Trip Report: Clearwater, FL

The Route

At the end of the year 2007 we flew down to Clearwater, FL to visit relatives. We had four in my Mooney: myself as pilot, my wife in the right seat, and our two children were in back. I filed a route from PDK to CLW, a trip that I have flown many times before. The route I always file is ATL V97 PZD V35 DONHU direct. This route goes directly over the top of Atlanta Hartsfiled, then down to Albany, then Cross City, then directly towards the Clearwater area with a landing at the small field of Clearwater Airpark. The last leg goes out over the Gulf about 8 miles offshore. Some might be surprised that I can get permission to fly directly over Hartsfield, but I have flown this route many times successfully. I file IFR at 9000 feet. Upon departure, Atlanta puts me at 5000 feet and sends me right over Hartsfield. We get a great view and we save some time. Our destination was CLW, Clearwater Airpark. This is a small uncontrolled GA field with one runway and lots of helpful people. It is our destination of choice whenever we fly to the area. However, it has some hostile neighbors, nighttime restrictions, and no instrument approach (not even GPS). The runway is lighted but takeoffs are prohibited after sunset and landings are only allowed until 9 pm.

Outbound

We left PDK on December 29 at 4 pm, a little behind schedule. I calculated an arrival at 6:30 pm—about 45 minutes after sunset with plenty of time to land before the deadline. I used the portable Garmin 396 GPS navigator to keep track of our position and also to keep tabs on current weather conditions. We encountered some weather around Thomasville but it was very easy to steer around it with the 396. About Cross City with the sun setting I checked the weather at St. Petersburg (PIE) as it is the field closest to CLW. I was dismayed by what I saw!

METAR KPIE 292253Z AUTO 23005KT 7SM SCT003 21/21 A3008

A scattered layer at 300 with light winds and no spread between the temperature and the dewpoint, just as night was falling. It was the classic setup for fog. We were still 30 minutes away and I could only watch as the weather deteriorated. 10 minutes later the layer had become broken and I was pretty sure we would not get in to CLW. As we descended in to the area I still saw clear skies, but as we got closer to Clearwater I could see the blanket of fog. Approach asked me what I wanted to do (the dreaded "say intentions") and I requested the ILS 17 in to PIE but I would keep watching for a break in the fog. As I intercepted the localizer I could see breaks in the fog and I thought that maybe we could get lucky. I requested a vector towards CLW to take a look, and approach gave me a vector. Then he asked me "do you know what a cruise clearance is?" I responded, "I've read about them, but have never gotten one." Then he cleared me "Cruise 1700". Cool!

Searching

The layer of fog covered CLW but there were breaks visible in it. Just to taunt me it ended about 2 miles north of the airport. Had CLW been 3 miles further north it would have been in the clear. Using the 396 as guidance (with some help from the controller), I circled the airport and looked straight down in to blackness. "That must be it" I thought. I clicked on the airport's CTAF frequency and watched the runway lights come on. "Yep, that's it." Although there were some holes in the clouds I did not feel good about being able to see the runway on any sort of final approach. I continued north away from the airport and as I looked over my shoulder I could see the runway lights disappear in to the clouds. Although I was able to see the runway looking straight down, the slanted view that I would need while approaching for a landing was blocked by the fog. So I told approach that we could not get in and that we needed to divert to PIE. I hopped over to Clearwater CTAF and asked the folks in the FBO to tell my father (who was waiting there for our arrival) that we were diverting.

We weren't the only ones to get caught by the fog. Lots of planes were diverting to PIE and we had to get in line for the approach. Once we intercepted the localizer I looked ahead and could see lots of street lights. I could even catch a glimpse of the beacon at PIE. But when I looked where I thought the runway should be I only saw blackness. We intercepted the glide slope and started our descent. Then the runway lights appeared out of nowhere. Then they disappeared. For the rest of the approach the lights played hide and seek as the low clouds moved. For a time we could see the beginning of the runway but not the end. It was a very weird experience. At 300 feet, of course, we had a clear view and we touched down without difficulty.

