Help for printing Scan from 35mm film

Mary Lippold · 07-11-2015, 08:29 PM

Hi all,
I am now working digital and I love my Pentax K5 (though I think I will add a K3 on my next trip), but for a 2002 African safari I was still using film. I have a great sunset shot of a huge tree backlit against a sunset. The original print from the film negative was very nice in 11x14. Nice colors, crisp tree branches, etc. It's been on our wall for years now. I found today that an ANT had somehow gotten into the frame and died between the glass and the print. When I took the photo out of the frame (as carefully as possible), unfortunately some of the photo stuck to the glass so of course I have to re-print it. I have the original negatives, but they have faded over the years, so I scanned them into my computer a few years ago. I do have what I think is a good scanner (Epson Perfection V700 photo scanner) and I can't remember the exact setting I used, but I have both jpg and tif scans. I have just spent a couple of hours trying to get a good print from my scans, and they are so pixelated (even at 8x10) that I can't put the photo on my wall. I like my printer too (Epson Stylus Pro 3880) so I don't think it's a printer problem. I'm in Los Angeles. Does anyone know a good lab that I might go to, with negative and original print in hand and see what they can do to make me a new print? The original lab we used in Hollywood is no longer in business, and I haven't used a film lab since then. The tree branches against the sky are just not at all sharp in the scan, but in the film print from negative they are crisp and clear and the sunset colors are blended and beautiful. I'm attaching the original jpg scan, bad as it looks, and totally uncorrected. Pretty ugly, but I just wanted to give you an idea of the kind of shot I'm dealing with, and the condition of the film negative from which I scanned. I can TRY re-scanning from the negative, but I'm not sure if that is the problem. Any ideas and suggestions will be cheerfully accepted. (Yes, I know the scan is REALLY REALLY UGLY)
Thanks,
Mary
Name: AFRICA 2002 333.jpg
Views: 418
Size: 587.7 KB

Name: AFRICA 2002 333.jpg
Views: 418
Size: 587.7 KB

Hogdriver · 07-11-2015, 08:50 PM

Love your print! Please check out Samy's in LA...web site Samys.com...there are a couple of shops in LA area, They are a professional camera store/lab and has been extremely helpful, including making prints from film negatives. Wish you well in getting a new print.

**tduell** · 07-11-2015, 10:02 PM

Hello Mary,
When you view your scanned images what does your viewing software tell you about the size of the images?

Cheers,
Terry

disconnekt · 07-11-2015, 10:29 PM

It depends on what dpi you set the scanner to. A 3600dpi TIFF will work good.

**cpk** · 07-12-2015, 06:34 AM

I agree with disconnekt. The scan dpi is critical to the output print quality; the higher scan dpi the better. I have a V700 I use for 120 roll film and 4x5. It is a very good scanner; but I have never used it for 35 mm because for that size I use a Nikon LS-4000. I would think that, properly set up, a V700 scan should be able to provide a good 11x14 print from 35 mm. By proper set-up, I mean using the full negative and proper distance of the slide/negative above the glass for sharp focus.

As an aside, always matte your prints. The matte serves several purposes. it protects the print from handling when unframed; it sets the print off from the frame; and most importantly in your case, it protects the print from sticking to the glass.

Mary Lippold · 07-12-2015, 12:12 PM

Thanks, Hogdriver. I've used Samy's in L.A. many times for purchasing, but didn't think of them for printing. Good tip. There's a smaller samy's store in Pasadena, but for this I think I'd go to the one in LA as it's much bigger.
Terry, looking at the sizes of the jpg and tif scanned images, the pixel dimensions on both of them is 903x638. The jpg is 587 KB and the tif is 3.29 MB. I must not have used a high enough scan dpi when I scanned them, right, CPK and disconnekt? I think before going to Samy's I will try one more scan, using the higher dpi. I did (and will) use the full negative strip and the plastic film holder which came with the scanner, so it was properly placed and presumably with the proper distance above the glass. As for matting, I'm afraid I haven't done that for any of my prints. After four photo safaris to Africa (and another one coming up next June, HUZZAH!!!!), I have so many African wildlife prints all over my house, that I just framed them without matting. I'm actually running out of room to hang them. I think I'll have to start rotating after the next trip. I guess I'm getting closer to being a "semi-pro" on the shooting side, but not so much on the display side

