Processing in the UK

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by D.M. Procida, Sep 5, 2012.

  1. D.M. Procida

    D.M. Procida Guest

    I get my films developed and scanned locally, but I wondered if there
    were other places offering the same service.

    I don't need prints, but I'd like to get reasonably high-resolution
    scans, preferably saved as TIFF rather than JPEG.

    Daniele
     
    D.M. Procida, Sep 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D.M. Procida

    Davey Guest

    On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:16:32 +0100
    This sounds as though you are not using digital technology, but still
    using film. Digital gives you what you need, without any intermediate
    steps.
    Or have I misunderstood completely? If so, your own flatbed scanner
    would do the job, and you would have complete control over the process.
     
    Davey, Sep 5, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D.M. Procida

    D.M. Procida Guest

    Indeed. Most of it's C41, though I do some B&W. Even if I develop the
    B&W myself, I still have to scan the negatives, which I find very
    tiresome.

    Daniele
     
    D.M. Procida, Sep 5, 2012
    #3
  4. What quality do you need? i.e. are you proceeding to print from the
    images, or are they for slideshow/web use.

    I'm not up to date with flatbed quality, but beware a lot use dramatic
    interpolation to get the claimed resolution.

    I was looking at some scans (not my images) at different qualities from
    DS Colour Labs recently. Their high res scans of around 15mp were good,
    but had some peculiar artifacts, their medium quality were around 1800 x
    1350 pixels.
    http://www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/film_neg_services.cfm

    I went this route in the mid 90s and bought a dedicated Canoscan that
    gave 2700 pixels per inch (approx 12mp per 35mm) - perhaps you could get
    a secondhand one. Or better still as 4000ppi Nikonscan.

    Mike
     
    Michael J Davis, Sep 5, 2012
    #4
  5. D.M. Procida

    Ian Guest

    message
    :I get my films developed and scanned locally, but I wondered if there
    : were other places offering the same service.
    :
    : I don't need prints, but I'd like to get reasonably high-resolution
    : scans, preferably saved as TIFF rather than JPEG.
    :
    : Daniele

    Hello Daniele.

    Boots offer a film processing service that can supply a CD. Have a look at
    www.boots.com/en/Instore-Digital-and-Film-Photo-Processing_1042844
    Jessops also offer CDs
    http://photo.jessops.com
    Peak Imaging have a good reputation. They are located near Holbrook /
    Killamarsh near Sheffield.
    www.peak-imaging.co.uk

    I do not know if any of these offer TIFF files rather than JPG files.
    I'd have a browse though the adverts in Amateur Photographer to find other
    labs.

    Best wishes, Ian.
     
    Ian, Sep 5, 2012
    #5
  6. D.M. Procida

    D.M. Procida Guest

    I need to be able to print. And until I'm a better photograher, I will
    still lose pixels to croppping, so I need as many as I can get.
    I spent a miserable evening last night trying to get a flatbed scanner
    to come up with the goods. They're just not a good way of doing it, even
    with their adaptors etc.
    Expensive! My 3000x2000px scans are £7 including C41 developing. Maybe
    these are higher quality, but my pictures don't really merit that kind
    of expenditure.
    Perhaps that's the way.

    Daniele
     
    D.M. Procida, Sep 5, 2012
    #6
  7. D.M. Procida

    Davey Guest

    Indeed. Most of it's C41, though I do some B&W. Even if I develop the
    B&W myself, I still have to scan the negatives, which I find very
    tiresome.

    Daniele[/QUOTE]

    Following on from my earlier message, why do you not go digital, thus
    going straight from image view to digitised image? The fewer
    intermediate steps, the better the final quality.
     
    Davey, Sep 5, 2012
    #7
  8. D.M. Procida

    D.M. Procida Guest

    Mainly because I really enjoy using film cameras, and dislike using
    digital cameras.

    Daniele
     
    D.M. Procida, Sep 5, 2012
    #8
  9. D.M. Procida

    Davey Guest

    Mainly because I really enjoy using film cameras, and dislike using
    digital cameras.

    Daniele[/QUOTE]

    I can understand that, but the cost difference is considerable. I have
    an enlarger for sale, if you need another one!
     
    Davey, Sep 5, 2012
    #9
  10. Why should he?
    There are plenty of people who still like film, even though they might
    use digital as a matter of course.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Sep 6, 2012
    #10
  11. D.M. Procida

    Davey Guest

    This was already answered, and in turn replied to.
     
    Davey, Sep 6, 2012
    #11
  12. D.M. Procida

    jacobrichter Guest

    ik

    I like the Darkroom (www.the-darkroom.co.uk/). I use the postal service and they often process and despatch on the day they receive the films. I found that high street labs leave the films too dusty. Also the Darkroom do b/w and colour trannies.

    Don't know if anyone would save as TIFF though. Why not use JPG, if uncompressed it's OK innit?

    Rob
     
    jacobrichter, Nov 7, 2012
    #12
  13. D.M. Procida

    spacecadet Guest

    JPG is always compressed. It might not be compressed much, but it always
    is. That's why JPGs are so much smaller than TIFFs.
     
    spacecadet, Nov 7, 2012
    #13
  14. D.M. Procida

    jacobrichter Guest

    Oh yes! I just saved a PSD as TIF (with LZW compression on) and it was 14MB and the same as JPG and it was about 7MB.

    Thanks.
     
    jacobrichter, Nov 7, 2012
    #14
  15. D.M. Procida

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:27:16 -0800 (PST)
    You just replied to a post that's two months old. :)
    The JPEG spec includes provision for lossless compression, but it's
    not commonly used. Mild lossy compression will save space without
    degrading image quality to the point that it's uncomfortable to view,
    although some subjects will fare worse than others - a lumpy gradient
    is often visible in the sky, for example.
     
    Rob Morley, Nov 7, 2012
    #15
  16. D.M. Procida

    jacobrichter Guest

    I must get round to getting news reader software. Google Groups is not that good!

    I've never noticed any problems with JPG. In my day job, we always used to use TIF, but in recent years have gone with JPG. All the libraries supply like that. It makes updating the watermarked previews with the high-res an easy job in InDesign. If the preview was JPg then the high-res TIF, we'd have to import each image individually.

    Is the sky artefact down to 8-bit editing? I notice if files are edited in 16-bit mode they avoid banding in areas like the sky. I tend to do all edits in PSD on my own photos.

    Thanks.

    Rob
     
    jacobrichter, Nov 8, 2012
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.