The FBO

After landing the tower asked us where we wanted to park. I hadn't been to PIE in a few years, but the last time I was here my FBO of choice was Air BP. But tower gave me some bad news "They were bought out by Signature." "Well, then, I guess its Signature." We were cleared to taxi to the Signature ramp, but as I approached the lineman was giving me baton signals that I had never seen before. He looked like he was waving me off or directing me further down the ramp. But as I looked in the direction he was waving all I saw was grass. I couldn't go back out to the taxiway without a clearance so I really wasn't sure what this guy wanted me to do. He eventually told me to stop, and held me there until a jet on the ramp departed. Then he waved me in and parked me on the ramp. Even before my wife got out of the plane, a man came out of the building and yelled at the other linemen "get that Mooney out of here, we have planes coming in." My wife managed to get one of our daughters out of the plane but we were not given any time to unload or even ask questions. A tug was immediately hooked up and we were moved off the ramp. The plane was towed all the way to the other end of parking, a very long distance from the terminal building. After we were parked and out of the plane I asked for a golf cart to get all the luggage back to the building. "Oh yes, I will bring one out right away." 10 minutes later there was still no sign of a cart, so my daughter and I grabbed everything and walked. He finally caught up to us about 100 yards from the building. When I complained to him about being moved off the ramp ("We didn't even have time to unload pur luggage") he responded with "well we are very busy tonight." "In other words," I said, "we don't burn kerosene." "Oh no sir, even our jets are being moved off the ramp." But that excuse fell flat as I looked over at the ramp and saw several jets unloading their passengers and luggage.

Once inside I complained again to the lady behind the counter and I was given the same excuse: "we are very busy tonight." But none of that excuses the rude treatment and the feeling of being second-rate to the bizjet crowd. So, putting that behind me, I started dealing with other things I know about Signature. I asked "What fees are you going to be charging me?"

"We charge $18/night for parking," she responded.

"That's it? No other fees?"

"Yes sir, that's it."

"There's no ramp fee or handling fee?"

"Oh yes, well there is that too if you don't buy 7 gallons of fuel."

"I specifically asked you what fees I would be charged and you didn't mention that one! That's exactly what I'm talking about when I ask you about fees: I want to know all the fees. Why would you leave that out?"

She had no response for that. So I ordered 5 gallons per side. I would have make it 3.5 per side but I was afraid they would only put in a total of 6.9 then claim I didn't take on 7 gallons. I am not a big fan of Signature Flight Support.

The Tour

There was no way I was going to leave the Mooney at Signature for longer than I absolutely had to, so we planned to relocate it the next day from PIE to CLW. In the meantime we visited my family, including my brother, his son (my nephew) and his grandson. My nephew is an A&P with Mesa Airlines and is very much in to aviation, although he is not a pilot. His son is 10 years old and I see him very infrequently. So I asked them if they'd like to go along for the ride. They both readily agreed. My father dropped the three of us off at PIE Signature. Much to my surprise the line crew had brought my plane up from the back 40 and parked it on the ramp to prepare for our departure. We took off from PIE and headed due west to the coast, then turned south. We toured the coastline at 2500, then ducked down to 1000 as we got close to the southern end of the peninsula to get below Tampa's airspace. Off the southern tip in the mouth of Tampa Bay is an amazing structure with an interesting story: the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.

We flew all the way down to the bridge to get a good view. No we did not fly underneath it! Then we turned around and headed back up the coast. Once we got out from under the low shelf of Tampa airspace we climbed back up to 2500 and went all the way up the coast to Honeymoon Island. From there we turned inland and headed towards CLW. For the landing I had a direct crosswind with some gusts, along with some wind shear on short final. But the landing was successful and good enough to impress my nephew.

