«

I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
in one zip file.
It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
roughly $5-6.
Hoping someone can help.

Donald

I like these guys. http://www.dotphoto.com/PricingAndReturn.asp#film

I have not used their film developing, and I am not sure if you can download
your photos. Ought to be possible though...they seem to be able to do
everything I ask of them. They return email too so ask them how its done.

"Donald" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
> developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
> then get off their website with one click to download all the order's
files
> in one zip file.
> It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that
makes
> it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
> your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
> and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
> Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
> I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
> they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
> offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
> Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
> reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
> I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
> cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
> option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
> roughly $5-6.
> Hoping someone can help.
>
> Donald

Donald wrote:
> I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
> developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
> then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
> in one zip file.
> It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
> it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
> your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
> and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
> Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
> I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
> they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
> offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
> Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
> reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
> I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
> cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
> option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
> roughly $5-6.
> Hoping someone can help.
>
> Donald

Kind of sums up some of the reasons I had for abandoning film completely
for digital....


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:12:53 -0600, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Donald wrote:
>> I still shoot 35mm on occasion and was using Walmart to have my prints
>> developed. I would get hard copy prints plus digital copies which I could
>> then get off their website with one click to download all the order's files
>> in one zip file.
>> It's still possible but they have made some change to their site that makes
>> it a very aggravating chore to get all your digital files downloaded to
>> your computer. You must go through your online album one photo at a time
>> and save with a few pop up windows thrown in between for good measure.
>> Pretty hair pulling exercise when you have 36 shot roll to go through.
>> I have checked a few of the bigger online sites for something similar and
>> they all offer no downloads of your high res files made from 35mm. Most
>> offer some type of CD option that is fairly expensive.
>> Wondering if anyone has found a service that offers 35mm to digital for a
>> reasonable rate that I could then download from the web and use.
>> I'm mostly interested in just getting my 35mm back in digital format at a
>> cheap rate. With Walmart I had to order the prints to get the digital
>> option. Even with the prints plus digital option I think the price was
>> roughly $5-6.
>> Hoping someone can help.
>>
>> Donald
>
>Kind of sums up some of the reasons I had for abandoning film completely
>for digital....


The odds are against film but film can still
be worthwhile -- if you have clean processing,
and if you're willing to scan it with the care
it deserves.

Once you move to MF or LF film, it's no contest,
digital capture can't compare to well scanned film.
With 35 mm it's still a fair contest.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafe bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:12:53 -0600, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
snip
>
>
> The odds are against film but film can still
> be worthwhile -- if you have clean processing,
> and if you're willing to scan it with the care
> it deserves.
>
> Once you move to MF or LF film, it's no contest,
> digital capture can't compare to well scanned film.
> With 35 mm it's still a fair contest.

And that's precisely where I've landed. Canon 20D for most stuff, and a
Mamiya 7II when I want best quality. I haven't seen anything digital that
can touch the film that comes out of that camera.

I've got to admit, though, the images from the Canon are what caused me to
dump 35mm film. They're not quite film, if you shoot ISO 100 film, but at
higher speeds, it's better than film. Add to that all the usual digital
conveniences, and it was an easy switch.

>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Gene,
Thanks for the quick reply
Your about the only post on topic. So far I got some politics and a
discussion of the merits of digital to film.
Dotphoto does offer the hi res downloads of digitally processed film but
they have a disclaimer they may charge for it in the future. Price to
develop digitally with no hard prints is $3.99 which is not to bad but I
was hoping to find something a little cheaper. It adds up pretty quick if I
want a whole role developed $3.99 digital developing + 24 prints @ $.29
puts me over $10 not even counting shipping. I'll put up with the Walmart
headaches for that much. My search continues.
Thanks again.

Donald

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:46:01 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> I like these guys. http://www.dotphoto.com/PricingAndReturn.asp#film
>
> I have not used their film developing, and I am not sure if you can download
> your photos. Ought to be possible though...they seem to be able to do
> everything I ask of them. They return email too so ask them how its done.

On 8 Mar 2005 04:15:43 -0800, "Ron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>This sounds terribly complicated to me.
>
>Given all the time, expense and aggravation why not spend a hundred
>fifty bucks or less on a scanner that does negatives? My local Ritz
>camera will process a roll of 35mm film for about four bucks in a half
>hour or so. Run the negs through the scanner and you'll get great
>results. And, you'll have a scanner to digitize old prints.
>
>All of this is one reason why I went digital -- I use the film option
>when I need really high speed or to use some of my specialized 35mm
>lenses. And, for the record, I use an Epson 2580 scanner which gives me
>very fine results.


Depends on how much time and effort (and skill, etc)
you're willing to invest to get the very best image
from a given piece of film.

$150 isn't going to get you much of a scanner,
unless you shop carefully for a vintage model on
eBay or get very lucky. If that's your budget,
you may be better off handing the job to Ritz.

The Minolta 5400 is one of the best scanners
available for 35 mm, and can be had now for
around $700. A good scan of a sharp slide
will easily beat a 6 Mpixel DSLR capture --
but it will take some effort.

I won't argue that digicams and DSLRs are
quite a bit more convenient than shooting
and scanning film. For "most practical
purposes" 35 mm film has run its course,
I agree.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 8 Mar 2005 04:15:43 -0800, Ron wrote:

> This sounds terribly complicated to me.
>
> Given all the time, expense and aggravation why not spend a hundred
> fifty bucks or less on a scanner that does negatives? My local Ritz
> camera will process a roll of 35mm film for about four bucks in a half
> hour or so. Run the negs through the scanner and you'll get great
> results. And, you'll have a scanner to digitize old prints.
>
> All of this is one reason why I went digital -- I use the film option
> when I need really high speed or to use some of my specialized 35mm
> lenses. And, for the record, I use an Epson 2580 scanner which gives me
> very fine results.

Ron,
Thanks for the feedback. The price I'm paying at Walmart to have the film
digitized, I thought quite reasonable. It's the website's poor design
causing me the frustration. I've considered the scanner option but find the
time and effort involved to outway the $2 Walmart charges even with the
downloading hassles. I'm not really interested in having the film processed
to prints. I just want to get the digital files at reasonable cost.

rafe bustin wrote:
>
>
> Depends on how much time and effort (and skill, etc)
> you're willing to invest to get the very best image
> from a given piece of film.
>
> $150 isn't going to get you much of a scanner,
> unless you shop carefully for a vintage model on
> eBay or get very lucky. If that's your budget,
> you may be better off handing the job to Ritz.
>
> The Minolta 5400 is one of the best scanners
> available for 35 mm, and can be had now for
> around $700. A good scan of a sharp slide
> will easily beat a 6 Mpixel DSLR capture --
> but it will take some effort.
>
> I won't argue that digicams and DSLRs are
> quite a bit more convenient than shooting
> and scanning film. For "most practical
> purposes" 35 mm film has run its course,
> I agree.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com


Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
people if one doesn't do it himself.

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Be careful of commercial digitizing also, if you want "best" images from
>film. Not all scanning services are equal. In fact, Kodak used to
>offer two different photo to CD-ROM services, differing in quality-
>don't know whether they still do or not. So one has to choose the right
>people if one doesn't do it himself.

There seem to be *three* levels of quality available at least. Kodak
PhotoCD is 3072x2048 from a 35 mm source. Then there's Pro PhotoCD,
which is 6144x4096. These are both in PhotoCD format which is mildly
compressed (supposedly visually lossless) and has wide colour gamut (due
to the ability to store negative values).

And then there's the "photos on CD" service offered by lots of places,
which are relatively low-resolution JPEGs. These will not capture
what the film is capable of.

Dave