My first 24X30 photo

[Charlie99]

I am suspicious of the cheap price for scans. What file size would the $28 scan be.
If I remember right the photo I put on the board was cropped, but thanks for pointing that out I will be talking to him in the next hour and I will bring that up.

The $28 is just for the 20x30" print. It's OPTICAL enlargement, not digital, so there isn't any scan involved. If you have a positive color slide, then it looks like you need an internegative for another $5.

The photo you posted to the board is in the 2x3 or 4x6 or 24x36 format of standard 35mm. For a full, no crop print you need to stay at the same aspect ratio -- i.e. 20x30".

I face the reverse problem --- my digital camera, like most, is 3x4 aspect ratio, so the ideal print size would be 4x5.33, or 4.5x6", not the common 4x6.

 

[cdiver2]

The $28 is just for the 20x30" print. It's OPTICAL enlargement, not digital, so there isn't any scan involved. If you have a positive color slide, then it looks like you need an internegative for another $5.

The photo you posted to the board is in the 2x3 or 4x6 or 24x36 format of standard 35mm. For a full, no crop print you need to stay at the same aspect ratio -- i.e. 20x30".

I face the reverse problem --- my digital camera, like most, is 3x4 aspect ratio, so the ideal print size would be 4x5.33, or 4.5x6", not the common 4x6.

I must admit I get lost with this crop stuff. Im ok with 2x4 -10x12 always 2" larger on the long side but after 10x12 that rule seems to go out the window.
Talked to the owner of the lab and it may come out 24x36 but he will crop if it needs it (dead area). I don't remember what I did with the one on the board that was done in 03.
What do you think of the optical prints compared to digital?.

 

[RonFrank]

I am suspicious of the cheap price for scans. What file size would the $28 scan be. Whilst I was at the lab the owner showed me a 24 X 30 that another customer had done at another lab. It had pixalated bad in the sky area then he showed me the same photo that he had done...big difference.
If I remember right the photo I put on the board was cropped, but thanks for pointing that out I will be talking to him in the next hour and I will bring that up.
The place I go to is a lab, gallery, frame shop and the photo club that I have just joined, they have a lot of 24 X 30 prints on the wall I just wish I was that good.

Drum scanners are recognized as the BEST way to go, but there are some VERY nice film scanners out there that do a great job. The Nikon 5000/9000 ED are examples, and many labs use them. As they cost less than a pro digital body, the charge per scan is low.

IMO drum scan costs are over-priced especially as these devices have improved with technology, and gone WAY down in price. But the market is small, so much like medium format equipment, expect to pay a premium for a drum scan. It's also a much more involved process to learn, they have to basically oil the film before mounting it on the drum, and then clean it afterward. Drum scans ARE however the best way to get the most detail, and color depth from a slide.

As to the guy showing you a BAD example of a print, and HIS fine example, that is marketing. I can ruin a print using a high end scan, and a high end film scanner is certainly able to produce the quality necessary for a 24"x30" for a fraction of the cost of a drum scan. While quality film scanners are not equal to drum scans, software goes most or even all of the distance to improve the film scan from a high end film scanner, and things like DEE make scanning more confusing, but are solid tools that can improve film scans to the point where there is not the gap there once was vs. a drum scan.

 

[RonFrank]

I must admit I get lost with this crop stuff. Im ok with 2x4 -10x12 always 2" larger on the long side but after 10x12 that rule seems to go out the window.
Talked to the owner of the lab and it may come out 24x36 but he will crop if it needs it (dead area). I don't remember what I did with the one on the board that was done in 03.
What do you think of the optical prints compared to digital?.

Cropping is done for two reasons.. 1) to fit a frame/mount 2) because it makes the image better.

If you image is fine Full Frame, don't crop. For what you are spending, have the mats custom cut (they may be doing that anyway) and the frame as well.

Most frame shops purchase framing material in bulk, and cut it to size. They often size it in *standard* sizes (11x14/16x20...) but there is NO reason why that is necessary.

They also often purchase glare free plexiglass in large sheets, and custom cut that as well.

IOW's, cropping is NOT a requirement unless you have a good reason to do so. As the framing shop may change some, or a LOT more to do odd sizes, that maybe a good enough reason. However I'd find another framing shop if that is the case, cause it don't have to be that way.

 

[justleesa]

I have the same scanner and if I really want a good copy I get it done the the photo shop - just I have to pay 5 bucks/pp for a high quality scan. I saw that there is an attachment that you can hook up to your digital camera for your slides...might be enough

http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html?source=adwords_scanslides1

 

[Charlie99]

I must admit I get lost with this crop stuff. Im ok with 2x4 -10x12 always 2" larger on the long side but after 10x12 that rule seems to go out the window.

It's not all that complicated. "35mm" film has an active area of 24mm x 36mm. Reducing down to simplest numbers, that's 2H by 3W. If your print doesn't have that same height to width ratio, then you either need to crop or, less likely, distort the photo to fit. Just like in fractions, multiply both the 2 and the 3 by the same number to get a print size that is the same fraction or "aspect ratio".

The 24x30" is the same ratio as an 4x5 negative. That's more "squarish" than the 35mm format. It's also the same ratio as an 8x10", so if you've done that slide as an 8x10", just use that as the example for the photo lab.

The most common TV format is 4x3. That has been carried over into computers (800x600 pixel, or 1024x768pixel screens for example). That in turn led consumer digital cameras to be that same 4x3 format.

What brought all of this to my attention was simply that, very soon after getting a digital camera, I closely cropped some photos so they looked good on the computer, then had them printed at the local 1 hour shop. Surprise, surprise.... the 4x6" photos left out chunks as they put what should be a 4.5" x 6 " photo into a 4x6" space. BTW, if you look carefully at what comes out of the 1 hour shops, you will see that, in addition to cropping for aspect ratio, in order to ensure that the prints are borderless, they overzoom a few percent. On a 4x6" print the overzoom is about 1/8" on all sides, just enough to compensate for possible misalignment of the paper in the photoprinter.

On a small run of 4x6 prints, discovering aspect ratios and the resultant cropping was just a "oh, interesting." A surprise like that on a 24"x30" would be a bit more shocking.

 

[cdiver2]

Just got back from the shop, he did a full frame at 24x36 and I must say I am very pleased. There is detail there that I never saw in a 10x12. The customer has to see it yet and pick out the matting and frame. Oh it looks good I can see a few more big ones for myself in the future.