Clearwater Airpark

I can't say enough good things about these folks. I have been flying to CLW for years when I visit my relatives. They have always been great! In the midst of a busy city the place feels like an old-fashioned sleepy country airport. On rare occasions they don't have room to park me, but I almost always get a spot on the pavement. They recently tore down the old terminal building and put up a temporary one. Supposedly they will be building a new permanent building soon, but who knows when that will actually happen. The "temporary" building is actually quite nice and much better than its predecessor. It is a clean and comfortable facility with a wonderful staff. It isn't cheap, but it is less expensive than nearby PIE. Parking is $15 a night with the first night waived with a fuel purchase. Compare that to Signature which charged me $18 a night and the threat of an additional charge if I didn't buy fuel (and their fuel was much more expensive, too)! I love going to CLW. They're just awesome.

The Return

For our return trip I filed my usual route from CLW to PDK. This is not the exact reverse of the route down. It is: CTY V579 VNA V362 MCN V323 HUSKY direct. Although I know from experience that Atlanta will take me over the top of Hartsfield on the way out of PDK I also know that they won't do that for me on the way back in. There are set traffic corridors for the Atlanta area to make life easier for the controllers. Departures leave on the cardinal directions (North, East, South, West) and arrivals are brought in on the "corners" (Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, Southeast). If I filed a route that arrived from the South then approach would just give me a revised route that arrived from the southeast. So why fight it? I just file a route that takes me over Macon then towards the Atlanta area. This route is also fun because it follows I-75 for about 100 miles and we can wave to the cars as we pass them by.

Our return trip was faced with more headwinds and the threat of a wide area of occasional moderate turbulence over the entire northern half of Georgia. Unfortunately both forecasts were correct. Our progress was slow and starting somewhere south of Macon it got bumpy too. The last 40 minutes of the flight was bumpy and quite uncomfortable. Fortunately my family has cast-iron stomachs and generally doesn't mind the turbulence. But it was still not fun. The only good thing about the return trip was the absence of rain and clouds. We left Clearwater with warm temperatures and landed at PDK in 40 degree weather. For a minute there we were all wishing we had stayed in Florida. We unloaded, tied the plane down, and headed home, tired but satisfied.

Footnote

The images in this log were created by Google Earth. The airplane's track was captured by the Garmin 396, then later downloaded to a computer, processed by GPS Visualizer, then loaded in to Google Earth. The color of the flight path indicates the ground speed: red is slowest, then yellow, green, blue, and magenta.

Timing Is Everything

Timing is everything, and my timing usually seems to be bad. On April 30 2008 DigMyPics received 33 rolls of negative film from me totalling 758 frames. They were to digitize the frames at 2000 dpi and send me back my film and a DVD containing the images. An order of this size typically takes about 10 days.

On Monday May 5, at approximately 2 am local time, a fire broke out in the building that houses DigMyPics. The fire was devastating. It destroyed the building, most of the equipment, and a significant portion of the photos, negatives, film, and videos that the company was processing at the time. The fire and the investigation afterwards made their servers inaccessible, so they could not even determine who had orders still pending. They did not get servers back from the fire department (due to the investigation in to the cause of the fire) until May 23. After they restored access to their database, they were able to determine that they had 195 orders in house at various stages of processing.

The people at DigMyPics have been working like crazy since the fire trying to salvage as much as they can. Not everything was lost, and some things that were damaged could still be salvaged and at least digitized. By June 2 they were able to determine that, of the 195 orders, 51 have been fully recovered and another 28 have at least something recovered. They are still working on the remaining orders trying to match them up with the media they have been able to salvage.

I received word towards the end of May that they have found at least some of my images on the server they got back from the fire department. But so far I have not received details on how much they have or when they will be able to cut me a disk. I do not have any hope of recovering the original negatives at this point.

If you go to their website now, http://www.digmypics.com, you will only see text and a few pictures of their recovery efforts. It was a tragedy that took many people's precious memories. But the good news is that no one was hurt and the fire was contained to the one building.

