a photo cd? Are the photos on the cd great quality or basically snap shots? I had plan to buy a Canon scanner but I found a good deal on a Canon SLR Digital and I'm getting that instead. I do still plan on using the Nikon N2000 and I'm wondering if I could avoid the $100 for a good scanner.

MarkF48 · Jul 14, 2010

I got a photo CD once from Walmart. The images were OK, but likely wouldn't have been able to make an enlargement much more than an 8x10. The scans on the CD were 1024x1536(equal to about a 1.6mp camera) at around 500kb. I have a Nikon 35mm scanner that typically will do an image scan to about 4464x6800 and the TIF file size might be up around 20-30mb depending on the scan resolution. You may be able to find a place that can scan film a higher resolution that would be better than what I had done at Walmart.

What scanner for $100 that you've looked at will do film?

carvinrocks2 · Jul 14, 2010

MarkF48 said:
I got a photo CD once from Walmart. The images were OK, but likely wouldn't have been able to make an enlargement much more than an 8x10. The scans on the CD were 1024x1536(equal to about a 1.6mp camera) at around 500kb. I have a Nikon 35mm scanner that typically will do an image scan to about 4464x6800 and the TIF file size might be up around 20-30mb depending on the scan resolution. You may be able to find a place that can scan film a higher resolution that would be better than what I had done at Walmart.

What scanner for $100 that you've looked at will do film?

It won't do film, but it'll scan my photos after I get them develop. Should also do negatives.

Orrin · Jul 15, 2010

MarkF48 said:
I got a photo CD once from Walmart. The images were OK, but likely wouldn't have been able to make an enlargement much more than an 8x10. The scans on the CD were 1024x1536(equal to about a 1.6mp camera) at around 500kb. I have a Nikon 35mm scanner that typically will do an image scan to about 4464x6800 and the TIF file size might be up around 20-30mb depending on the scan resolution. You may be able to find a place that can scan film a higher resolution that would be better than what I had done at Walmart.

I had never tried using the drug store or Walmart CD's. A camera shop
near here scans my negatives at 2048x3072, and the quality is quite
good. I also have the ability to scan even larger with my Cannon MP990,
but I only use that when I want to crop the image.

Mike_E · Jul 15, 2010

Look harder for a flatbed scanner that will scan negatives.

A 'good' photo store will have 2 or even 3 levels of scan available, at varying prices of course. It doesn't take too many high quality scans to pay for a flatbed.

MarkF48 · Jul 15, 2010

Mike_E said:
Look harder for a flatbed scanner that will scan negatives.

I second looking for a flatbed that can scan negatives and slides as well.

The Epson V600 flatbed has gotten pretty good reviews for scanning film and is in the ballpark of $200(US).
Scanner Review: Epson Perfection V600

The next steps up would be the Epsons V700 and V750 ($$$).
Scanner Review: Epson Perfection V700

EPSON V700 review

I'm using and older Canon 9950F flatbed for medium format scans and it works very well. For 35mm I have a Nikon CoolScan V ED which I believe may not be in production any longer and is becoming difficult to find used.

carvinrocks2 · Jul 15, 2010

I've looked at stuff and this wasn't what the topic was about, lol.

Whenever I get a scanner, this one will probably be it.
Epson - Perfection Flatbed Photo Scanner - V300

I have to pay off my camera, and get a 300mm lens, though.

Mike_E · Jul 16, 2010

carvinrocks2 said:
I've looked at stuff and this wasn't what the topic was about, lol.

Whenever I get a scanner, this one will probably be it.
Epson - Perfection Flatbed Photo Scanner - V300

I have to pay off my camera, and get a 300mm lens, though.

My point was that yes you can get better quality scans but they are expensive and so are prints for that matter. If you spend an extra $10 per roll for a good scan then after ten rolls you've squandered $100. After twenty rolls @$10/ you've squandered a $200 scanner. Or put $200 towards your current/projected gear.

