Good result from CC imaging

happygolucky

happygolucky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,101
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I got my first roll of 120 Provia back yesterday and all the prints and scans are totally blown. Here's an example and a pic of the negs to show that the sky looks ok.

cnv000012.jpg


IMG_6307.JPG


Also the scans are only 400x400

I have rang them and they said the would re-scan them if I send the back. Just wondered if anyone else has had a similar experience of it, cheers..

Edit: The scans look rubbish being so small too.
 
Last edited:
It can be difficult to tell looking at a picture of a sheet of negatives, but certainly the best lit slide there (second strip, second from top), the sky definitely looks blown in the original negative.

Professional labs simply cannot offer the "scanned with love" method that people at home do - they don't have the time or resources to dedicate themselves to that. 400x400 is unacceptable though... are you sure there aren't bigger versions on the disc? (I've never used CC Imaging, but some of the photo scanning software does write stuff in bizarre places and folders on CDs)
 
Looks like the print is optimised for average light density, pretty standard I think. As said, if you want hands-on touchy-feelie printing then don't leave it to a machine... a sorry state of affairs but you cannot have cheap dev/printing *and* personal attention.

*edit: CC imaging process, scan, mount, print, post and supply a free film for £10 and you are complaining?
 
Last edited:
Ambermile said:
Looks like the print is optimised for average light density, pretty standard I think. As said, if you want hands-on touchy-feelie printing then don't leave it to a machine... a sorry state of affairs but you cannot have cheap dev/printing *and* personal attention.

*edit: CC imaging process, scan, mount, print, post and supply a free film for £10 and you are complaining?
Click to expand...

It's only good value if the end product is acceptable. The scan size clearly isn't.
I've also made quite a bit of use of this offer. My first couple of films scanned at 2533 x 2533 (or close to from memory) last one received was half that. Not sure what's happening up there...come on CC...
 
It's not a question of value as a test of acceptability, it's more that the price reflects the results and should influence the expectations.

But yes, 400x400 is unacceptable - given that it's only a tickbox setting, the scan is a scan and it's the save options that change. Maybe just a simple case of an oversight.
 
in the interest of fairness, be sure to update this thread with the outcome of the re-scan.

I've always found CCI to be very helpful and willing to sort any problems out - though in fairness, I used to pitch up on the doorstep to deliver/collect rather than post things...
 
I'll be sure to up-date once I get the re-scans back.
I know not all the negs are not a good exposure, but I can't understand why all the scans are way overexposed. And 400x400 is way too small in my limited film experience.

Ambermile, so your saying I should just grin and bare it because of the offer?
 
Freecom. They're all 400x400 straight from the Fuji viewer..
 
Hell no - get in there and make your point, those scans are way too small (and the prints presumably made from them are inferior as you say but in CCI's defence, the process is automated for average density). If you have a problem you gotta get your side in - without feedback service companies cannot improve - you are effectively doing them a favour flagging up issues. Had they messed up the negs otoh, I'd be screaming no matter what the price :D
 
They were very apologetic on the phone, so hopefully they'll get it right next time, (fingers crossed)..
 
Letting somebody else do you're scans can be a bit tricky, without seeing everything you have its tough to analyse the job as a whole.
Just commenting on the frame you have posted, the sky is blown, but the slide isn't, but it could also be said that the slide shows less detail in the darker areas, maybe the scanner has compensated for detail in the darker areas at the expense of a blown sky.
Only you can decide which exposure you would prefer, you can't always have both, especially with slide, they can be so much denser than colour neg.
To be certain you have useful exposure across the whole frame, you need to use a grad to push the sky back, or meter for the scene and take a blown sky on the chin.
I have some terrible pictures of the Flying Scotsman in a station on the Nyork moors, fantastic beautifully exposed sky but ****** train, that roll of film taught me a lot about slide and scanning it..:(

I'm not defending CC, although their processing has always been right on the money for me, I've never needed scans or prints.
 
Just had a phone call about half hour ago from CCI.

They have re-scanned the negs and the very kind gentleman was happy to tell me they have come out much better exposed :thumbs:

He mentioned the scanner had over compensated for the shadows, hence the blown sky's in most.

