[Alliecat]

I'm scanning some 35mm negs for a client; they have to be "perfect" -- no specks/flaws etc. Required size is 10 x 15" at 300 ppi. They recommended scanning the negs for 12 x 18" at 400 ppi for "more data to work with", then downsizing to their specs.

I have a few negs that have gone a funny colour, & just will not give me the "right" colour in a scan. Not enough of a Photoshop artist to tweak the colour sufficiently; adjusting with the scanner hasn't really worked either; I don't like any of my results, so it looks like I'll have to scan from the original 4x6 print.

My question: what size & resolution should I make the initial scan from 4x6 prints? Should I stick with the 12x18/400ppi, or scan for bigger, or smaller, or higher/lower resolution? Would higher resolution just show the texture of the paper? I've tried 12x18/400 & it looks ok, but not sure if I could get something better otherwise. Client doesn't have a recommendation for print scans other than "not recommended" -- but then they'll get either crap colour or no pic at all.

I'm using an Epson V700. Most of the prints are matte finish.
Anyone have any recommendations?
Thanks!

---

Last edited by Alliecat; 01-31-2012 at 01:58 PM.

[LesDMess]

I have some glossy optical prints that can take 1200dpi scans and not show paper texture but this is not to say it could use all that resolution. I would expect 300dpi would be enough for inkjet prints or prints from minilab scans.

[slip]

If you are scanning directly from a neg or slide, I would go at least 2000x2000 dpi. My dedicated scanner will do 4000x4000 dpi and that will get a decent quality 8x10. at this resolution the file is big... also if you are going to edit the photo, make sure you start at 16 bit colors or more if your scanner can do it, and turn it to 8 bit as late in the editing as possible to minimize photo derogation

good luck

[John Poirier]

I'm scanning some 35mm negs for a client; they have to be "perfect" -- no specks/flaws etc. Required size is 10 x 15" at 300 ppi. They recommended scanning the negs for 12 x 18" at 400 ppi for "more data to work with", then downsizing to their specs.

I have a few negs that have gone a funny colour, & just will not give me the "right" colour in a scan. Not enough of a Photoshop artist to tweak the colour sufficiently; adjusting with the scanner hasn't really worked either; I don't like any of my results, so it looks like I'll have to scan from the original 4x6 print.

My question: what size & resolution should I make the initial scan from 4x6 prints? Should I stick with the 12x18/400ppi, or scan for bigger, or smaller, or higher/lower resolution? Would higher resolution just show the texture of the paper? I've tried 12x18/400 & it looks ok, but not sure if I could get something better otherwise. Client doesn't have a recommendation for print scans other than "not recommended" -- but then they'll get either crap colour or no pic at all.

I'm using an Epson V700. Most of the prints are matte finish.
Anyone have any recommendations?
Thanks!

If you're charging "clients" for this sort of work, I suggest that you upgrade your technical skills very substantially. Books are a very good way to learn about scanning and image editing. The questions you are asking are extremely elementary. If you're an amateur, no problem- you have to start somewhere.

A priint 18 inches across at 400ppi requires an image file 7200 pixels across. You should scan a 4x6 print at at least 1200 ppi, which would give you the needed 7200 pixels in the larger dimension. Whether paper texture is an issue obviously depends on how textured the paper is. Dealing with it is a matter of experimentation. Options include scanning at lower resolution or the application of some blur, perhaps combined with subsequent sharpening, in Photoshop.

In general, though, it is much preferable to scan from negatives rather than prints. Have the negatives actually gone a funny colour, or are you just getting bad scans? If the latter, try different software. For example, Silverfast sometimes works when Epson Scan doesn't, as does Vuescan.

Good luck!

[LesDMess]

BTW, what is the original negs? Is it old and/or distressed and that's why you can't get good colors? Have you tried other scanners - mini lab?

[Lowell Goudge]

My Minolta scanner goes to 2880 pip. You should consider something with at least this resolution to scan negatives or slides. Scanning prints may be a disappointment because some of these are digitally processed and are actually quite low resolution

[Wheatfield]

My Minolta scanner goes to 2880 pip. You should consider something with at least this resolution to scan negatives or slides. Scanning prints may be a disappointment because some of these are digitally processed and are actually quite low resolution

Digital prints will be printed at 300-360 DPI. There is absolutely no point in scanning at a higher resolution than that. In addition, that is pretty close to the resolution of photographic paper, so even if they were printed optically, there isn't any point in scanning prints higher than that.
Scan the negs at the scanner's native resolution and resize the files appropriately in Photoshop will give the best results.

[Lowell Goudge]

Digital prints will be printed at 300-360 DPI. There is absolutely no point in scanning at a higher resolution than that. In addition, that is pretty close to the resolution of photographic paper, so even if they were printed optically, there isn't any point in scanning prints higher than that.
Scan the negs at the scanner's native resolution and resize the files appropriately in Photoshop will give the best results.

