Question .....

"Noname" <anyonomus.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mq4Tc.79$ZY3.73@trndny08...
 > When you have film developed and have a CD Rom made instead of
 > receiving prints do you have the same flexibility to edit photographs as a
 > digital image taken from a digital camera?. What size are the Jpegs that
are
 > put onto the CD Rom?
 >

If you get Kodak "Picture CD," the image files are the approximate
equivalent of a 2 MP digital camera--you can make excellent quality 4x6
prints, but larger sized prints eventually begin to show their limitations.

If you get Kodak "Photo CD" the image resolution is much higher, but Photo
CD is not offered by many photofinishers anymore. If it is available, it
will be much more expensive than a Picture CD. For one thing, you must pay
for the blank CD, at a charge of about $9.00, then each scan is charged.

Photo CD made sense when film scanners were expensive, but this service is
now used only by the photographer that needs an occasional archive CD, and
does not have his own scanner.

If you can find an independent photofinisher that will scan in higher
resolution than a Picture CD, you can make larger prints. And if your
requirements are for only 4x6 or 5x7 print sizes, you will find the Picture
CD to fit the bill nicely. It was oriented toward the amateur, who makes
prints that are in typical amateur sizes. It is great for people that want
to digitize their film images for emailing, too. But it is NOT a product
geared with the needs of professionals in mind.

Your best bet, if practical, is to acquire your own scanner and to do it
yourself, if you take any significant volume of images.

If you want an occasional Photo CD (the higher-resolution, professional
product) one place that still offers it is <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dalelabs.com" target="_blank">www.dalelabs.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question ..... 

In article <ZD6Tc.15398$nx2.9112@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Jeremy <jeremy.TakeThisOut@nospam.thanks.com> wrote:

 > If you want an occasional Photo CD (the higher-resolution, professional
<font color=purple> > product) one place that still offers it is <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dalelabs.com</font" target="_blank">www.dalelabs.com</font</a>>

Actually, the Dale web page says the service is no longer available.
The Photo CD format, while excellent., was proprietary - and now that
it's been phased out, that makes it a bit risky.

I've been experimenting with local processors for this service, and the
results and prices have varied widely. One returned scans that were all
rotated about 3 degrees clockwise, and another had large and obvious
dust marks on several scans. All used the JPEG format, so they're
"universal" if not lossless.

Amazingly, no one seemed to have a standard price for simply negative
processing and scan to CD - they seemed confused that I didn't want
prints.

So, unless you chance upon a service that does work you like at a
reasonable price, buying a film scanner - NOT a flatbed with a film
adapter - seems the best option.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question ..... 

"Scott Schuckert" <scotts13.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:140820040953447565%scotts13@comcast.net...
 >
 > Actually, the Dale web page says the service is no longer available.
 > The Photo CD format, while excellent., was proprietary - and now that
 > it's been phased out, that makes it a bit risky.
 >


I didn't know that Dale had discontinued Photo CDs. This must have been a
recent decision.

Can you give more details about Photo CD having been phased out? When did
that happen? What about all that expensive scanning equipment that Kodak
sold to photofinishers? Are you saying that it is now impossible to get
Photo CDs made?

Photo CDs had their bad points (pricey, proprietary image format) but at
least they made high-resolution scans available to everyone. It would be a
pity if that option were taken away.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question ..... 

"Noname" <anyonomus.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mq4Tc.79$ZY3.73@trndny08...
 > When you have film developed and have a CD Rom made instead of
 > receiving prints do you have the same flexibility to edit photographs as a
 > digital image taken from a digital camera?.
Yes, they are usually just jpegs, so it's not much different to digicam
jpegs.
 >What size are the Jpegs that are
 > put onto the CD Rom?
This seems to vary wildly between where you get it done. I had it done once
by a place that were equivalent to about a 2MP image (1800x1200). The place
described the scan as 300dpi - obviously they meant "300dpi at an output
size of 6x4", not 300dpi off the film.
Another place I had it done said they did 600dpi scans - I assumed they
meant 600dpi at an output size of 6x4 like the previous place did. Nope - it
was 600dpi off the film - the output was a bit under 900 pixels by a bit
under 600 pixels and as such was totally useless for any printing - even at
6x4 i could see pixelation. At both places, the colour balance, contrast
and brightness was way out of whack, requiring a fair bit of fiddling in
photoshop before I got anything that was vaguely resembling the print for
quality. The wierd thing was, the adjustments were different for every photo
(even consecutive photos) - photos with lots of blue sky were too yellow,
photos with lots of green trees were too magenta - it seemed the machine was
applying some sort of default colour adjustment to get an even histogram on
all channels or something.
Considering over here, compared to process only, process+print costs about
$1 more while process+cd costs about $8 more. until i get my own film
scanner I'll just get prints done and scan the prints - the results of
scanning prints is infinitely better than the film-scans offered by the
local companies. I've seen the quality of neg scan from the Epson RX510 and
Canon 5200 and it is infinitely better than these so called commercial
places.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question .....