Request for comments on image quality

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by homealone

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

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

Infranview? Looks like they used Windows 98 and Microsoft Paint

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.

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Infranview? Looks like they used Windows 98 and Microsoft Paint

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.

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

[iron25]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

It's the backgrounds I have problems with as well.....

I'm no expert but ...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

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

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I would appreciate any thoughts/comments on the quality of the images [...] 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?

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.

[marky]

Originally Posted by iron25

I'm no expert but ...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

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

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

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

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?

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.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

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.

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?

Originally Posted by tabatha

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

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.

[Raistlin]

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

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).

Interesting.....

TBH I've been viewing them either in Infranview () 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

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

[Bifta]

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.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

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?

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.