Mega image comparison

Using the same subject (some flowers...I'd call them daffodils, but they're purple), we have 3 sets of comparisons to make. In the first bout, our contenders are:

1. Snapfish scan
2. ScanCafe scan

In the second bout:

1. DIY scan (Epson Perfection V300, I think)
2. Swan photo labs scan
3. ScanCafe scan

Finally, the headliner matchup:

1. iPhone 4
2. Nikon D90
3. Print film (Fujicolor 100)
4. Slide film (Fujichrome Velvia 50)

Onto the comparisons!

Snapfish vs. ScanCafe

Here we have a print film scanned by two different vendors:

• Snapfish is primarily a digital photo products company, but they also run a mail-in photo processing and scanning service. They are very cheap (around $0.20 per image developed and scanned).
• ScanCafe is a photo scanning company in Bangalore that prides itself on high resolution scans "by hand". Their standard price is $0.35 per image, but often have sales. The biggest downside is their turnaround time - about two months.

Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish

Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe

ScanCafe messed up on this one. I like the color and exposure on the Snapfish scan a lot better. This is generally not the case.

Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish

Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe

In the details, it's not much of a fight. ScanCafe has better scanners and higher-res files.

DIY vs. Swan Labs vs. ScanCafe

Here we have a slide film scanned three ways:

1. By me, on an Epson Perfection V300 scanner using the provided software. Free, but fairly time-consuming (90 sec per image, or 50 min for a 36-exposure roll). 
2. Swan Labs, where my local camera store outsources their E-6 process. $0.18 to $0.39 per scanned image, depending on resolution (the examples below are the expensive kind).
3. ScanCafe (see first section) 

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned at home

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by Swan Labs

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe

These are remarkably similar. I think Swan Labs vs. ScanCafe is mainly an issue of taste regarding exposure settings. Even the DIY scan has similar color. A little hazy, but I think that can be fixed by the levels slider.

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned at home

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by Swan Labs

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe

The DIY scan is actually at a higher resolution (4000 dpi) than either of the outsourced scans, so the fuzziness is entirely due to the optics. The Swan Labs scan is supposed to be about the same resolution as the one by ScanCafe, but it has some very apparent blockiness. Fraudulent resizing? Bad Bayer algorithm?

Anyways, it's clear that ScanCafe sets the bar for scan detail. I like its colors, too.

iPhone vs. DSLR vs. negatives vs. slides

Four contenders in the final matchup:

1. iPhone 4 camera. Ubiquitous (for me, anyways) and quite good. $600 MSRP, but the camera is only a small portion of that.
2. Nikon D90 digital SLR. $780 MSRP.
3. Fujicolor 100 negative (print) film. $0.23 for film, processing, and low-res scanning. Add $0.30 for high-res scans.
4. Fujichrome Velvia 50 slide film. $0.65 for film, processing, and low-res scanning. Add $0.17 for high-res scans.

iPhone 4

Nikon D90

Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe

Perhaps purple is not a good color for the iPhone sensor. I've gotten some great colors from the iPhone camera; this isn't. Comparing the darker corners of the image with the center, there's a clear color shift as one of the color channel saturates.

Here, the DSLR has too much dynamic range. Instead of losing the background clutter in the shadows, we retain contrast. And the greens and purples are not as saturated as in film. In that regard, the Velvia is just ridiculous. For this image, though, that's a good thing. Come to think of it, it's probably a good thing for anything worth taking a picture of.

iPhone 4

Nikon D90

Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe

The iPhone's tiny sensor loses big time on the image detail front. It's at a disadvantage on resolution (approx 2000 dpi vs. 3000 for the other images), but it's already struggling to fill those pixels with meaningful information. I think there's some clear evidence of edge sharpening and noise reduction going on here.

The DSLR, despite the DX format, is incredibly sharp. Simply astounding. This close-up image is an 8.6X crop of the original image, and it still looks fine. That's like getting a 300mm lens out of a 35mm lens. What.

The slide film beats out the print film in this contest. I don't know if that's supposed to happen, but the edges are a lot cleaner on the slide film. Hard to rule out focus issues or camera motion, however. The slide film is also a bit grainier, but it's not unpleasant.