How Do You Post Film Pictures?

**lawsonstone** · 03-14-2009, 02:55 PM

So...I started off in the 1970's with a K1000 and a Vivitar zoom...and film...I'm loving digital but wanting to play with film.

Processing: do you get traditional negatives and prints, or negatives and digital prints?

For sharing online, do you just scan your prints, or do you buy the digital prints and post those?

Thanks in advance!

CSoars · 03-14-2009, 03:55 PM

I think most colour prints are digital now, so no real options unless you find a specialist. Most corner labs will do B&W on colour paper, so you need to find a pro lab for optical printing.

I scan my negs, tweak them in the computer and post those. Way better quality than scanning a print.

If you don't have a film scanner, I guess buying 'digital' prints would be the same things (minilab scans). It's cheaper to have labs scan when they process your film; if you bring in developed negs they'll charge more.

Mike Cash · 03-14-2009, 04:18 PM

I have my negatives developed and specify no prints. I then scan the negatives using a CanoScan 8800F flatbed scanner and VueScan and subsequently run them through Lightroom.

stevebrot · 03-14-2009, 05:53 PM

I have my negatives scanned to CD by the lab when I have the film processed and skip the prints. I then do any needed adjustments in Lightroom before reducing the dimensions to forum standards before uploading them to the Web.

The machine scans are generally OK, though I am sure I could get better results if I had my own dedicated film scanner. I just have to find one that I can afford!

Steve

k100d · 03-14-2009, 05:55 PM

i get my lab to scan to a CD, however i noticed those scans are much inferior to scans that i've done on a real film scanner (Nikon Coolscan) in terms of resolution and dynamic range. however, usually the accuracy of the colours from the machine scans are very good.

SuperAkuma · 03-14-2009, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by k100d

i get my lab to scan to a CD, however i noticed those scans are much inferior to scans that i've done on a real film scanner (Nikon Coolscan) in terms of resolution and dynamic range. however, usually the accuracy of the colours from the machine scans are very good.

I've noticed the same thing when I scan my neg on my $100 canon scanner. The Nikon coolscan that we have at school does a lot better job. Even though the Nikon does a lot better job, my $100 canon does the job for turning neg into digital to show online.

If you want to digitally archive your neg and want the best quality, spend the money on a good scanner.

HarryN · 03-16-2009, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I have my negatives developed and specify no prints. I then scan the negatives using a CanoScan 8800F flatbed scanner and VueScan and subsequently run them through Lightroom.

Hi Mike, I ordered one of those last week - they seem to be on back order all over the US. Are you happy with the output or does it take a lot of post processing to get there ?

Longer term, I am toying with the idea of buying an old enlarger for the body and lens, building up a 6 color LED head (for color mixing) and using the scanner like electronic print paper. No idea if it will work, but might be fun.

Mike Cash · 03-17-2009, 03:14 AM

I'm happy with the output. But the only thing I have to compare it to is the piece of crap Epson I had that was a couple of generations out of date. The main feature I like about it is the "cold" scanning light (don't have to wait for it to warm up before use).

artobest · 03-17-2009, 06:31 AM

I have a 8600F, which I assume isn't that different from Mike's 8800F. Compared to my Konica Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV (god I hate typing out that name), the output is relatively soft and the colours somewhat muted, even with Vuescan and Silverfast (although Silverfast is better than the Canon software that comes with it). I just don't think you can beat a dedicated film scanner, even an older one like mine (which by the way has much better neg and slide holders, and comes with pretty decent software).

Gooshin · 03-17-2009, 07:02 AM

dedicated scanners have autofocus and less glass between the scanner element and the negative.

the scanner will try to focus on the grain, giving you the best result possible (just like using a grain viewer while using an enlarger versus eyeballing the sharpness)

Venturi · 03-17-2009, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I'm happy with the output. But the only thing I have to compare it to is the piece of crap Epson I had that was a couple of generations out of date. The main feature I like about it is the "cold" scanning light (don't have to wait for it to warm up before use).

Hey Mike,
I've got the 4400F and pulled down a copy of VueScan the other day. I like it okay (better than the push-n-play Canon software) but not sure which version of it I want to buy. If you are using the Pro version, are you using the TIFF-DNG option when you scan? And do you feel the IT8 and ICC "enhancements" by themselves worth double the money of the standard version?
Thanks!

