Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Infranview? Looks like they used Windows 98 and Microsoft Paint :D

It's the backgrounds I have problems with as well.....Is it possible that the blurriness of the background has given the scanner a nightmare and it's just done the best that it can to cope with them?

If that's the case then they have made the prints from the scans that they took because all of the prints show the same effect.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

yup, it looks like your 'depth of field' background defeated the alogarithm tesco use for their resize - take it back & get it done again, or a refund - in my opinion ;)

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I'm no expert but :D ...I don't think there is anything you can do about the backgrounds because that's how the camera has 'seen' them when the picture was taken and that's exactly how they would appear on film. Again, I see nothing wrong them and that's what I would have expected had I taken the picture. I'm sure there are some digital cameras which would be able to separate the foreground & background areas so that they could both be in focus but a normal 35mm camera won't do this. I think you were expecting too much :shrug:

I can't believe this forum hasn't got some camera geek lurking about to give us an 'expert' view :p:

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I think it's more to do with the way that the images are being displayed on screen.

I've just saved them both and then loaded them into Photoshop 4.0 LE and the pixelation that I see when I look at them in Netscape 7.2 hardly appears at all (certainly to nothing like the same degree).

I would suggest that whatever software you're using to put them on screen isn't up to the job.

I've also just had a look at them with Poly View and whilst the images aren't as good as when shown in Photoshop they're still better than what I get from Netscape.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

i am such geek and he wanted the background blurred its the quality of the pic which is in question with 35mm film
it should be a whole lot better with such a good camera

oops geek not expert but i dont collect stamps or go train spotting
but the anorack gets a bit sweaty
is that a blue spotted swifwobble flying past

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

These days ISO 400 film is practically as good as ISO 100 was many years back. I've used Ilford's XP2 (a "colour" type film that actually gives B/W results) and there's virtually no grain to speak of.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I think you've identified the problem with those two statements. It's not a bad film at all, but with an ISO of 400 you will find there is a definite grainiess to the shot, which will be highlighted in certain lighting conditions (such as daylight).

I think you've also got a bad conversion to digital. I opened in Photoshop CS2 and it looks better, but not perfect.

The other problem is Tesco. For most snaps they're fine, but if you want a photo processed by properly trained staff that make adjustments for each frame by hand, then you're not going to get it there.

Have you tried getting a print from the negs? How does it look compared with your digital transfer?

That's bokeh..or depth of field. The lens is a wide aperture, which allows for a shallow depth of field...so the item focussed on with be sharp, but anything in the background will be blurred. You would use a large aperture to bring the viewers highlight to the subject, rather than having a distracting background. If Raistlin was taking a shot of the goat against a mountain background, he would use a small aperture, which would mean a longer exposure, but both the forground and background would be in focus.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

So, working on the assumption that it is a problem with the digitisation of the negs.....

If I was to send on of the negs away to a "proper" photo lab for processing and ask them to make a print from it I should see a better quality of image on the returned print right?

I might try that, at least then I would have a comparison between the processing at Tesco and the actual image.
__________________

Interesting.....

TBH I've been viewing them either in Infranview (:Yikes:) or through my browser (FireFox). I'll give Photoshop a whirl tomorrow and see if they look any better. I'm tempted to believe that it's the quality of the processing at Tesco that's causing some of it TBH. The prints that they've done display the same odd textures in the background which suggests that the prints were made from the digitised scans of the negatives.

I think I'll get a couple of the negs reprinted by a "proper" lab and see how they come back.
__________________

Cheers for all the advice guys :tu:

I'll get a reprint of one of the negs and see how we go from there..

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Like other mentioned, 400 ISO could easily have introduced the graininess, the lighting conditions looked fine and you were using a huge aperture so 100-200 max should have fine.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

It's quite possible, but of course there is always the possibility that Tesco processed the negs badly, in which case there's nothing much more that can be done.

If you've got a scanner you could try scanning a neg and seeing if the graniness is still there.