[Capslock118]

Hi There,

I just shot some photos with my film slr's to see if they still worked and what do you know, they do.

I am curious about scanning photos and scanning negatives.

I am more curious to know what this community does rather than the general rules of thumb online, this forum tends to take better pictures than the internet as a whole

To note, my digital camera is a K100D, so I do not expect photos scanned to come into the machine any larger than what a 6MP camera would give - which is about 10mb files that could produce a flawless 8.5x11

So, in the order of complexity:

Scanning photos
1:When I scan the actual 4x6 photo, what DPI / etc settings are most to use? I'd like to scan the photos where I would be able to post process them as well as I could a RAW file if possible.

2: What file format is best to scan to? .TIFF?...

Scanning negatives
3: Can I scan developed negatives from a flat bed scanner and if so, would the results be better for post-processing than scanning the actual photo. Actually I am more curious if it would work at all.

4: As with the photo questions, what DPI / etc settings would be ideal and what file format i.e. .TIFF.

5: Is it possible to scan from a negative without having them processed by a shop like CVS / walgreens first? I figure that either A: I'd need a dark room or B: I'd need a machine that can take the film in like someone would in a dark room.

thoughts?

[artobest]

Your best bet is to scan the negatives, not the prints. Scanned photos will capture less information, but all the flaws in the print. Any decent scanner with a transparency scanning unit will give you good enough scans to print at 8.5x11. You do need to master scanning technique though - that's a whole subject in itself, one that we discuss ad nauseum here on the forum . Most people agree that a dedicated film scanner gives better results, but they are hard to come by these days.

Scan at the highest resolution your scanner is capable of - anything over 2400ppi on a flat-bed scanner is probably not 'true' resolution, so you can resample the image to 2400ppi in Photoshop etc to keep the file sizes down. (Don't worry about dpi or dots per inch, that's only relevant to printing - it is the printing resolution at a given size, and should be at least 240-360dpi for best results.) Save as a TIFF so that the image doesn't degrade with successive resaves, and do your edits on adjustment layers if possible so they can be easily undone. Scanning in 16-bit mode gives you more overhead for editing without loss of data or artifacts such as colour banding.

Don't forget to tag your images with a wide-gamut colour space such as Adobe RGB, so their colour data can be correctly interpreted by all your devices (monitor, printer etc).

You can easily shoot black and white film and develop it at home. I say easily, but all things are relative - I ruined a film only yesterday, and I'm quite experienced! But it is really fun and rewarding, when it all goes well. Also, a lot cheaper than getting film developed in a lab. Colour is much more difficult, however.

[Capslock118]

Save as a TIFF so that the image doesn't degrade with successive resaves, and do your edits on adjustment layers if possible so they can be easily undone.

I should have mentioned, I'm on a mac and I use aperture exlusivley, so the master image will never be touched by any edits I do. But anyways, .TIFF, yeah I read this is an uncompressed format, so this is essentiall RAW for scanned images then?

Don't forget to tag your images with a wide-gamut colour space such as Adobe RGB, so their colour data can be correctly interpreted by all your devices (monitor, printer etc).

This question might not be appropriate here but...so my K100D is set to sRGB, not adobeRGB. I've read that adobeRGB has a wider colour space as you said. But what do you mean by 'all your devices'? Versus that of my digital camera, should my camera be set to adobe RGB too or is this suggestion specific to scanned images?

You can easily shoot black and white film and develop it at home. I say easily, but all things are relative - I ruined a film only yesterday, and I'm quite experienced! But it is really fun and rewarding, when it all goes well. Also, a lot cheaper than getting film developed in a lab. Colour is much more difficult, however.

Again though, does this require a dark room? We have a spare room right now which I wouldn't mind setting it up to make it a dark room - it sounds like a fun project - i'm just curious to know what the scope of this project would be just to develop the negatives.


oh also - so, scanning the negativs make more sense you say. So what do you do, scan all the negatives in one pass (since they are all divded from cvs) then crop each one out to a seperate image?

[Lowell Goudge]

I have my own scanner, a somewhat old (now) Minolta Dimage II which I bought in 2000, and which I used to scan my entire film collection of 4,700 slides and about 15,000 negatives.

The scanner is not the latest and greatest in technology or resolution 2880 dpi and 40 bit color, but it did the job just fine for me. Much of my film was grainy higher ISO films any way and the resulting 4032 x 2688 pixel (10.8 million pixel) scans are as good as the film.

SOme shooters of 25 and 50ISO film may need better, but I didn't.

There are also opportunities to have files provided when getting film processed, BUT you need to watch these. I did it once and they came back as 680 x 400 scans, virtually useless. You will need to specify explicitly the resolution needed.

The store I bought my K10D and K7D from also did film processing and would scan a strip for $1.00 at the time. The definition of a strip was anything from 4 to 40 shots, so the only rule you need to know is DO NOT cut your strips, you can specify this from the processor.

Sadly this store is no more. Closed and stock bought by Henry's

I need to investigate this more because I plan to go out and shoot at least with my PZ-1 and will have an issue, my minolta scanner is just too slow, although I scanned 20K shots it took over 4 years to complete the project.

[Capslock118]

I have my own scanner, a somewhat old (now) Minolta Dimage II which I bought in 2000, and which I used to scan my entire film collection of 4,700 slides and about 15,000 negatives.

