[Nesster]

I was photo editor for my high school yearbook, and I saved all the negatives and my mom didn't throw them away. I found them and have been scanning them. I was shooting an Olympus Pen FT half frame with the standard lens, mostly Panatomic-X to keep the grain down. We had maybe 4 other photogs, each with a full frame SLR of varying makes.

The negatives are mostly in good shape. Tri-X has the curl even after 40 years and half frame scanning is noticeably worse than full frame.

Anyway, I thought I'd share some samples.

This was a project I did, people in doorways, and then reversing it - the person took a pic of me. Never realized - and completely forgotten - till now









and a few half frame portraits etc

[HYS]

I like this post! Very interesting for me.

[TER-OR]

I've got a bunch of negatives I'd like to scan as well. I'm considering either building the rig to use a macro lens and camera or buying a dedicated film scanner. Convenience vs. quality vs. price - isn't it always that calculation?

Thanks for sharing your '70s memories.

[Nesster]

I've got a bunch of negatives I'd like to scan as well. I'm considering either building the rig to use a macro lens and camera or buying a dedicated film scanner. Convenience vs. quality vs. price - isn't it always that calculation?

Thanks for sharing your '70s memories.

thanks - I've wondered if setting up the old Takumar slide copier with a good light source would be better / faster than using the Epson 4490. Some day I'll try, especially slides.

Oh yes, I have slides from '65/66 through the early 70s, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome. Made with an Instamatic 300, Nikkormat FS, and a Canon Demi 17 half frame, and a Pen FT. Will post samples if there's interest.

[From1980]

Great scanning results Nesster. Thanks for posting and reminding me of the '70s. I really like the 2nd last one - great artistic concept in your youth.

[dsmithhfx]

I've got a bunch of negatives I'd like to scan as well. I'm considering either building the rig to use a macro lens and camera or buying a dedicated film scanner. Convenience vs. quality vs. price - isn't it always that calculation?

Do yourself a favour and use a DSLR.

[mee]

Do you know these people? If so, it might be a fun endeavor to find them and to share with them these photos.

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 09:08 AM ----------

I've got a bunch of negatives I'd like to scan as well. I'm considering either building the rig to use a macro lens and camera or buying a dedicated film scanner. Convenience vs. quality vs. price - isn't it always that calculation?

If you have a ton of them, get the film scanner. But don't go for the bargain basement cheapest one you can find. I'm in the process of scanning hundreds of negatives from my late Granddad (35mm and MF) and the scanner (Epson v600) is soo much nicer than trying to digitize with a DSLR. I can scan several images at once, while I'm doing something else, versus one at a time with the DSLR.

That said, if you only have a small number, the DSLR will probably make more sense..

[stevebrot]

I saw these when you posted them to Flickr and thought to myself that I wish I still had my negatives from when I was doing yearbook and campus news work back in the day. Good work!


Steve

[Blacknight659]

Yes! I love film!

[Nesster]

Do you know these people? If so, it might be a fun endeavor to find them and to share with them these photos.

Yes, it was a small Friends (Quaker) school, some 65 kids in the class, if I remember, and we're working on our 40th reunion. These pics brought out some from other people too, it's a real time trip

[goatsNdonkey]

40 year old negatives aren't old! These scans came out very nice. I wouldn't call them portraits, exactly; rather, they are more like studies in the silhouette.

People with a big stash of old pictures and negatives should keep in mind that there was a time when the "drug store" prints of 127, 120, and 620 film were all contact prints, not enlargements, meaning that high resolution scans of the prints can get you very close to the quality of the original negative, if you don't have the negative to work from. Not the case for 35mm, of course, where the negative is really what you want, as any prints would be enlargements. I have gotten some amazing scans of 120 contact prints my mom took with her Brownie box camera in the early 1930s!

[TomB_tx]

Very nice! A year or so ago I found my files of negatives and 8x10 prints from college in the mid-60s, also largely PanatomicX, but a bunch of TriX and some 2475 recording film, and mainly shot with an H1a, then Canon FT. Made me realize I had a better eye then than today. I scanned some of the 8x10s and sent them to the alumni assn.

[ofer4]

If you're "scanning" with a DSLR in raw, you might try to push the exposure to see the faces of the folks in the door frames. Obviously, this change affects the composition, but for reunion purposes, faces might be good to ID. I'm always amazed at how much I can pull out of underexposed negatives when scanning this way.

[Nesster]

Thanks, the doorway series was my art project, I wanted silhouettes or close; I actually could pull up more on the people. I'm two of them - the concept was 'model' turned tables on 'photog' for the series.

Since there's overwhelming silence about the slides, I'll torture you all with a slide show. [for you young ones, pre internet and facebook, you'd invite people to your house, and subject them to long slide shows in the dark. It was a running joke how boring that is.]

Nikkormat FS (the rare one without meter), and I think it was the Micro-Nikkor as my mom said that was the sharpest, plus Ektachrome. Circa 1966.





That's me with my Instamatic 300.

And this is the crew:

[WPRESTO]

The two boys, standing center in the last image and mugging each other, are a hoot.