I am very appreciative of the folks at DigMyPics and their continuing efforts to salvage what they can. They were certainly under no legal obligation to do so, and could easily have walked away from the whole mess. But they understand these are our memories and in many cases cannot be replaced.

In my collection, the following topics are missing and feared lost: Branda's wedding, Mom & Dad's 50th wedding anniversary, my 35th birthday party, family trip to Vegas and the Grand Canyon, Cindy's etiquette class and banquet, Ryan's (my nephew) first birthday, Becky's surprise birthday party, Cindy's 10th birthday, Christmas pictures from 1999, 2000, and 2001. In many cases I can still locate the photos, and digital images can be created from those. But it is much more difficult to correlate the photos with dates and events, and the resulting digitized images aren't as good.

If I had sent the order out two weeks earlier (like I wanted to) it would have been completed and back in my hands. If I had procrastinated another week, the order never would have arrived and the negatives would have been sent back to me.

So now I have to find a different digitizing house for the remainder of my negatives. And next time I think I may send out smaller orders.

Review: Dig My Pix

The next lab that I decided to try for digitizing my negatives was DigMyPics. They are competitively priced and have a reasonably fast turnaround time. I sent them two 36-exposure rolls of Kodak Gold 200 that date from 1996. My decision to try them was based on three primary factors. Price: DigMyPics charges 44 cents per frame for 2000 dpi scans. In-country processing: all processing is done at their facility in Mesa, AZ. Turnaround: they normally take 5 days to process smaller orders.

The price per frame includes a credit for one disc (either DVD or CD). If your order is too large to fit on one disc then they charge an additional $6 per disc. Return shipping is extra and starts at $12.50. When I sent my order in (November) Dig My Pics was advertising 5 day turnaround. This does not include 2-3 days shipping on either end. Turnaround times can vary and are advertised continuously on their website.

I shipped four sheets of negatives (two sheets per 36-exposure roll) via 2-day FedEx. After arrival it took Dig My Pix 5 working days to process and return ship (also via 2-day FedEx). From departure to return the entire process took 13 days (9 working days plus two weekends). The cost breakdown was as follows: $32.56 for 74 frames, $13.05 for outbound shipping, $13.00 for return shipping. Total cost was $58.61 or 79 cents a frame. Obviously this cost would be less for larger orders.

I received back two discs, one contained the 2000 dpi images and the other contained low-res images. Dig My Pics separated the images by roll in to different directories. They used my designated "roll numbers" to name the directories: these numbers were written on the negative sheets that I shipped to them. Within each directory the files were named using the roll number, an underscore, then a sequence number. An example would be "960524_001.JPG". Images were 2789 x 1822. Low-res images were 1278 x 835, or about 900 dpi. There were no frames, borders or apparent registration problems with any of the images. The scans were very dust-free, likely due to the fact that Dig My Pics uses Digital Image Correction and Enhancement (Digital ICE) technology to remove dust and scratch marks from the images. Unfortunately many of the images contain what appears to be a piece of lint along one edge of the frame. It takes the same shape and is located in the same spot in many of the images, implying that it was stuck in the processing machine during digitization. The mark does not appear on the negatives. I sent a note to the sales force and they have offered to correct the problem with post processing and send me another disc.

One concern I had with using a resolution of 2000 dpi was the image's appearance if enlarged to a print size of 8 x 10. I have also heard that Digital ICE can tend to blur an image and make it less suitable for enlargements. As an experiment I sent one of the 2000 dpi images to a local lab for printing at 8 x 10, and I had the same lab print the original negative at the same size. The difference between the two enlargements is noticeable but not pronounced. The enlargement from the negative is slightly sharper with a touch more color saturation and more "pop". There is a very slight amount of graniness to the digital enlargement in parts of the picture. But the differences are slight and the results from the digitized image should be adequate for most purposes. I will stick with 2000 dpi as a good compromise, but I don't think I will be throwing out my negatives any time soon.

