Request for comments on image quality
 

Hi Guys,

Please would you take a look at the two images linked below.

Both were taken using a film SLR, on ISO400 Fuji Superior print film.

The film was processed by Tesco into 6" x 4" prints and the images were also put onto CD.

The images linked below are 2 of the ones that were put onto CD.

I would appreciate any thoughts/comments on the quality of the images (not too concerned about comments on the composition/photographic technique). I'm thinking particularly about the resolution/clarity, the size of the images etc.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure that they look as good once transferred onto a digital medium as I had expected them to. Could this be to do with the way that they were scanned by Tesco or is it more to do with the quality of the original prints themselves? Does anybody know if Tesco take the scans from the negatives or if they scan the prints?

Thanks.

Both images are about 1Mb in size.

Image 1

Image 2

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

i think they look a little grainy but that could be my screen resolution

high colour 1024x768
sorry if that doesnt help

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

There is certainly more pixellation on the background than I'd expect.
They should scan the negatives directly, obviously they have got very poor photo processing or post processing digital conversion.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

That's what I thought.

My screen res is 1280x800 32bpp and they still don't look right.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Looks like someone dropped a clanger with the DPI when scanning or when copying the image on to disk. Take it back and ask them why it's grainy before you even zoom in, a straight copy from negative or camera at high res wouldn't do that.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Pixelation, that's the word I was after.

Just looking at the propertied for the files on CD they would appear to be at 24bpp - does that sound about right?

Would it help if I scanned in one of the prints using my own scanner for comparison? I've just had another look at the prints, they're not great but they seem slightly better.....

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

using the camera you said you wouldnt see grain in poster size

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I was starting to think that it might be me or the camera.....I'm more than a little dissapointed, I know I'm not a great photographer but I was hoping the images would be a lot clearer than they are :(

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Often digital pics are better on computer I have found. Looking closely at your pics for 400 speed film the detail (especially on the hair) is good. The only way to get better quality (either normal or on photo CD) would be to drop down to 100ASA film where the resolution is higher especially in bright daylight conditions. Remember you are able to see these pics (on CD) in a much larger format than normal photos so any faults (you think you are seeing) are magnified.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I'd go back and ask why high resolution photos from a quality camera have been digitalised at low resolution before being copied to the CD. Ask them if they use the same settings for all photos because if they do then their service is no good to you really.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Hmmm.....

I suppose so, I had thought that the ISO of the film might be a contributing factor but even at 400 they shouldn't be as grainy as they are surely?

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

It is a possibility, have you looked at the photo closely (magnifier if possible) to see how it looks to the naked eye?

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

The image (to my eye anyway) looks ok.

The background is supposed to be blurred but does (when you look at it closely) appear to be blurred more because it is pixelated - odd considering it is a print from film.

I'm thinking that they scan the negs and then print from the scans. The same problems appear to be visible on the print as are evident in the digital image.

I suppose it could be a film/camera issue it just seems odd.....

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

if its not tesco then it
could be a dirty lens or just a bad batch of film not much else with an SLR cam

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

The lenses are immaculate (trust me on that ;) ).

Wouldn't have thought the film being bad would have manifested itself like this, but I suppose you could be right.

Can anybody recommend a lab where they've had good results pelase? I'll send the next lot there - that will at least help me to eliminate the lab as the source of the problem.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Sorry we're digital here :( Normally send them online so can't recommend a film processor. Any camera specialist shops in your locality that you can go talk to?

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

What res did you have the camera set at rais?

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

There's a Jessops in Cambridge and one in Peterborough, I suppose I could take the next roll of film to them.
__________________

:erm: It's a film camera, so, ummm, "film" res :p:

It was a 400 ISO film :)

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

aah my bad, i should read the thread more closely ;)

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Mmmm jessops, there used to be a small camera shop outside Queensgate near MacD's I think, might want to ask there too just in case. If it's still there lol.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I think they're both Jessops' now.

I'll take a look next time I'm up there though, thanks.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Just looked and they have taken it over :( there is a Youngs Cameras in Wentworth street though. It's near Priestgate.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

:LOL:

Thanks Paul, ar you trying to tell me something about Jessops? ;)

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Not at all, just trying to give you options or a second opinion ;) Can't seem to recall many specialist camera/ photo shops in Peterborough though :(

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Raistlin...How did you get the pics onto the forum??
Did you scan the negs..pics..or take from the cd??
The images on screen are 26"x24" at a res of 26 ppi.
I took the "goat" down to 6"x4" which gives a res of 318 ppi.
I havent tried to print but on screen there is nothing wrong with them
IMO..I assume you used a 35mm cam,which with a 400 iso film would
possibly show some grain....

What is baffling me is how you got a well focused[note the hairs] subject with a moving background????..

With regard to printing...I get all my fotos developed [not printed] and put onto cd...With a good scanner/printer I can do as I wish for the printing..either by scanning the negs or opening the cd in photoshop...

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I took the pic from the CD as provided by Tesco and then uploaded then.

Which is what Angua said, I think I might need to try a lower ISO film next time to see if that improves matters.

The background isn't moving, I just used a large aperature to get a really narrow depth of field. This leaves the object of the photo in sharp focus but blurs the background.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Well they look great on my comp :confused:

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

I agree, I don't know what everyone is going on about :shrug: The animals themselves look pretty clear to me, it's just the background that it is out of focus and that is to be expected because that was not the main focus of the camera.

What exactly did you expect regarding the quality :shrug: I'm not into cameras so don't know if the one you used was good or bad but the only thing I would suggest is to make a comparison with another camera or get the picture done elsewhere. I've only skimmed through this thread so if someone else suggested this than I agree with them too :) Have you had the pics developed so that you can compare with the actual photo?

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

Thanks for the nice comments guys (and gals :) ).

I'm not sure what I was expecting, the backgrounds are supposed to be blurred, I guess I just was expecting them to look softer.

I'm actually pretty pleased with the results overall though.

Re: Request for comments on image quality
 

it looks like they scanned the negatives, then did a 'resize & resample' to get a standard print size, do they use Irfanview, lol :D

the pygmy goat & the meercat came out well, it is the backgrounds that have 'issues' for me at 1280*768 - hth ; Gaz

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.