Regarding the small sizes, well that was an error on my behalf as he said there are two resolutions on the disc and I was just saving the small ones :shrug::bang:

Hey hum, you learn something new everyday ;)

And being such a kind man, he's given me 3 more rolls of 120 Provia too :D

He said he'd sent the package off and it (hopefully) should be with me tomorrow.

So, I'd like to say a big thank you to CCI for a great service. I shall be sending my next rolls to you soon... Thank you :thumbs:
 
happygolucky said:
Just had a phone call about half hour ago from CCI.

They have re-scanned the negs and the very kind gentleman was happy to tell me they have come out much better exposed :thumbs:

He mentioned the scanner had over compensated for the shadows, hence the blown sky's in most.

Regarding the small sizes, well that was an error on my behalf as he said there are two resolutions on the disc and I was just saving the small ones :shrug::bang:

Hey hum, you learn something new everyday ;)

And being such a kind man, he's given me 3 more rolls of 120 Provia too :D

He said he'd sent the package off and it (hopefully) should be with me tomorrow.

So, I'd like to say a big thank you to CCI for a great service. I shall be sending my next rolls to you soon... Thank you :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Good to hear that. Well done to CC Imaging.
 
Got them back as said today :D

I know they're not the best exposed, but better than their first attempt.
Plus these scans are 2433x2433 :)

1


Yashmat 003 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

2



Yashmat 005 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

3


Yashmat 006 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

4

Yashmat 004 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

5


Yashmat 012 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

I'v been using my OM10 as a light meter, but have just bought a Weston master V off the bay. These are test shots really. My brother Trevor and I are off on an early one to Brighton next week, so hopefully I'll have some more interesting shots. Going to try some XP2 in her soon too.

Thanks for taking the time to look :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
happygolucky said:
Regarding the small sizes, well that was an error on my behalf as he said there are two resolutions on the disc and I was just saving the small ones
Click to expand...

freecom2 said:
are you sure there aren't bigger versions on the disc? (I've never used CC Imaging, but some of the photo scanning software does write stuff in bizarre places and folders on CDs)
Click to expand...

:bang: :bonk: :bang: :thumbs:

Much better scans!
 
When i got mine back, i thought they were a really small size. But the guy on the phone told me they are 7/8MP. Just open them in Photoshop and go to Image Size, and it shows there. Just small file sizes
 
SimonUK said:
When i got mine back, i thought they were a really small size. But the guy on the phone told me they are 7/8MP. Just open them in Photoshop and go to Image Size, and it shows there. Just small file sizes
Click to expand...

Thanks Simon. I know now for future reference :thumbs:
 
Well there you go Andrew, make an error:), then complain and get the work re-done and three films to boot. Top man.:)

Well done to CCI, I will use that company no problem.
 
... maybe alter thread title a bit too?


Just saying is all :D
 
Well, no I don't think so - you had a problem and it was sorted pretty much. It might have been more a question of interpretation but nonetheless you have actually made it easier for others to use CCI and know what they are getting... that's a plus all round :thumbs:
 
I had a sneaking suspicion you'd be happy with the outcome of the re-scan - hence my suggestion ^^^ up there... ;)
 
Thanks Arthur and Mark. Just think in hindsight I shouldn't have mentioned the name of the company in question in the headline, but I guess now it's resolved with a good out come everyone's a winner :thumbs: Even if a part of it was my error :p

Cheers CCI :D
 
Slide isn't the best choice for bright daylight skies if being blown is a concern
It's also an absolute nightmare to scan for sharpness and dynamic range.

Where I think it excells is if there's a deep blue sky or on an overcast day, If the light is how it appears in your photos is when I like to take natural light portraits as it's like the world is in it's own giant softbox.
 
timreeves said:
Slide isn't the best choice for bright daylight skies if being blown is a concern
It's also an absolute nightmare to scan for sharpness and dynamic range.

Where I think it excells is if there's a deep blue sky or on an overcast day, If the light is how it appears in your photos is when I like to take natural light portraits as it's like the world is in it's own giant softbox.
Click to expand...

I shall bear that in mind, cheers Tim :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top