Here is a sample image from the set I sent in for processing:


Overall I am very pleased with the results from Dig My Pics and I plan to use them to digitize more of my negatives.

Summary:

excellent service
excellent results
photos are organized and sorted
low-res scans included
total time with shipping still takes 2 weeks

The Resolution of Digitized Negatives

Companies that digitize negatives provide a variety of resolutions at a range of prices. Which means you have to decide which resolution fills your particular needs. The three most popular resolutions for negatives appear to be 2000 dpi, 3000 dpi, and 4000 dpi. Not all firms provide scanning services at all resolutions, and if you have hundreds of rolls to do then the increased prices for higher resolutions will have an impact on your budget. So what does each resolution get you?

Let's do a quick review. Remember that resolution is measured as pixels per inch which is the same as dots per inch or dpi. Resolution is also relative. You can't really talk about resolution without also considering the medium on which the image appears. For our purposes there are two resolution that we need to worry about: the resolution at which the negative is scanned and the resolution of any reprints we want to make from that image.

A 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm (or it's supposed to be anyway). So a 2000 dpi scan should result in an image that is 1890 x 2835 pixels. Most labs that make prints from digital images will tell you that a print will only look good if its resolution is least 200 dpi, and many recommend at least 300 dpi. If this image (1890 x 2835) is printed at 4 x 6 inches the result would be about 472 dpi, which is great. At 8 x 10 inches it would be about 236 dpi, or marginally acceptable.

Here is a list that compares the three common scanning resolutions and what enlargements they are able to support:

• 2000 dpi: 1890 x 2835, good to 5 x 7, marginal to 8 x 10
• 3000 dpi: 2835 x 4252, good to 8 x 10, marginal to 11 x 17
  
• 4000 dpi: 3780 x 5669, good to 11 x 17, marginal to 16 x 20
  

So the choice of resolution depends on what you want to do with the results. If you want to make good looking enlargements up to 8 x 10 then you should consider scanning at 3000 dpi. If you plan on going larger than that you need 4000 dpi. But most people will not print larger than 4 x 6 except on rare occasion. For that purpose 2000 dpi is adequate.

If you understood all that then you need not read any further. If you're still scratching your head then let me try to clear the confusion. Remember that resolution is a relative measure. It depends on the size of the physical medium. The size of a jpeg image is always best expressed as actual pixels just for this reason. Imagine you have a jpeg that is 1500 pixels wide by 1200 pixels high. If you print this image at a size of 5 inches by 4 inches it will be printed at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch (dpi). That's because 1500 pixels divided by 5 inches is 300. Now if you take that same image and print it at a size of 10 inches by 8 inches, the resulting resolution will only be 150 dpi (1500 divided by 10). The same image printd at different sizes yields different resolutions.

Now let's go back to the negatives. When a negative is scanned the equipment picks up information at a predefined density, or resolution. If a negative is scanned at 2000 dpi, that means it measures levels of light and color at 2000 different, equally spaced, distinct points for every inch of the frame. A frame is supposed to be 24mm high by 36 mm wide, although some cameras might not get that exactly correct. Convert those millimeters to inches and then multiply by the density and you get 1890 pixels high and 2835 pixels wide. Once that scan is made and converted in to a jpeg, you cannot add information to it. Sure you can make it larger but you would have to extrapolate (or in other words "guess") the extra data. So for all practical purposes that image is 1890 x 2835 and no larger. Take that image and put it on a sheet that is 4 inches by 6 inches and it will be at a resolution of 472. You can get this number using simple math: 1890 pixels divided by 4 inches (or 2835 pixels divided by 6 inches). Well, actually its 472.5, but I rounded down.

It gets a little more interesting when you print that same image on a 5 x 7. The reason is that the frame doesn't quite fit on a 5 x 7. If you let the 2835 horizontal pixels exactly fill the 7 inches, then the 1890 vertical pixels will only cover 4.6 inches and you will end up with ugly white stripes at the top and bottom of the print. So the image has to be cropped on the sides to make the vertical pixels fit. The highest resolution you can achieve, then, is 1890 divided by 5, or 378. Got the hang of that now?