HarryN · 03-28-2009, 10:59 PM

Hi, the canon canoscan 8800F scanner finally came. This was my first time to purchase anything from canon in my life, and my first recent scannner not from HP as part of a multifunction box.

I really questioned myself about the specs, etc.

I have to say I have one regret - I should have spent the extra $ 100 and purchased instead the canon pixma printer scanner copier. It is quite well built and even though I don't know anything, I am getting reasonable scans from 35mm negatives and prints.

I had read that people were scanning in reduced resolution to gain speed because "it didn't make any difference". I am not that picky, I can tell you for sure that I can easily see a difference at every step of resolution along the way - and that is not photo shop, just the win vista viewer software.

Now for the real problem - 100meg per negative file size.

I did some initial scans with negs from kodak 100 ultra color - nice.

OregonJim · 03-29-2009, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by lawsonstone

Processing: do you get traditional negatives and prints, or negatives and digital prints?

I process my own B&W, and occasionally E-6 (Ektachrome). Not set up to do C-41, so I rarely shoot that.

I used to enlarge my own prints, but it's gotten too hard to find good papers, and when I do, the price is exhorbitant and the quantity small. So, I just scan the negs/transparencies.

I have yet to find a printer that does a good job with the tonal range of B&W, though I hear the new Epsons have improved considerably. Will probably start my research all over again in a month or two...

ajuett · 03-29-2009, 08:47 PM

I get my negatives developed and state no prints. Using my 5 year old Epson 2450 Photo flatbed (for now) I max the hardware scan to 48bit, 2400dpi at 100% which equals about a 6MP image. Then tweak in Silkpix and use GiMP for cloning out stray dust, etc. 1 image at that resolution takes 6 minutes!

I have my eye on the Optex scanner for $100, its 3800dpi hardware resolution and much faster. It does slides and negatives only, it's not a flatbed.

03-14-2009, 02:55 PM	#1
lawsonstone Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Wilmore, KY Posts: 376	How Do You Post Film Pictures? So...I started off in the 1970's with a K1000 and a Vivitar zoom...and film...I'm loving digital but wanting to play with film. Processing: do you get traditional negatives and prints, or negatives and digital prints? For sharing online, do you just scan your prints, or do you buy the digital prints and post those? Thanks in advance!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post group pictures!	Adam	Travel, Events, and Groups	44	12-25-2015 03:15 PM
Can someone post pictures of the red KX	Siege973	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	12-14-2009 05:09 AM
Post your New Years pictures!	ftpaddict	Post Your Photos!	7	01-01-2009 10:07 AM
Question How do I add pictures to a For Sale Post?	Rmpjr7	Site Suggestions and Help	7	10-02-2008 08:40 AM
Labrador Pictures - Post here!!	GLThorne	Post Your Photos!	22	02-06-2007 02:00 PM

03-14-2009, 03:55 PM	#2
CSoars Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 322	I think most colour prints are digital now, so no real options unless you find a specialist. Most corner labs will do B&W on colour paper, so you need to find a pro lab for optical printing. I scan my negs, tweak them in the computer and post those. Way better quality than scanning a print. If you don't have a film scanner, I guess buying 'digital' prints would be the same things (minilab scans). It's cheaper to have labs scan when they process your film; if you bring in developed negs they'll charge more.

03-14-2009, 04:18 PM	#3
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I have my negatives developed and specify no prints. I then scan the negatives using a CanoScan 8800F flatbed scanner and VueScan and subsequently run them through Lightroom.

03-14-2009, 05:53 PM	#4
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I have my negatives scanned to CD by the lab when I have the film processed and skip the prints. I then do any needed adjustments in Lightroom before reducing the dimensions to forum standards before uploading them to the Web. The machine scans are generally OK, though I am sure I could get better results if I had my own dedicated film scanner. I just have to find one that I can afford! Steve

03-14-2009, 05:55 PM	#5
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	i get my lab to scan to a CD, however i noticed those scans are much inferior to scans that i've done on a real film scanner (Nikon Coolscan) in terms of resolution and dynamic range. however, usually the accuracy of the colours from the machine scans are very good.

03-14-2009, 09:59 PM	#6
SuperAkuma Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 445	Originally posted by k100d i get my lab to scan to a CD, however i noticed those scans are much inferior to scans that i've done on a real film scanner (Nikon Coolscan) in terms of resolution and dynamic range. however, usually the accuracy of the colours from the machine scans are very good. I've noticed the same thing when I scan my neg on my $100 canon scanner. The Nikon coolscan that we have at school does a lot better job. Even though the Nikon does a lot better job, my $100 canon does the job for turning neg into digital to show online. If you want to digitally archive your neg and want the best quality, spend the money on a good scanner.

