pictures on CD

[ajmall]

as i've never invested in a film scanner, i sometimes get images onto a picture CD yet the quality and even the detail of the images vary. for instance, the colour is better in the prints and one shot i did of a silhouette in the dessert was solid black in a print yet had slight detail of rocks and sand in the CD image. is this just a processing indifference as lab technicians alter colours and tones?

 

[Big Mike]

That's what it sounds like to me. How a print from a negative looks has a lot to do with the printing process.

I find it typical that a lab will boost color saturation and make other changes. Hopefully the lab tech takes the time to make changes that will enhance your prints rather than letting the machine average out the exposure.

 

[GerryDavid]

I havent been happy with my walmart and kodak picture cd's. Usually its noisey and its not very large, not even a 4x6 at 300 dpi. But I think theres more detail in the cd version because the scanner reads the detail of the negative, some of which cant be printed since its out of the rgb range, cant think of the technical term. But thats just a guess.

 

[MarylandMatt]

I bought a scanner recently and couldn't be pleased more with it. I bought it at Circuit City on sale for $19.99. Well worth it when you consider those cds are what, like $5 a pop? My Canon CanoScan LIDE20 is from the more extravagent scanner but it does its job. If you'd like to see examples lemme know.

As for cds? I think its probably a mixture of large outputs with limited time, and also most people use the packaged software to show their pics off the cd or send them via email so huge files would be a waste or bothersome to most of the poplus.

 

[BernieSC]

Have you ever tried a lab that uses the Fuji frontier. Other than having them scanned professionally and paying 20 bucks a scan I have had many photos done with that machine and it far outweighs most of the other stand alone scanning systems labs use.

 

[GerryDavid]

I think walmart uses a fuji frontier system, and the scans are only like 1.4mb's, unless you can work something special out with them.

And with flatbed scanners, ive mostly heard of them making the image soft since the negative is off of the glass slightly. Personally I would prefer a dedicated negative scanner for doing negatives. If I get into b&w stuff more, I may get one. :0)