When I start scanning my collection of negatives I will probably stick with 2000 dpi. First, I need to hold the costs down. Second, nearly any reprints I will want will be 4 x 6. I am also planning on keeping my negatives, so on the rare occasion when I feel I want an 8 x 10 or larger I can always go back to the original negative and have it printed from the source.

Review: Imagers

Using Imagers for my negative scanning appealed to me for two reasons. First they are the only place I can find that digitize the frames at 4 different resolutions. Second, they are based in the Atlanta area which would eliminate shipping charges for me. I selected two representative rolls from my collection and dropped then off at the Imagers office in Atlanta at around 5 pm on a Monday. Each roll was stored in its own PrintFile negative archival page. By Tuesday afternoon they called me to tell me that my job was done and I could pick it up anytime. Their web site says a typical turnaround is 3 days, but they got mine done in a day! The package included my negatives in the archival pages (just like I had left them) and a jewel case with my disk and two "insert-sized" pages of thumbnails.

The negatives were mine and the thumbnails were my photos. Unfortunately the images on the disk were not mine. Even though the job number written on the disk was correct, somehow my order had been replaced with someone else's. I called Imagers the next day and they were very apologetic. They promised to put the correct images on a disk and ship it to me overnight. The following afternoon my disk arrived via UPS at no additional cost to me, and this time it contained the correct images.

Imagers is one of the most expensive labs I have seen, but they digitize every frame at 4 different resolutions. The idea being that you can choose the resolution you need for the application you have. Small images are intended for use on the web and as mail attachments. Intermediate sizes can be used for reproducing 4x5 photos, and the largest size is big enough to print 8x10 photos. The disk I got back had the following imae sizes:

• Extra large: 4050 x 2712 (2800 dpi)
  
• Large: 3150 x 2109 (2222 dpi)
  
• Medium: 1805 x 1209 (1300 dpi)
  
• Small: 500 x 335 (360 dpi)

The medium is large enough to create a 4x5 image and still have 300 dpi. The large is enough to print at 8x10 and have over 300 dpi. The extra large should be quite adequate for nearly any possible need, but I find it odd that it isn't 3000 dpi like many other companies provide. But what disappoints me most is the small is actually too small. These days screens don't get much smaller than 1024x768 and many of them have an even higher resolution. When I place my photos on a web site I typically make them 800 x 531 and would never make them smaller than 600 in their widest dimension. So an image of 500 x 335 seems too small, and is certainly a size that I don't have much use for.

The other disappointment with the results is the complete lack of organization for the images on the disk. I asked Imagers if they would organize the images by roll, and they said they were unable to do that. So my two rolls of pictures appeared on the disk in a single directory with sequential numbers from 1 to 46. The first roll was 1-25 and the second roll started after that. Even more frustrating was the fact that the numbering did not match the order on the negatives. Each strip was digitized and the images were numbered in reverse. So as I step through the images on the disk in numerical order, I am actually looking at frames 4, 3, 2, 1, then 8, 7, 6, 5, and so on. In order to get the files back in a coherent order I had to do some Unix shell scripting to get the file names in to a sequence that matched what was on the original negative strips.

On the plus side, all images were remarkably free of dust and other speckles. They were all framed and oriented correctly. Most of the images were color balanced correctly, although some outdoor shots were not. I was pleased with the resulting images, and the negatives made the round trip unharmed.

The bottom line with Imagers is that the extra resolutions they provide are outweighed by the inconvenience posed by the poorly organized file structure, and for me the higher price cannot be justified. Here is a sample image from the set I sent in for processing.


