- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 737
- Location
- Tacoma, WA
- Lightroom Experience
- Intermediate
- Lightroom Version
- Classic
I've been looking for scanning services to scan about 40 years worth of slides, negatives and prints. Most reviewers cover the most common ones.
I came across one unusual service, DPS Dave, that is based in Oregon and does all their work there.
Dave makes some claims that are at odds with what most services say, but I don't have any experience with scanning analog images, so I'm not in a position to judge. I'm curious about what others think about his claims.
I came across one unusual service, DPS Dave, that is based in Oregon and does all their work there.
Dave makes some claims that are at odds with what most services say, but I don't have any experience with scanning analog images, so I'm not in a position to judge. I'm curious about what others think about his claims.
- Dave claims he gets better results from scanned prints than from scanned negatives. His explanation is that negatives (particularly "consumer grade" film) tends to fade and otherwise degrade over time, and while prints can also degrade over time, the kind of degradation that prints undergo is more possible to correct for post-scanning. Every other service I've seen says that if one has both a print and a negative of the same shot, scan the negative.
- After scanning to TIFF, Dave uses the JPEG-LS codec to losslessly compress the image. I can't find a lot of info about JPEG-LS, other than that it isn't a widely adopted codec. But, my understanding (perhaps wrong) is that there are other differences besides compression loss (for standard JPEG) that makes TIFF a superior format for scanning analog images. In particular, my understanding was that the dynamic range available in JPEG is less than TIFF is capable of. Then again, since we're not talking about a RAW original but a scan, I'm not sure if the dynamic range in a scan from negative or slide really is that much better than what JPEG is capable of.