The conundrum is: do you not shoot and save money to get what you want sooner, or spend money so that you can shoot now and save money to get what you want later and then keep saving money after?

P.S. By only having your film developed and then scanning yourself you also save by only having the shots you like printed.

Early · Jul 16, 2010

Buy a good scanner and help pay for it by doing some quality scans for your friends.

Just be up front and tell them why you're charging them.

carvinrocks2 · Jul 16, 2010

Early said:
Buy a good scanner and help pay for it by doing some quality scans for your friends.

Just be up front and tell them why you're charging them.

Thought about offering a scanning service for people who don't want to do it themselves but needs stuff scanned to digital.

Vautrin · Jul 18, 2010

Maybe because of dust retouching or something I've found getting good scans (something you could actually make a print from) very expensive (up to $1 a FRAME). It'll only take a few rolls to make your scanner pay off especially if you get a used one.

Plus if you scan them yourself at a high resolution you can have them printed off your digital file which is very nice...

bushpig · Jul 23, 2010

I'm actually saving for a scanner right now. I'm still not sure what I'm gonna get, but I've been needing one forever.

I've gotten CDs back from Walgreens and they suck.

Stratman · Aug 11, 2010

If you have a Target store near you, that does developing, they do pretty decent scans ( at least the one by me does ) and they are reasonable, I had two rolls processed, and put on ONE cd, and the total price was $6.50, that price does NOT include prints..

cooltouch · Aug 13, 2010

If you're a member of Costco, they also do a decent job with images on CDs. I've never used them, but I've seen their results, and the quality is good.

But I prefer to scan/dupe my images rather than send them out. I started out scanning my 35mm and medium format negs and slides with an Epson 3170 I bought new 6 or 7 years ago. It actually did a pretty good job. More recently, however, I was looking for something a bit better -- and better than what I could afford new -- so I bought an Epson 4990. Set me back $200, but considering this scanner was Epson's top-of-the-line just a few years ago and sold for $500 or so, I thought $200 was fair.

It does a better job scanning slides and negatives than the 3170, but not by a huge amount. Just incremental. This is because scanner resolutions tend to be wildly inflated. My 4990's claimed optical resolution is 4800 pixels per inch (ppi), but it tests out at about 2000 ppi. Even the V700 and V750, with their claimed 6400 ppi resolutions, don't test out any higher than about 2300 ppi. Even so, a 2000 ppi image figures out to about 5.4 mp for a 35mm slide, which isn't bad. [@ 2000 ppi, we get with a 24mm x 36mm slide, (2000/25.4 x 24) x (2000/25.4 x 36) = 5,356,810 pixels, or about 5.4 mp.]

More recently, I've begun duplicating my slides and negatives both using a slide duplicator setup I attach to a Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 macro lens, which is attached to my 10.1 mp Canon XS (1000D). The dupes are noticeably sharper than the scans I get from my Epsons and approach the maximum achievable resolution the film stores. Plus they're fast. Just a fraction of a second per image versus about 2 minutes or more with a scanner. Well, if I include the time it takes to insert and remove the slide from the holder -- or reposition the negative strip -- then maybe I'm down to about three or four images per minute. But that still beats the snot out of a scanner's speed.

The main disadvantage to doing the scanning or duping yourself is the time you'll spend post-processing your images. No matter how careful you are, invariably there will be dust. And removing it can be quite time consuming, depending upon the degree of dustiness. Also, if you're like me, you might not be able to resist playing around with a few other settings, like contrast and sharpness and saturation, which will further add to the amount of time you spend on each photo.

What I've learned from all this, though, is to keep the originals unaltered so that if I screw up in my post-processing, I've only done it to a copy. And in fact, I've learned after scanning and duping a few thousand images, that even the originals need to be redone on occasion after I've found out a bit more how to do the job better. It's all a learning experience that never seems to end.

Also, as for storing images, I've found that DVDs are much more practical. 4.7 gigs fills up pretty fast. And it also pays to buy good quality DVDs for your archives because the cheaper ones don't seem to last very long at all before they become unreadable.