Film Developing in the UK

ChrisR

Most labs will use a Minilab for scanning. Minilabs are a 2 part machine, 1 half server and 1 half printer. Film is mounted into the correct mask (35mm, 120/10, 120/15 etc) and scanned to the server. Minilabs are set up to produce prints at standard photographic sizes (so generally 3:2 ratio for 35mm film) and therefore scan to these sizes. Much the same way a digital camera works, the CCD of the Minilab will output a scan at 72dpi... but with varying pixel density based on the standard photographic size used. I have attached a screen capture of a new site we are working on (that we can't really discuss on here I'm afraid) which outlines a handful of resolutions.

It's worth noting that the resolution (PPI) reported by software such as Photoshop is not always an ideal benchmark. Resolution in this sense is really a division of the pixel density ie 1800 pixels ÷ 72ppi = 25 inches wide, but 1800 pixels ÷ 300ppi = 6 inch wide. Ultimately, the raw information of 1800 pixels remains the same, so the quality remains the same regardless of how we have divided the pixels. The correct way to analyse whether a scan is 'good' or not (perhaps 'good value' would be a better term here) is to use standard print sizes. We could use the formula of.... 'insert longest side of a photographic print ratio' x 300 = ????? pixels or to provide an example using 16x12 standard size: 16 x 300 = 4800 pixels. So a 'good' 16x12 scan would have to contain at least 4800 pixels across the longest side to deliver a high quality print from the file.

In terms of compression, Minilabs can only produce jpg files. As we know, the jpg routine is image specific. If you scan 2 separate 35mm negs to 6x4, each scan will be made up of 1800 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. Say 1 neg was a shot of a clear blue sky and the other neg was a shot of a crop field.... the file size reported when viewing the blue sky jpg in a file browser could be as low as 400kb (but 6mb when viewed in Photoshop as an uncompressed file... as that is how Photoshop treats open images). The shot of the crop field will most likely be 1,000kb+. Both will contain the same amount of pixels and both will produce an equally good 6x4 print.


Chris.
 
Nope, still confused.
 
I do wish they'd just quote dpi. I suspect it's because even the high res scans are rather a pathetic dpi compared to a normal film scanner which is why they don't quote it.

Even quoting the size in megapixels would be better rather than quoting jpg sizes which is again complete bleeding drivel as size of file depends on CONTENT.

Quoting printing sizes is also infuriating as they don't say at what resolution it is printed at so it is completely meaningless.
 
@srichards @RaglanSurf Perhaps my explanation below may help, have you considered that they simply scan at the DPI/PPI necessary to output at the quoted print size?

e.g a 35mm negative (36mm x 24mm = 1.44" x 0.96") is scanned at 4000 dpi so thats an image with dimensions of 5760 x 3840 ([1.44 x 4000] + [0.96 x 4000]), which equals 22.12 megapixels. The uncompressed size of this file will be 66.35 mb (3 bytes (24 bits) per pixel so 22.12 x 3) which will obviously be much smaller when jpeg compression is applied (photoshop etc will tell you the uncompressed size when you open the image).

When it comes to printing, the standard used by nearly all printers is approximately 300 dpi (most pro labs will give details on their printers to it is easy to find out what they print at if your concerned). As ccimaging have tried to explain, the actual PPI/DPI quoted on the image does not make any difference as it will depend on the printer as to the print size from a file (at 300 ppi, the longest side of our 22.12 megapixel scan would be 19.2" (5760/300 = 19.2), but if the printer was a 72 dpi printer then it would be 80" (5760/72) and this is how billboard sized images are produced as they have a lower printer ppi), theres no gain/loss of quality if the scan quotes 72 or 300 ppi in photoshop as thats not what the original was scanned at!
You can change the ppi setting as much as you like in photoshop without it affecting anything as it will not alter the actual image pixel dimensions (unless you tick 're-sample' where it will alter the image dimensions when you change the ppi setting), just the size at which it will tell you it will print! The reason that scans are typically output to CD at 72 dpi is simply because thats what most computer screens usually output at.