So...will try to rescan and let you all know how it works, and if it still doesn't give me clear edges I'll take a jaunt over to Samy's. If you could see the color in the original print, you would love it. If a re-scan works I'll post the results. The original scan is so faded in comparison. In the original, the blue of the sky blends very gradually into a hot yellow/orange at the horizon, with the tree, etc. stark against the sky. It was a truly beautiful sight in person, and I hope I can restore it from the old faded negative. I'll give another try. Thanks so much for your input, all of you.
Much appreciated,
Mary

**cpk** · 07-12-2015, 04:13 PM

As an option to matting, use a shadow box for framing, the type of frame where the glass is kept at some distance from the back of the frame with no contact between the two. This can be very effective: the print can appear to float in the frame, especially with a deep frame.

With the prints you already have framed where the print is in contact with the glass, immersing both in water may help separate the print from the glass without damage. See the following links for ideas and suggestions:

https://www.scanmyphotos.com/blog/2015/05/remove-photo-stuck-glass-ideas.html

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/history-conservation-repair/1664-removing-p...uck-glass.html

Last edited by cpk; 07-12-2015 at 04:21 PM. Reason: Added second paragraph.

Mary Lippold · 07-12-2015, 08:49 PM

Thanks for that additional tip, cpk. I had no idea you could immerse the print/glass in water without harm.
After several more hours of fighting and frustration, I finally remembered that I had ANOTHER print of this image. It is a 5x7 which has been hanging in my bathroom with others. So I very carefully took the print out of the frame, and no problem there. I scanned the print itself (24 bit, 3200 dpi, target size "original", set the target size at 2100 pixels, which then resulted in 1453 pixels the other direction; the scanner then set the scale at 9%; I checked unsharp mark, color restoration and Digital Ice and hit scan). The resulting re-scan looked really pretty good. I tried editing brightness, contrast and a little bit for color, but then my husband and I decided we liked the re-scan without any corrections, so I just used the bandaid tool in Photoshop Elements and took out blotches, spots, dust and a few missing pixels, and printed it small first, and then (holding my breath) in 11x14. I had to crop it a bit to fit the 11x14 size, but I'm happy with the result. See attached. I might still go to a photo lab with the film negative and see if they can do better, but for now I'm fairly happy with the sharpness and the color. Hope you like it. Thanks for your advice. It all helped get me through this process.
Mary

disconnekt · 07-12-2015, 10:04 PM

Do you happen to still have the original negative?

Mary Lippold · 07-14-2015, 10:55 AM

Yes. I've kept all my old negatives. They are in my home safe. They look a bit faded and I can see that they need to be cleaned (which I haven't looked into yet). The scans I have done have all been done from the original negative. Even at the 3200dpi on my scanner, the scan just didn't have the crisp edges. I especially noticed on the edges of the tree trunk, as well as in the detail of all the edges of the little bitty branches. Scanning from the 5x7 print gave me the best look so far. It might not be as good as printing from the negative again, but it was certainly better than scanning from the negative and then printing. Is it because of the bigger size of the 5x7 source for the scan??? I'm not very experienced at all this scanning and printing, but I'm trying to learn. Thanks.

disconnekt · 07-14-2015, 03:38 PM

If the scan of the print looks better to you than the scan from the negative, then just go with the scan of the print.