That's a lot, wow. I plan on scanning on a couple hundred photos as the negatives no longer exist, and then negatives from new photos going forward.

I can't seem to find a store around me except from CVS/walgreens, so that option is out.

The store I bought my K10D and K7D from also did film processing and would scan a strip for $1.00 at the time. The definition of a strip was anything from 4 to 40 shots, so the only rule you need to know is DO NOT cut your strips, you can specify this from the processor.

Why not cut the strips? that's what csv/walgreens/etc does and puts them in a little paper pouch for you.


also - per developing negatives to scan into a computer. what does the electronic machines at one-hour photo shops do to develop the negatives? do they use chemicals like you would in a dark room or is the process different now?

[SpecialK]

Why not cut the strips? that's what csv/walgreens/etc does and puts them in a little paper pouch for you.

If you cut the film into individual images, there is nothing to hold onto when the film goes in the machine.

[Capslock118]

If you cut the film into individual images, there is nothing to hold onto when the film goes in the machine.

Oh I see, we are talking about cutting individuals. Good that I wasn't planning that then.

I was just going to put the 5 or 6 strips that I have from the film and scan them in.

[Capslock118]

Scan at the highest resolution your scanner is capable of - anything over 2400ppi on a flat-bed scanner is probably not 'true' resolution, so you can resample the image to 2400ppi in Photoshop etc to keep the file sizes down.

here are my scan specs:

Scan specifications
•Image editor included
•Integrated OCR software automatically converts scanned text to editable text
•Scan speeds vary according to the complexity of the document
•Twain-compliant interface
•Resolution: up to 2400 x 4800 dpi optical; 19200 dpi enhanced (software)
•Color: 48-bit color, 8-bit grayscale (256 levels of gray)
•Maximum scan size from glass: 21.6 x 29.7 cm (8.5 x 11.7 inches)



Does that mean my highest 'true' DPI is 2400? or 4800?


Also:

How can I figure out if my scanner has a 'transparency' setting? I'm looking at the spec sheet and the manual but I'm either not finding it or I don't know what to look for.

[tuco]

Does that mean my highest 'true' DPI is 2400? or 4800?

2400dpi

[stevebrot]

2400dpi

And that is "best case". Most scanners don't deliver on the advertised dpi.


Steve

[Capslock118]

I've been reading up on scanning negatives.

If I am not mistaken, it seems that a 'transparency option' is actually a part that the negatives are placed into where light shines down on the scanner instead of light shining up. It's not a software option, it's a hardware option.

Is this the case? This is what is meant by a transparency option?

If so, that's not something my scanner has and HP doesn't sell this add on for all-in-ones.

If this is the case, i'm taking photography courses next semester and they require film cameras - so this will be my excuse to buy a new scanner then.

[artobest]

That's right, a transparency unit is a separate light source, usually in the lid of the scanner. Epson and Canon are two companies making affordable film-capable flatbeds, but if you're buying from scratch for the purposes of scanning film, you might be better off buying a film scanner - a new Plustek could be a good option, or you could go on the 'Bay and look for a used Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV (probably the most accessible route into quality film scanners). The K-M scanners have the added advantage of highly capable, user-friendly software that really makes the most of the scanner.

[Capslock118]

Artobest,

That's great advice, thank you.

For me it does make more sense to buy a 35mm film speicifc scanner rather than a whole scanning unit that does more than that. I already have an all-in-one that takes care of all my other needs so I would rather have a smaller device. Plus I'd imagine film speicifc scanners are of higher quality because they are specific to doing one job, and that one job well.

When looking on line for 'film scanners', some of those devices just don't look like they are well built or, really, seem like they are for a broader consumer market, kind of like those small personal photo printers that are not that good but you can get for sub $100.

anyways, my goal is to develop the negatives then scan them into the PC. I want to setup a personal darkroom where I can develop the film, but not turn them into photos - I want the end product on my PC - where in the future I can decide which photos to print.

SOme shooters of 25 and 50ISO film may need better, but I didn't.

I will be using those types of film in the future to play around with. If anything to discover all the different things that our film cameras can offer versus my digital. So I guess that might be something to consider.

[Capslock118]

You know,

as a seperate question - in todays standards, what scanner capabilities are considered acceptable to scan negatives to treat them as I would a raw image from a digital camera?

I am talking about this:

The scanner is not the latest and greatest in technology or resolution 2880 dpi and 40 bit color

40 bit color? versus what else? same with resolution. Some point soon I will be setting up a 'dark room' for the purpose of developing black and white film - so the scanners primary purpose will be to scan B&W, sometimes color.

I have a K100d, so the specs do not need to exceed that of the equivilant of 6MP from a DSLR....

...however, i certainly wouldnt mind having the capability of scanning in a negative from a film with a result that would be of a higher quality than 6mp equivilant

[tuco]

You know,

as a seperate question - in todays standards, what scanner capabilities are considered acceptable to scan negatives to treat them as I would a raw image from a digital camera?

Your scanning software. You won't see a raw file like from a digital camera but you can get a TIFF-DNG file that you can open up in many raw editors such as Lightroom and edit it there. VueScan, for example, gives you an option to produce a .dng file as well as a "scanning raw" file where you can always open it up again with the scanning software and make scanning adjustments and export again without ever having to re-scan the negative.