03-16-2009, 08:23 PM	#7
HarryN Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Pleasanton, CA Posts: 68	Originally posted by Mike Cash I have my negatives developed and specify no prints. I then scan the negatives using a CanoScan 8800F flatbed scanner and VueScan and subsequently run them through Lightroom. Hi Mike, I ordered one of those last week - they seem to be on back order all over the US. Are you happy with the output or does it take a lot of post processing to get there ? Longer term, I am toying with the idea of buying an old enlarger for the body and lens, building up a 6 color LED head (for color mixing) and using the scanner like electronic print paper. No idea if it will work, but might be fun.

03-17-2009, 03:14 AM	#8
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I'm happy with the output. But the only thing I have to compare it to is the piece of crap Epson I had that was a couple of generations out of date. The main feature I like about it is the "cold" scanning light (don't have to wait for it to warm up before use).

03-17-2009, 06:31 AM	#9
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	I have a 8600F, which I assume isn't that different from Mike's 8800F. Compared to my Konica Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV (god I hate typing out that name), the output is relatively soft and the colours somewhat muted, even with Vuescan and Silverfast (although Silverfast is better than the Canon software that comes with it). I just don't think you can beat a dedicated film scanner, even an older one like mine (which by the way has much better neg and slide holders, and comes with pretty decent software).

03-17-2009, 07:02 AM	#10
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	dedicated scanners have autofocus and less glass between the scanner element and the negative. the scanner will try to focus on the grain, giving you the best result possible (just like using a grain viewer while using an enlarger versus eyeballing the sharpness)

03-17-2009, 07:16 AM	#11
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	Originally posted by Mike Cash I'm happy with the output. But the only thing I have to compare it to is the piece of crap Epson I had that was a couple of generations out of date. The main feature I like about it is the "cold" scanning light (don't have to wait for it to warm up before use). Hey Mike, I've got the 4400F and pulled down a copy of VueScan the other day. I like it okay (better than the push-n-play Canon software) but not sure which version of it I want to buy. If you are using the Pro version, are you using the TIFF-DNG option when you scan? And do you feel the IT8 and ICC "enhancements" by themselves worth double the money of the standard version? Thanks!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2009, 10:59 PM	#12
HarryN Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Pleasanton, CA Posts: 68	Hi, the canon canoscan 8800F scanner finally came. This was my first time to purchase anything from canon in my life, and my first recent scannner not from HP as part of a multifunction box. I really questioned myself about the specs, etc. I have to say I have one regret - I should have spent the extra $ 100 and purchased instead the canon pixma printer scanner copier. It is quite well built and even though I don't know anything, I am getting reasonable scans from 35mm negatives and prints. I had read that people were scanning in reduced resolution to gain speed because "it didn't make any difference". I am not that picky, I can tell you for sure that I can easily see a difference at every step of resolution along the way - and that is not photo shop, just the win vista viewer software. Now for the real problem - 100meg per negative file size. I did some initial scans with negs from kodak 100 ultra color - nice.

03-29-2009, 12:45 PM	#13
OregonJim Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon Posts: 1,327	Originally posted by lawsonstone Processing: do you get traditional negatives and prints, or negatives and digital prints? I process my own B&W, and occasionally E-6 (Ektachrome). Not set up to do C-41, so I rarely shoot that. I used to enlarge my own prints, but it's gotten too hard to find good papers, and when I do, the price is exhorbitant and the quantity small. So, I just scan the negs/transparencies. I have yet to find a printer that does a good job with the tonal range of B&W, though I hear the new Epsons have improved considerably. Will probably start my research all over again in a month or two...

03-29-2009, 08:47 PM	#14
ajuett Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 1,100	I get my negatives developed and state no prints. Using my 5 year old Epson 2450 Photo flatbed (for now) I max the hardware scan to 48bit, 2400dpi at 100% which equals about a 6MP image. Then tweak in Silkpix and use GiMP for cloning out stray dust, etc. 1 image at that resolution takes 6 minutes! I have my eye on the Optex scanner for $100, its 3800dpi hardware resolution and much faster. It does slides and negatives only, it's not a flatbed.