That way you can work in reverse as well: as per ccimaging above, a 12"x8" scan is 3600 x 2400: so how do you get from the print size to the scan size? Just simply multiply the print dimensions by 300 and you'll come up with the exact figures that they've quoted, and from that you can then work out what it has been scanned at to get that size. For 35mm, 3600/1.44 = 2500 dpi as does 2400/0.96. Remember that their scanning at the resolution suitable for that print size so for smaller prints don't expect massive dpi numbers (which would be unnecessary as its for a small scan, your not going to be seeing the extra detail when printing even if you had used a higher scanning resolution: if you want higher quality for bigger prints/more resolution then stump up for it), for the 6x4 scans above it comes out at 1250 dpi .

Nothing of course says that the lab can't scan at a higher resolution and then downsize (which would give slightly increased quality compared to a scan at the same dpi due to it having more resolution detail resolved in-between)

So basic rules of scan sizes:

1. If an uncompresssed size is given e.g 18 mb (note that they will commonly say 18 mb Jpegs, they mean when their uncompressed) then divide this by 3 to get the image size in megapixels = 6 mp

2. If its quoted in print size then take the print dimensions e.g 6"x4" and multiply by 300 to get the image dimension = 1800 x 1200 in this case.

3. If you want to get the scanners dpi then divide the image dimension by the negative size so e.g a 10"x8" neg is scanned and the scan is 10000 pixels on the longest side, 10000/10 = 1000 dpi.

If your still confused then I'll try and answer your questions.

Sam
 
Dpi of input scan is an absolute value. If they just quoted that then I'd know instantly whether it was suitable without needing a calculator.
 
Yep I'm confused as well...e.g. Asda's scanned image for 35mm (that's all they do) using a Fuji frontier, is 1800 X 1200pixels and I have asked if they can go higher and they said the machine is set by the engineers...so I would assume whether you get a 6X4" print or 10 X12" print it's still the same resolution (1800 X 1200pixels) so the pixels are sorta stretched out giving a crappier print the larger you go......actually this scan size is not too bad for a home print A4 size.
 
[EDIT: Thanks Chris from ccimaging, for having a go, and for a comprehensive explanation, even if it left some of us still a bit confused. We're hard to please!]

Maybe this is about different audiences. Mom and Pop with an old film camera may be most interested in the print sizes, so they get a scan suitable for that print size. We print relatively seldom, and understand about the sizes of the negatives and the effect on image quality. As Samuel and Suz pointed out, for us the key parameter is the pixel dimensions, and dpi at the film is a good indication of that for a given film stock. Processing houses sometimes quote print sizes, mostly based on 300 dpi at the print, but sometimes 240, so it's kind of hard to know what they mean, and even harder for MF. Even the uncompressed image size is more useful than the print size, TBH; we can divide by 3 and get a megapixel equivalent that is a pretty good indication.

What I would like: the dpi at the film, in addition to any print size or megabyte information!
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Yep I'm confused as well...e.g. Asda's scanned image for 35mm (that's all they do) using a Fuji frontier, is 1800 X 1200pixels and I have asked if they can go higher and they said the machine is set by the engineers...so I would assume whether you get a 6X4" print or 10 X12" print it's still the same resolution (1800 X 1200pixels) so the pixels are sorta stretched out giving a crappier print the larger you go......actually this scan size is not too bad for a home print A4 size.
Click to expand...

Brian thats likely because the scan only option is probably set up for one size scans to CD, but if you were to ask for a 12"x8" print for instance then the Frontier would scan the negative at the correct DPI for the print size as I explained above.

srichards said:
Dpi of input scan is an absolute value. If they just quoted that then I'd know instantly whether it was suitable without needing a calculator.
Click to expand...

Yes, that may be helpful, but the point that I am making is that your getting a low resolution scan if you ask for one and the print size gives you an idea as to what quality you will be getting! Aside from the fact that the input DPI would alter based on the format your scanning anyway (e.g you would not get a 2500 dpi scan from a 6x6 120 negative for instance, it would be more like 1578 dpi to get the same output size)
 
I don't print anything. Print sizes are totally useless to me. I want to know the dpi of the input scan. Nothing else matters to me personally.

