Kodak Sea Processing - Poor resolution CD

I just got back from a 1 week Caribbean cruise with a new OW cert card and 5 rolls of UW photos. I splurged and sent the pics in to Kodak Sea Processing and paid the extra $6 for photo CD (each). Total cost ~$17/roll of 24 pics. Kind of expensive.

Now, to be fair, the prints do have more snap than my last roll of UW (which were really blue/green/muted), but the Sea processing seems to add lots of red (the backscatter is red).

My only "real" complaint is the CD. The resolution is 1000x1500px. (1.5Mpx). Film has a huge equivalent pixel resolution. Why would Kodak make such small scans? I am really dissappointed that this wasn't mentioned anywhere to me when I ordered them (I reviewed everything and it simply isn't mentioned). Now, if I want to make larger prints, I have to scan the negatives myself, and lose the effects of the Sea Processing, or, of course, purchase them through Kodak ($$$).

Since I'm stuck with what I've got, I think the only solution is to scan the un-retouched negatives and try to mimic the processing. Any suggestions beyond just adding red?

Your best bet is to get a good photo editing program, like Photoshop Elements ($99), and learn to use it. It's actually pretty easy. All the Sea Processing is is a batch quick fix that adds red to all photos, whether they need it or not. You can do the same thing in Elements, and several other programs, with a single button. They want you to believe someone sits down and personally adjusts each photo, that just doesn't happen at the price they charge, high though it is. And there's so much more you can do with a good editing program, it'll pay for itself in no time. Most stores offer rebates, too! Elements3 will be released in Oct. and is even more powerful.

If you already have such a program, you can adjust the color levels, brightness/contrast, un-sharpen and remove any backscatter.

My #1 suggestion is to go digital and save all that $$ for film processing!

The Kodak CD was garbage, They don't tell how bad the resolution will be when they sell it to you. I Scanned the photo and then adjusted them with PhotoShop, most of my photos looked OK by using the auto adjust feature.

Hi

high rez scans tend to run about $50 to $100 EACH!

I agree with Dee. do it yourself. Get a Film Scanner. some are to be had very cheap on Ebay. Nikon LS 1000 ( $150 )

but better bet, go Digi!

Thanks for the responses. I have gone digital with my land-based photography. I use a Canon Rebel 300-D. Diving is brand new (OW 8/22) and I have a MX-10 from years ago. So... I think the answer will be scanning and tweaking. Any suggestions besides add red? Any good actions or plug-ins. I have Photoshop and noticed that the Underwater camera filter isn't good at all.

If you have Photoshop you're more than halfway there. Don't rely on actions and shortcuts, you can do much better adjusting the colors and things yourself. One of the best way to learn is take one of your photos and just start playing with it! First, hit the auto fix button and just see what it does. It's not generally a good fix for U/W shots but you never know. Play with the brightness/contrast adjustments, sometimes that's all you need. Learn to use the clone/stamp tool for removing backscatter.

Which PS do you have? There are several good books available on amazon.com. There are also lots of tutorials available on Adobe's website.

Linthorn:

My only "real" complaint is the CD. The resolution is 1000x1500px. (1.5Mpx). Film has a huge equivalent pixel resolution. Why would Kodak make such small scans? I am really dissappointed that this wasn't mentioned anywhere to me when I ordered them (I reviewed everything and it simply isn't mentioned). Now, if I want to make larger prints, I have to scan the negatives myself, and lose the effects of the Sea Processing, or, of course, purchase them through Kodak ($$$).

Since I'm stuck with what I've got, I think the only solution is to scan the un-retouched negatives and try to mimic the processing. Any suggestions beyond just adding red?

Click to expand...

That's really poor resolution from Kodak. I used to get PhotoCD's made and they would put multiple resolutions of the same image on the CD, the highest ones were something like 30-40MB each. Too bad they don't do that anymore, I guess they've "consumerized" their processing at our expense.

If your photos weren't shot with a flash, there's a process developed by David Kusner that might work for you:
http://pt010.da-kine.info/adjustments.htm He's also created an action that for the first six steps that's available for download as well.
(Thanks also to "gilligan" on this board for hosting it.)

Personally, I had some satisfactory results last year with PS7 using a combination of the selective color adjustment adjusting either the red, blue or green channel in conjunction with desaturating the blue/green channels using the hue/saturation adjustment. If you have primary objects in your photos, try selectively masking them and then applying the effects, either to the object or to the background around it. Clone out the backscatter with a small, fuzzy brush shape.

You might also inquire at the "After the Dive" forum on digitaldiver.net.

Not being all that good with photoshop, for natural light stuff, I have used the Mandrake UW plugin as a initial proceedure, sometime it works sometimes it dosen't!

If I do use it, I usually have to go in a adjust color levels/curves. most often reducing the red and pumping up the blue and yellow a bit

If you have primary objects in your photos, try selectively masking them and then applying the effects, either to the object or to the background around it.

"masking" that would be worth the plane trip to the States just to learn how to do that properly

Chris Bangs:

Not being all that good with photoshop, for natural light stuff, I have used the Mandrake UW plugin as a initial proceedure, sometime it works sometimes it dosen't!

If I do use it, I usually have to go in a adjust color levels/curves. most often reducing the red and pumping up the blue and yellow a bit

Click to expand...

That's why I don't use it, everything came out kind of subdued for me as well. But it can be a good starting point.