Actually I am not so sure, I have had a cheap lab provide a CD with the scanned photos used in the print process and they came back a 480x600. I am not so sure they scan with sufficient resolution to really claim 300 DPI when they print, even if the printer is 300DPI capable, however, what ever the resolution is, if the OP is happy with it, that is what matters. He would , in my opinion be much better off scanning the neg's directly if he has access to a higher resolution scanner.

the other thing is the time, my scanner takes quite a long time to scan, such that I walk away and come back when it is done scanning 6 negs. If this is a commercial venture he needs something a little faster. Considering you can send the negatives to india for about $0.20 per scan, that would put the capacity of a scanner at something in the order of 100 per hour to be cost effective.

[Alliecat]

Some of the original negs have gone a funny colour. They are Agfa Ultra 100, which gave gorgeous prints. I wonder if it was something in the processing. Colour restoration is working on those. However some other older ones, just aren't useable. The prints are optical.

If you're charging "clients" for this sort of work, I suggest that you upgrade your technical skills very substantially. Books are a very good way to learn about scanning and image editing. The questions you are asking are extremely elementary.

Thanks for making me feel dumb, dude.
Fortunately the [people who are interested in representing my photos]* are being very patient with the process.

*thought "client" made for a neater sentence...

I was going to ask about the Agfa negatives in another thread. I loved that film. One photo lab couldn't seem to cope with it though, & made a horrible mess of the colour. The processing elsewhere was beautiful. Now some of them seem to have a brownish-yellow tint, although as I mentioned, Photoshop does fix that. The others -- not sure why they are weird colours. Or maybe it was the photo lab's printing at the time, that just adjusted the colours & created a print I liked.

[Wheatfield]

Actually I am not so sure, I have had a cheap lab provide a CD with the scanned photos used in the print process and they came back a 480x600. I am not so sure they scan with sufficient resolution to really claim 300 DPI when they print, even if the printer is 300DPI capable, however, what ever the resolution is, if the OP is happy with it, that is what matters. He would , in my opinion be much better off scanning the neg's directly if he has access to a higher resolution scanner.

the other thing is the time, my scanner takes quite a long time to scan, such that I walk away and come back when it is done scanning 6 negs. If this is a commercial venture he needs something a little faster. Considering you can send the negatives to india for about $0.20 per scan, that would put the capacity of a scanner at something in the order of 100 per hour to be cost effective.

The scanners on photo labs are incredibly powerful. The Noritsu labs that I worked on scanned at as much as 2000 PPI, I believe they are scanning as high as 4000 now. They do scan to print size, so a 4x6 target size will be scanned somewhat lower than a 12x18 target size. The CD resolution can be set separately from the scan resolution. Our CDs were 1200 x 1800 pixels, we could set them lower or higher, but a 6mp scan did take about 20 minutes to chew through. Even the 2 mp scans we were doing took long enough.

[John Poirier]

Some of the original negs have gone a funny colour. They are Agfa Ultra 100, which gave gorgeous prints. I wonder if it was something in the processing. Colour restoration is working on those. However some other older ones, just aren't useable. The prints are optical.



Thanks for making me feel dumb, dude.
Fortunately the [people who are interested in representing my photos]* are being very patient with the process.

*thought "client" made for a neater sentence...

I was going to ask about the Agfa negatives in another thread. I loved that film. One photo lab couldn't seem to cope with it though, & made a horrible mess of the colour. The processing elsewhere was beautiful. Now some of them seem to have a brownish-yellow tint, although as I mentioned, Photoshop does fix that. The others -- not sure why they are weird colours. Or maybe it was the photo lab's printing at the time, that just adjusted the colours & created a print I liked.

Thanks for clarifying what you're up to.

Glad to hear it's your own stuff your working on- that's cool. Being open in working with prospective buyers is good.

My concern was with the ethics of charging to work on someone else's photos when you don't have the requisite skills. That would be right up there with bogus wedding photographers. That's not what you are doing, though.

I'm looking at this as a professional who has been in the business for over 30 years. I'm happy to be supportive of outright amateurs, and of pros who are honestly interested in learning. I don't have much time for people who claim to have technical expertise they can't deliver.

My suggestion about books stands. Books can give you an overview of scanning that may be difficult to find on the Web. Among other things, a good book will clue you in on image quality issues that can be difficult to get across in a Web forum. You'll probably find that a good book will answer questions that you haven't thought of asking.

In terms of your original question, and your indications that the negatives themselves have become discoloured, I think it may be very difficult to do a full colour restoration from the negs. I do have suggestions re the prints.

Matte paper is tricky for scanning. For some reason the configuration of the light source in many flatbed scanners seems to emphasize paper textures.

You might want to try copying the prints with a camera. Quite often a standard two-light setup for copying works very well for covering up paper texture., especially if the light sources are large relative to the size of the print. You can also play with extra light sources and/or reflectors for further reducing texture. In a pinch light from a north-facing window or from a cloudy sky can also work.

Best wishes.

John