Request for comments on image quality

[Raistlin]

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

[marky]

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

high colour 1024x768
sorry if that doesnt help

[Jon M]

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.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by markymoan

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

high colour 1024x768
sorry if that doesnt help

That's what I thought.

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

[Paul K]

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.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Jon M

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.

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.....

[marky]

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

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Paul

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.

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

[Angua]

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.

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

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

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.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Angua

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.

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?

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

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?

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

[Raistlin]

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.....

[marky]

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

[Raistlin]

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.