07-11-2015, 08:29 PM	#1
Mary Lippold Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: los angeles, CA Posts: 53	Help for printing Scan from 35mm film Hi all, I am now working digital and I love my Pentax K5 (though I think I will add a K3 on my next trip), but for a 2002 African safari I was still using film. I have a great sunset shot of a huge tree backlit against a sunset. The original print from the film negative was very nice in 11x14. Nice colors, crisp tree branches, etc. It's been on our wall for years now. I found today that an ANT had somehow gotten into the frame and died between the glass and the print. When I took the photo out of the frame (as carefully as possible), unfortunately some of the photo stuck to the glass so of course I have to re-print it. I have the original negatives, but they have faded over the years, so I scanned them into my computer a few years ago. I do have what I think is a good scanner (Epson Perfection V700 photo scanner) and I can't remember the exact setting I used, but I have both jpg and tif scans. I have just spent a couple of hours trying to get a good print from my scans, and they are so pixelated (even at 8x10) that I can't put the photo on my wall. I like my printer too (Epson Stylus Pro 3880) so I don't think it's a printer problem. I'm in Los Angeles. Does anyone know a good lab that I might go to, with negative and original print in hand and see what they can do to make me a new print? The original lab we used in Hollywood is no longer in business, and I haven't used a film lab since then. The tree branches against the sky are just not at all sharp in the scan, but in the film print from negative they are crisp and clear and the sunset colors are blended and beautiful. I'm attaching the original jpg scan, bad as it looks, and totally uncorrected. Pretty ugly, but I just wanted to give you an idea of the kind of shot I'm dealing with, and the condition of the film negative from which I scanned. I can TRY re-scanning from the negative, but I'm not sure if that is the problem. Any ideas and suggestions will be cheerfully accepted. (Yes, I know the scan is REALLY REALLY UGLY) Thanks, Mary

07-12-2015, 08:49 PM	#8
Mary Lippold Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: los angeles, CA Posts: 53 Original Poster	Thanks for that additional tip, cpk. I had no idea you could immerse the print/glass in water without harm. After several more hours of fighting and frustration, I finally remembered that I had ANOTHER print of this image. It is a 5x7 which has been hanging in my bathroom with others. So I very carefully took the print out of the frame, and no problem there. I scanned the print itself (24 bit, 3200 dpi, target size "original", set the target size at 2100 pixels, which then resulted in 1453 pixels the other direction; the scanner then set the scale at 9%; I checked unsharp mark, color restoration and Digital Ice and hit scan). The resulting re-scan looked really pretty good. I tried editing brightness, contrast and a little bit for color, but then my husband and I decided we liked the re-scan without any corrections, so I just used the bandaid tool in Photoshop Elements and took out blotches, spots, dust and a few missing pixels, and printed it small first, and then (holding my breath) in 11x14. I had to crop it a bit to fit the 11x14 size, but I'm happy with the result. See attached. I might still go to a photo lab with the film negative and see if they can do better, but for now I'm fairly happy with the sharpness and the color. Hope you like it. Thanks for your advice. It all helped get me through this process. Mary Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello from Ontario Canada (Story and Need for 35mm Help Inside!)	DanDan	Welcomes and Introductions	12	11-10-2013 02:01 PM
For Sale - Sold: Minolta Dual Scan IV 35mm film scanner (Worldwide)	lbenac	Sold Items	4	11-21-2010 01:38 PM
Color management and printing help needed for newbie!!!	CaymanImaging	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	8	11-11-2010 10:32 AM
Looking for film samples from FAJ 18-35mm	Swift1	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	21	05-17-2010 07:17 PM
printing from the web - help, stupid question	barondla	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	09-22-2007 06:29 PM

07-11-2015, 08:50 PM	#2
Hogdriver Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: USA...Freedom Isn't Free Posts: 103	Love your print! Please check out Samy's in LA...web site Samys.com...there are a couple of shops in LA area, They are a professional camera store/lab and has been extremely helpful, including making prints from film negatives. Wish you well in getting a new print.

07-11-2015, 10:02 PM	#3
tduell Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,515	Hello Mary, When you view your scanned images what does your viewing software tell you about the size of the images? Cheers, Terry

07-11-2015, 10:29 PM	#4
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,701	It depends on what dpi you set the scanner to. A 3600dpi TIFF will work good.