I don't know why processors can't just be straight and quote scan resolution.
 
srichards said:
I don't print anything. Print sizes are totally useless to me. I want to know the dpi of the input scan. Nothing else matters to me personally.

I don't know why processors can't just be straight and quote scan resolution.
Click to expand...

That would probably make the most sense, but then again you would have to list what low, medium, high etc mean for every film format as it would vary based on the aspect ratio etc. I do know a few places that do that.
 
s162216 said:
Brian thats likely because the scan only option is probably set up for one size scans to CD, but if you were to ask for a 12"x8" print for instance then the Frontier would scan the negative at the correct DPI for the print size as I explained above.
Click to expand...

Well Samuel that's interesting...I wonder if I asked the operator to set the machine for a 12" X 8" print but instead of doing a print, put the scan on a CD......but alas the machine is probably set at Asda for unskilled\semi skilled operator and it's all auto. :(
 
I was in the costco in Purley, I think this is the one hour service too. Scan, I dunno how much, I was wildly excited about the £1.49 price and forgot to ask.
 
srichards said:
Dpi of input scan is an absolute value. If they just quoted that then I'd know instantly whether it was suitable without needing a calculator.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this isn't strictly true as the dpi/ppi of any digital image is simply the division of the pixel density.

Ultimately, scans produced by most labs will match standard photographic sizes and ratios. The machines are set up to print at photographic sizes and prints are produced on rolls of paper which also correspond to standard widths (5" roll, 6" roll etc). It's impossible for a Minilab to scan at non-standard sizes (a limitation in Minilab software unfortunately).

Let's follow the steps of how a scan/print is produced on a Minilab:
  1. The operator will select 6x4 output (as this is the service requested by the customer).
  2. 1 neg is placed into the scanner.
  3. The scan is produced at 6x4 inch and contains 1800 x 1200 pixels.
  4. The operator then chooses to forward this information to the printer or to the CD burner (or both).
Let's say the operator chooses to do both (forward the scan to burn to CD and also to the printer for a 6x4 inch print). When the customer arrives, they decide to have 1 extra copy, so the operator places the CD into the Minilab and produces 1 more 6x4 print from the scan on CD. The 1st print and the extra print will be identical, as the same information is used to produce each print.

With regards to 'dpi at the film' (which I understand as the setting of the scanner during the raw scan) this can vary drastically depending on film format and the type of scanner used.


On a Minilab: Scans are output to 72ppi (most digital cameras produce images at 72ppi but with varying amounts of pixels .. which represent the 3MP, 5MP etc settings within your digital camera's 'image size' options). If the operator selects a larger scan (for example 9x6 instead of 6x4), the scanning head essentially does a slower pass to provide more pixels in the scan. Ultimately this figure of 72ppi representing the resolution of the scan is a fallacy. The true resolution of the scan is simply how many pixels it contains.

On a virtual drum scanner: This is where things become interesting. All scanners and cameras use an imaging chip (cmos/ccd etc). As film formats differ in size and shape, the amount of film area that covers the CCD in a virtual drum scanner varies. This means that the 'dpi at the film' cannot be the same for 35mm frames and 5x4 sheets. Virtual drum scanning software is much more sophisticated and the operator has greater control over how scans are produced. Here is a screen capture from the website we are working on (sorry I can't discuss services/prices...etc...) that outlines the maximum scan we can produce on our Imacon virtual drum scanner...

These scans have no interpolation and are saved as tif files. You can see that the film formats dictate the 'dpi at the film' which results in varying scan sizes. Saving as tif files simplifies things by not having to deal with jpg compression (some users mistakenly take the compressed file size as a way to measure the size or quality of the scan).

Resolution, its simply a case of 'ignotum per ignotius'.

Chris.
 
I sent a roll off to Ilford Lab, will report back when I receive the prints and scans as to quality etc.

Not shot film in over a decade though so the results could well be terrible through no fault of their own :D
 
ccimaging said:
I'm afraid this isn't strictly true as the dpi/ppi of any digital image is simply the division of the pixel density.

