Negative or transparency film?

[sportback]

This is very reassuring for me - I know I'm a difficult bugger at the best of times, but from what I've seen here (and elsewhere) I felt sure I was doing something wrong. I probably still am, but I'm keen to try the transparency film to confirm this!

Thanks for your input

 

[vandevantersh]

that better results are possible scanning transparency films than colour negatives.
*******
Have you tried Ektar 100?

Steve

 

[sportback]

Yes - same problems

I'll admit that initially I had a few 'problems' maintaining my temperatures during processing - nothing excessive, but my first films were EKTAR and the results were very similar in terms of visible grain and general quality.

 

[vandevantersh]

Yes - same problems
******
I rarely shoot film now but I did shoot a roll of Ektar to evaluate a lens full frame. I had the local camera store develop and scan. This is ~ 200% crop, no post processing...I am not sure how much grain is acceptable.

Steve

 

[sportback]

Thank you Steve.

I can only say this goes to prove that professional processing/scanning can give 'correct' results. (To my eye, perfectly acceptable)

I'll do some checking to see what is available to me here in rural France, but I'm keen to try the transparency route, at least to confirm my ideas, as well.

 

[vandevantersh]

I forgot to post the whole "photo" next to the "crop".

Steve

 

[TJV]

What size is the photo in terms of dpi and set printed size?

I find that when I send my C41 stuff off to a pro lab and just ask for dev and CD they usually just put it through a Frontier or Noritsu machine. If it's a good pro lab, their machine will use their own custom profiles etc so colour and density is far better than other people using the same machines but relying on standard Fuji / Kodak profiles.

In terms of grain, I actually find the Frontier scans are very good, providing the operator knows what they're doing and not second guessing too much my exposures. Resolution is obviously lower than a high end drum scan, and file sizes are smaller, but for the life of me I can't get the same results at home with my V700 or works Nikon 9000. Grain aliasing is a real problem.

Today I sent one problem neg off to get a test drum scan done. I'll let you know the results.

 

[sportback]

I've just heard back from the 'lab' here in France - they want 55€ (77$ US) to develop and scan (Imacon NOT a 'real' drum scan) a single 120 roll film.

I'm not mean, but that seems a little excessive to me...

Anyone know of a decent lab with a drum scanner, here in Europe?

 

[jotloob]

I've just heard back from the 'lab' here in France - they want 55€ (77$ US) to develop and scan (Imacon NOT a 'real' drum scan) a single 120 roll film.

Ian

That sounds quite reasonable to me .
Most good prolabs charge you around 20 € for one 6x6 scan , negative or transparency , 300ppi and Lstar-RGB-V2.icc profile , scanned with IMACON 848 or Flextight X5 .
Expensive but also very good .

Jürgen

 

[sportback]

Really? Well I'm obviously in the wrong job then - I'll have to buy myself a decent scanner and set up shop...

And are you trying to tell me a 300dpi Imacon scan will be better than 3200/4200 dpi on my Epson?