Summary:

fast turnaround and good quality results
excellent service
despite 4 resolutions, none suitable for web
cannot separate rolls
files are not numbered in same order as negatives

Comparing Prices for Digitized Negatives

I have been comparing prices from a variety of places which digitize 35mm negatives to see who has good deals. In addition to the price per frame, most places charge for shipping and some places have additional charges for disks or other hidden fees. So creating a price that is truly comparative was a bit of a challenge. It is also complicated by the fact that not all vendors digitize at the same resolutions. Many vendors will digitize at 2000 dpi or 4000 dpi, and some also provide 3000 dpi.

The chart below presents prices for each of the vendors based on the estimated cost to digitize a 25-exposure roll of 35mm color film. I chose 25 exposures because most people who use 24-exposure rolls are usually able to squeeze one or two extra frames on the end. I arrived at this estimate by calculating the total cost for scanning 300 frames, including any additional fees for disks and return shipping. Then this number was divided by 12. This estimate allows for consolidation of multiple rolls on a single DVD as well as amortizing the cost of shipping across a larger order. If there was no information on the cost of return shipping I estimated it to be $10. I have also included approximate turnaround times. Note that none of these prices includes the cost of shipping materials to the vendor.

Estimated price to digitize a 25-frame roll of color 35mm film:

Company	Turnaround	2000dpi	3000dpi	4000dpi
ScanCafe	36		4.75
White Glove	7	11.02		17.27
BritePix	?		12.08	14.58
DigMyPix	5	12.04	17.04	22.04
PixMonix	4	15.58		23.08
Image Preserve	10	17.08	21.25	24.58
Imagers	3	23.33	23.33
Larsen	?	23.94	31.44	32.69

Notes: Imagers includes 4 scans per image: at 2800, 2222, 1300, and 360. ScanCafe ships material to India for processing. BritePix ships its material to Costa Rica for processing. Both PixMonix and DigMyPix provide web-based post-scan approval before cutting the disk.

Digitizing Negatives

One of the problems that I have been trying to solve lately is what to do with my rather sizable collection of negatives. I won't call it "large" but it is big enough that I need to get everything sorted, labeled, and archived somehow. My wife is also anxious to throw away boxes of old prints that we will almost certainly never use.

In this digital age the obvious choice is to digitize all the negatives. This preserves them and makes generating backup copies easy. My first attempt at tackling this was to purchase a MicroTek 4000tf negative scanner. I used it to digitize around 30 rolls from the 90's. But it has its drawbacks. First, I cannot adequately control the dust in my office environment, so the resultant scans would not be adequate for making prints and certainly not for making enlargements (should I ever choose to do such things). Second, the process takes time. A roll of 24 exposures typically takes about an hour. And this isn't "set it all up and go away for an hour", this is an hour that requires action every 5 minutes. So it is time consuming and labor intensive. I'm also not entirely satisfied with the 4000tf. Since it only has one gear to move the negative cartridge, the cartridge does not always stay aligned correctly and as a result the scans tend to be slightly crooked. It's hard to notice after cropping, but in order to crop away the crookedness I end up losing more of the frame than I would like.

Recently a friend suggested I try one of the many digitizing services. I initially dismissed them as too expensive but on second glance I think the savings in time and the better quality may be enough to justify the expense (and some of them are priced reasonably). So as I experiment with each of these labs I intend to post the results here to benefit anyone else that may stumble across this blog.

So far I have found the following labs that advertise they will digitize strips of 35mm negatives:

• Imagers
• ScanCafe
• BritePix
• Image Preserve
• PixMonix
• Larsen
• DigMyPix
• White Glove

Prices vary widely but generally range from $11 to $24 for a roll of 25 digitized at either 2000 or 3000 dpi. The big exception is ScanCafe which charges an amazing 19 cents per frame for 3000 dpi, what works out to about $5 per roll. Why are they so cheap? Well the 36-day turnaround ought to give you a hint: they send everything to India for digitizing and processing.

When I have time I will post a price comparison of the shops I've found, and I will try to take in to account all the hidden costs (such as disks and shipping).