Old 10-28-2005, 06:44 AM   #1
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default I need help/work on photo quality..

I use a Cannon EOS 650, with a cannon ultrasonic Zoom lens Ef 22-55mm.
I send the film in, and get a set of prints along with a disk with the images on them. The prints come out good, however, when I look at the images, they tend to be quite grainy, and poor quality. the pictures come back at over 3300 pixels (very large in size). Is it the quality of the camera, photo processor, film, or just the nut behind the wheel? what's amiss here? any ideas?
For editing my photos I use Corel Photopaint.
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 02:18 PM   #2
brunswickrailfan
Senior Member
 
brunswickrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jefferson, MD/Shippensburg, PA
Posts: 208
Send a message via AIM to brunswickrailfan
Default

My guess is that they are scannign the prints...and if the print is grainy, the scan will be even grainier...
__________________
--Dan
KB3LDB
Web Photo Editor, SU Slate
http://dputz.deviantart.com
http://members.trainorders.com/dputz/v2
brunswickrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 04:04 PM   #3
LAHDPOP
Senior Member
 
LAHDPOP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 299
Default

It makes a huge difference who is doing the processing, and how they're doing it. Around here, for example, I tried Super Wal-Mart and CVS for their photo discs. Wal Mart's looked great. CVS's looked like complete crap. Both sets of prints looked fine, for el-cheapo processing, but there was amazing difference in the images on the discs.
__________________
Bret Stringer

I didn't say it was your fault.... I said I was going to blame you.

Click Here to see my rp.net photos.

Click Here to see my "personal collection"
LAHDPOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2005, 04:42 AM   #4
Cyclonetrain
Senior Member
 
Cyclonetrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 359
Send a message via AIM to Cyclonetrain Send a message via Yahoo to Cyclonetrain
Default

Out of all the places I've had my film processed (Wolf Camera, Wal Mart, some local idependent place, Walgreens, My HP S20 Negative scaner) and put on disks, I have to say Walgreens has done the nicest. Almost no degrading grain (Using ISO 200 film) and the colors were accurate.
Cyclonetrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2005, 01:40 PM   #5
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default

I love Bret's signature ... my son has ADD.

Oh, yes, film. Actually, that is the nature of the beast. I would expect that they scanned the negative, not the print (you should be able to tell by very closely examining the negative, print and digital for any signs of missing info on one or the other (cropping).

I have medium format negs from years ago that actually look worse as scanned images than (when scanned at high resolution) than the digital stuff I shoot today.
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.