Ultimately, scans produced by most labs will match standard photographic sizes and ratios. The machines are set up to print at photographic sizes and prints are produced on rolls of paper which also correspond to standard widths (5" roll, 6" roll etc). It's impossible for a Minilab to scan at non-standard sizes (a limitation in Minilab software unfortunately).

Let's follow the steps of how a scan/print is produced on a Minilab:
  1. The operator will select 6x4 output (as this is the service requested by the customer).
  2. 1 neg is placed into the scanner.
  3. The scan is produced at 6x4 inch and contains 1800 x 1200 pixels.
  4. The operator then chooses to forward this information to the printer or to the CD burner (or both).
Let's say the operator chooses to do both (forward the scan to burn to CD and also to the printer for a 6x4 inch print). When the customer arrives, they decide to have 1 extra copy, so the operator places the CD into the Minilab and produces 1 more 6x4 print from the scan on CD. The 1st print and the extra print will be identical, as the same information is used to produce each print.

With regards to 'dpi at the film' (which I understand as the setting of the scanner during the raw scan) this can vary drastically depending on film format and the type of scanner used.


On a Minilab: Scans are output to 72ppi (most digital cameras produce images at 72ppi but with varying amounts of pixels .. which represent the 3MP, 5MP etc settings within your digital camera's 'image size' options). If the operator selects a larger scan (for example 9x6 instead of 6x4), the scanning head essentially does a slower pass to provide more pixels in the scan. Ultimately this figure of 72ppi representing the resolution of the scan is a fallacy. The true resolution of the scan is simply how many pixels it contains.

On a virtual drum scanner: This is where things become interesting. All scanners and cameras use an imaging chip (cmos/ccd etc). As film formats differ in size and shape, the amount of film area that covers the CCD in a virtual drum scanner varies. This means that the 'dpi at the film' cannot be the same for 35mm frames and 5x4 sheets. Virtual drum scanning software is much more sophisticated and the operator has greater control over how scans are produced. Here is a screen capture from the website we are working on (sorry I can't discuss services/prices...etc...) that outlines the maximum scan we can produce on our Imacon virtual drum scanner...

These scans have no interpolation and are saved as tif files. You can see that the film formats dictate the 'dpi at the film' which results in varying scan sizes. Saving as tif files simplifies things by not having to deal with jpg compression (some users mistakenly take the compressed file size as a way to measure the size or quality of the scan).

Resolution, its simply a case of 'ignotum per ignotius'.

Chris.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand all of this,but,never the less most informative.

Thank you, Chris.
 
Tesco will process 35mm negs for 99p, (no prints no disc)

That with pound shop agfa means for £1.99 I can get 24 shots :banana:
 
Does your tesco have a machine or do you need to send it off? I've not seen it offered at any of my local tesco.
 
My nearest Tesco (Isleworth) doesn't process film on site anymore but the Twickenham store will still process in an hour.

The easiest way is to actually visit the store and ask, I've found trying to get an answer over the phone practically impossible .
 
I got some 120 developed by http://expressimaging.co.uk/ in Cardiff today. £4.50 a roll dev only, 1hr service. Can't speak for the quality yet, as my v500 isn't due to arrive for a few days, but it's hard to see how they could mess up c41 anyway. They also do E6 and B&W too, and 135, of course. Scanning is £7 for 120, didn't ask about 135. Probably makes more sense to send them away if you're not fussy about time, but you can't really argue at an hour for 120 dev these days.
 
Got a 120 roll of Ektar 100 processed at Photographique in Bristol over the weekend. Paid £7 for a 30 minute turnaround (I'm not from Bristol and didn't have time to wait, but it's £5 if you can wait 24 hours) and when they were done they were supplied back in one of these film pages. I haven't got much experience with developing film yet so I'm unsure how they compare to others, but I was very happy with them. I doubt I'll be using them too often as the chances of me being in Bristol again with a finished roll during their opening hours are quite slim.
Click to expand...

