Hi all

This trip was a bit different in that I "only" took about 13 rolls of film (as opposed to mostly digital photos!) I was very glad to have two cameras with me, one my new digital and one being my old carbuncle... when my battery conked out I had ol' Nellie to rely on for a few days until I was able to replace my stupid plug converter which also took a powder! (traveling around a holiday makes it tough to find anything open!)

at any rate, I have a lot of film to develop and in years past always went to the best photo shop I could to get prints to use as proofs. this time, I'd like to experiment with getting the proofs on CD but am curious to know how useful the actual CDs are for quality prints after the fact.

I don't just mean 4x6s, I mean taking the CD and perhaps uploading and ordering a huge print online. the advantage of film is that if the photo is good enough, you can blow it up to 8x12 and it still looks good, or even larger. will the CD do the same, or, will I have to later take my negatives back in to get anything large? The CD would make it so convenient, if they are high enough resolution anyway!

any tips anyone? thanks!

Two problems:

One, to get large prints - 8x10, 11x 14 or larger - you'll need the film to be scanned at at least 5 to 6 MP. (i.e. something like 2,000 x 3,000). That's close to the maximum resolution of a 2,820dpi film scanner. It's definitely possible, but you need to make sure that's what you're getting. In the past, when I used service like Mystic Photo to scan my film, the "high resolution" scan is only 1,024x1,536 for about 1.5MP.

Second problem is that they often only give you compressed JPEG files. You lose detail already, and they are not good work with for digital manipulation. You need files in TIFF, or other uncompressed formats. Most of the transfer service don't give you that, and JPEG is definitely unacceptable to use as your main proof.

So, unless you can get digital files of TIFF and at close to 2,000 x 3,000, you should use the film for large prints.

Look at www.dalelabs.com as the best lab I have found for enlargements.

What about places that will create your negatives and do a set of prints, and also save to a CD?
Then you would have the negative for an enlargement, and a CD for fun and ease of sharing. This option can be a bit pricey.

Or, just get the negatives and prints. Then take your negatives in and have specific frames saved to a CD (if you want a CD at all).

thank you everyone!

travelnut, how tough is it to take in your negatives and put them on CD after the fact? I know places will do all three at once, or 2 out of 3 at once, but to take in negatives - will they do that? I'd like them on CD mostly to upload them to ofoto to share with far off folks, but the ultimate goal is to take my good ones and make them into big prints to frame. I have a houseload of photos already done just like that!

also, would anyone mind telling me if I used a 4 MP camera, but had it on medium resolution (not high, didn't have a meg sized card, only a 256, and wanted to take a lot of photos), how large can I get prints without discernible diminution in quality? thanks!

I have to say, I'm tempted to just take my digital after this, BUT FOR the snafu with the battery. that dang carbuncle is so heavy, and forget about the flash - thus I am limited to outdoor shots. my little S400 takes fab pictures! I really like the proofs so far!

maybe next up, a second digital, this time an SLR?

If you have a lot of film to be scanned, or if you're planning to stick with film for a while (but want to get photos shared with friends, etc), you may want to invest in getting a dedicated film scanner. Some start at around $300, and more featured ones about $600-700. Not cheap and can be tedious to work with, but may make sense.

thank you rkkwan! I think I'll see how these photos turn out first... I found out I can get all 13 rolls done at '4-base' size for 175 bucks which is pretty good. that will make 8x12 photos which is fine. considering I used to easily spend 300 bucks on developing when I got back from trips, BEFORE getting any enlargements, I'm doing well.

but thank you for the tips none the less, you sound like you have a lot of experience with this sort of thing! maybe I can turn one of my spare bedrooms into a photo lab of sorts. hmmmmm...

I want to take negatives from my earlier trips to add to a CD. I've been using the same lady at Eckerds for years; she told me they could do that. It's probably like reprints - may need to submit more than one envelope if different sets have same frame #.

If you get the CD done at developing time, they will only allow a separate CD for each roll, hence the expense.

I have a combo-printer-fax-scanner, and I also have a negative scanner. The combo deal is not very good, and now has a 'scratch' type line on the images. Haven't learned to adjust the negative scanner yet, images don't have correct color tone.

Not enough time in a day, and before you know it, another trip has happened!

flygirl - I have many rolls of negative and slides from my earlier travels, that I'd like to have them digitalized, or at least have the MEANS of digitalizing them.

I also have a cheap digital camera, but I find its features and functions very lacking, compared to my SLR.

I've also tried using various minilabs to get my film photos scanned when I have them developed and printed. But the quality of the scans are pretty poor, with low contrast, washed out colors, etc. They are far from the quality of what I consider "usable" unless I use the time to manipulate all of them digitally.

Because of the above reasons, I decide to invest in a film scanner about 2 years ago. It was pretty expensive back then, about $700, for a Minolta Scan Elite II (which at 2,820dpi can produce a theoretical maximum of about a 10MP scan from a 35mm frame; scanners now often are up to 4,000dpi).

It's a very large investment, and the learning curve is pretty high if I want really high quality scans, as most frames do need some tweaking. It's also pretty slow if you use any of the additional features like removing dusts and scratches, or color restoration (for faded slides). Having used it for a while, I'd still take me a couple of hours to properly scan a roll of 24. But I am also very happy with the results, which far exceeds what I'd get if I pay someone to transfer for me, or take them with a cheap digital camera.

So, if you don't mind investing in the time and effort to learn and do the scans, a film scanner is great. But it's not for the casual user.

The final answer is a digital SLR, but right now two things are stopping me. One is cost, two is the 1.5/1.6x focal length magnification, except for the most expensive ones. So, the scanner is a stop gap measure, as well as a way to digitalize my old films - when I have time, and feel like scanning them.