07-12-2015, 06:34 AM	#5
cpk Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 640	I agree with disconnekt. The scan dpi is critical to the output print quality; the higher scan dpi the better. I have a V700 I use for 120 roll film and 4x5. It is a very good scanner; but I have never used it for 35 mm because for that size I use a Nikon LS-4000. I would think that, properly set up, a V700 scan should be able to provide a good 11x14 print from 35 mm. By proper set-up, I mean using the full negative and proper distance of the slide/negative above the glass for sharp focus. As an aside, always matte your prints. The matte serves several purposes. it protects the print from handling when unframed; it sets the print off from the frame; and most importantly in your case, it protects the print from sticking to the glass.

07-12-2015, 12:12 PM	#6
Mary Lippold Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: los angeles, CA Posts: 53 Original Poster	Thanks, Hogdriver. I've used Samy's in L.A. many times for purchasing, but didn't think of them for printing. Good tip. There's a smaller samy's store in Pasadena, but for this I think I'd go to the one in LA as it's much bigger. Terry, looking at the sizes of the jpg and tif scanned images, the pixel dimensions on both of them is 903x638. The jpg is 587 KB and the tif is 3.29 MB. I must not have used a high enough scan dpi when I scanned them, right, CPK and disconnekt? I think before going to Samy's I will try one more scan, using the higher dpi. I did (and will) use the full negative strip and the plastic film holder which came with the scanner, so it was properly placed and presumably with the proper distance above the glass. As for matting, I'm afraid I haven't done that for any of my prints. After four photo safaris to Africa (and another one coming up next June, HUZZAH!!!!), I have so many African wildlife prints all over my house, that I just framed them without matting. I'm actually running out of room to hang them. I think I'll have to start rotating after the next trip. I guess I'm getting closer to being a "semi-pro" on the shooting side, but not so much on the display side So...will try to rescan and let you all know how it works, and if it still doesn't give me clear edges I'll take a jaunt over to Samy's. If you could see the color in the original print, you would love it. If a re-scan works I'll post the results. The original scan is so faded in comparison. In the original, the blue of the sky blends very gradually into a hot yellow/orange at the horizon, with the tree, etc. stark against the sky. It was a truly beautiful sight in person, and I hope I can restore it from the old faded negative. I'll give another try. Thanks so much for your input, all of you. Much appreciated, Mary

07-12-2015, 04:13 PM	#7
cpk Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 640	As an option to matting, use a shadow box for framing, the type of frame where the glass is kept at some distance from the back of the frame with no contact between the two. This can be very effective: the print can appear to float in the frame, especially with a deep frame. With the prints you already have framed where the print is in contact with the glass, immersing both in water may help separate the print from the glass without damage. See the following links for ideas and suggestions: https://www.scanmyphotos.com/blog/2015/05/remove-photo-stuck-glass-ideas.html http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/history-conservation-repair/1664-removing-p...uck-glass.html Last edited by cpk; 07-12-2015 at 04:21 PM. Reason: Added second paragraph.

07-12-2015, 10:04 PM	#9
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,701	Do you happen to still have the original negative?

07-14-2015, 10:55 AM	#10
Mary Lippold Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: los angeles, CA Posts: 53 Original Poster	Yes. I've kept all my old negatives. They are in my home safe. They look a bit faded and I can see that they need to be cleaned (which I haven't looked into yet). The scans I have done have all been done from the original negative. Even at the 3200dpi on my scanner, the scan just didn't have the crisp edges. I especially noticed on the edges of the tree trunk, as well as in the detail of all the edges of the little bitty branches. Scanning from the 5x7 print gave me the best look so far. It might not be as good as printing from the negative again, but it was certainly better than scanning from the negative and then printing. Is it because of the bigger size of the 5x7 source for the scan??? I'm not very experienced at all this scanning and printing, but I'm trying to learn. Thanks.

07-14-2015, 03:38 PM	#11
disconnekt Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: SoCal/I.E. Photos: Albums Posts: 1,701	If the scan of the print looks better to you than the scan from the negative, then just go with the scan of the print.