That reminds me, if anyone local to Somerset/Dorset knows of anywhere that can C41 process 120 film locally, I'd really love to hear! Currently I have to post all my film off as the only place that's local gave me the film back rolled tight in a little black pot which was too short for the film, and scratched the last couple of frames quite badly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GlennW said:
I sent a roll off to Ilford Lab, will report back when I receive the prints and scans as to quality etc.

Not shot film in over a decade though so the results could well be terrible through no fault of their own :D
Click to expand...

I had a roll of FP4+ developed by Ilford Labs recently. I posted it off on a Monday and got it back Thursday the next week (10 days). They did a good job- the negs are clean and they were packaged well. Don't think I'll use them again though as my head will explode if I have to keep waiting ten days!
 
Carl Hall said:
I had a roll of FP4+ developed by Ilford Labs recently. I posted it off on a Monday and got it back Thursday the next week (10 days). They did a good job- the negs are clean and they were packaged well. Don't think I'll use them again though as my head will explode if I have to keep waiting ten days!
Click to expand...

Well so far they've had it two weeks tomorrow and I've had nothing back, so not best pleased. I don't need the images immediately thankfully, happy to wait for a little but the turnaround is pretty slow which is annoying.
 
We find that in many cases, mail order customers haven't paid the correct amount of postage to send their films away. It's recommended that, where possible, you take your film to your local Post Office and have them weigh and measure it to determine the correct cost. Usually several 35mm/120 rolls in a small jiffy bag costs the same as a single roll (due to the PO letter gauge). A delay due to insufficient post can take upwards of 8 weeks and usually is returned to sender.

Roll film processing is becoming hard to find on the high street. Cheaper C41 processors lack the width to accommodate the wider roll and others can only process a single roll at once. Processing itself is no different to 35mm, just splice onto the correct leader and the machine pulls the film through. Several minutes later your film pops out the other end almost dry (ok it's not quite that simple). Cutting and sleeving is easier as 120 cameras tend to be more consistent at spacing the frames.

Black & White processing is still done by hand (here at least). The massive Dev Chart is a great resource for those who fancy a bit of alchemy. ID-11 is the most commonly used B&W developer but there are other film specific devs we use. Dilution and timing can be extremely critical with some 'exotic' B&W films. As with C41, most B&W films can be hand processed within 15 minutes.

We find postal charges and services to be our greatest challenge these days. Costs have increased annually over the last few years and the introduction of the PO's gauge means films now have to be sent as a 'small packet'. Even sending films back to customers can take upwards of 5 working days (time in lab is generally 24hrs). RM isn't what it used to be, sadly.

For those that may not be aware, Fujifilm will be ceasing its 'Fujifilm Processing Laboratory' brand later this year. With changing markets and reduced film usage, they have chosen to support film users by concentrating on producing the film rather than being affiliated with a lab. I can see how this will simplify their role as product supplier rather than service provider. Ultimately, nothing changes. Although we have been the UK's official Fujifilm Processing Lab since 2008, Fujifilm will no longer affiliate their lab brand with us (or any other lab in future due to Fuji leaving the processing service industry). In an effort to simplify things (trust me, it's hard staying on top of everything CC does), we have created a dedicated film site www.iamanalogue.com that will remain in place of the Fujifilm Processing Lab.

Glennw, I hope your film arrives promptly. I know what waiting for negs feels like and I've heard that the results from Illford Lab are worth waiting for ;)


Chris.
 
Last edited:
Carl Hall said:
I had a roll of FP4+ developed by Ilford Labs recently. I posted it off on a Monday and got it back Thursday the next week (10 days). They did a good job- the negs are clean and they were packaged well. Don't think I'll use them again though as my head will explode if I have to keep waiting ten days!
Click to expand...

Well, if you want fast results with film, I suppose the only option is to do it yourself. Good, quality local labs are very hard to come by nowadays; that's why I post all of my colour work out. I've basically accepted that waiting is just part of the overall process, except for black and white, which I just do at home. It's usually 15 days from the day I post my film until I receive the scans for any C41 colour negative work.

The key is to be regularly shooting film, so that you are always getting something back from the lab while you are posting the latest rolls out!
 
Last edited:
So, lazy mans approach here, has anybody a suggestion for cheap B & W processing to digital ? Best I've found is £9 for processing to disc, any takers?
 
steveclem said:
So, lazy mans approach here, has anybody a suggestion for cheap B & W processing to digital ? Best I've found is £9 for processing to disc, any takers?
Click to expand...

If you use C41 B/W...Asda might do it for £3
 
GlennW said:
Well so far they've had it two weeks tomorrow and I've had nothing back, so not best pleased. I don't need the images immediately thankfully, happy to wait for a little but the turnaround is pretty slow which is annoying.
Click to expand...

Phoned them up this morning, good and quick customer services. It's done and just waiting to be sent out, so it should be with me in a couple of days hopefully.
 
steveclem said:
Thanks but unfortunately,not. Last time I did this it was about £6 per film but that was 3 years back....whoops.
Click to expand...
Is that a no 'Asda dont do it' or you don't use Asda? Some Tesco stores also offer a similar cheap process and scan deal.
 
I meant it's not C41 process (XP-2) but T-max and Tri-x . I went to snappy snaps in Islington but it's a bit vague now....:help:
 
steveclem said:
I meant it's not C41 process (XP-2) but T-max and Tri-x . I went to snappy snaps in Islington but it's a bit vague now....:help:
Click to expand...

Although true black and white is the cheap and easy option when developing at home, it's the most expensive option when you use a lab, unfortunately. I think you'll need to bite the bullet to pay for the processing and scanning in this instance, but maybe pick up some Ilford XP2 or Fuji 400CN for future shooting? I actually really like XP2 and it only costs me £3.50 or so to develop at Snappy Snaps (that's for 120 format; I think 135 is a pound cheaper).
 
Have a look at the film processing sticky, and the handy price estimator (but remember to check on their web sites once you've narrowed your choices, and let us know if there's a change). IIRC AG are one of the cheapest black and white, but also one of the slower. Postage is a particular problem; it will cost you £3 to send one (or many) film first class, and you only save 40p second class.

If you're London based and able to get around cheaply, then dropping in on one of the London labs might be worth a try. Seem to remember some folk here saying they did that, but can't remember what or who, sorry!
 
I've not tried Fuji CN is it sepia? I'm not over keen on the XP-2 sepia tones but I guess I could change that in the computer, lol, it never occurred to me, I'm so used to slide film and bracketing....
 
steveclem said:
I've not tried Fuji CN is it sepia? I'm not over keen on the XP-2 sepia tones but I guess I could change that in the computer, lol, it never occurred to me, I'm so used to slide film and bracketing....
Click to expand...

Neither XP2 nor 400CN are meant be sepia when scanned or printed. Whoever is scanning the film should correct for any sepia cast.
 
Fuji CN is hard to find, but Kodak BW400CN and XP2 are both available on a buy-one-get-one-half-price basis at most Boots... You can probably do better mail order, but I just wait until I have enough Boots points and get 2*XP2 for "nothing" (prefer it over the Kodak for no good reason I can determine... whereas for the "real" black and white films it's the other way around, prefer Kodak).
 
ChrisR said:
Fuji CN is hard to find, but Kodak BW400CN and XP2 are both available on a buy-one-get-one-half-price basis at most Boots... You can probably do better mail order, but I just wait until I have enough Boots points and get 2*XP2 for "nothing" (prefer it over the Kodak for no good reason I can determine... whereas for the "real" black and white films it's the other way around, prefer Kodak).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't seen Fuji 400CN in stock in any bricks-and-mortar stores, although it is readily available online (e.g., https://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/product/fujifilm-400cn-135-36-b-w-single-roll-film/133-143D). Strangely, both Fuji 400CN and Ilford XP2 are actually made by Ilford.
 
steveclem said:
Thanks but unfortunately,not. Last time I did this it was about £6 per film but that was 3 years back....whoops.
Click to expand...

Ok then....use agfa vista for a £1, dev at Asda with CD for £3...then convert it to B\W....the results are surprising good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top