[Gareth.Ig]

Gareth: I think you're getting there on the colour correction part, this photo in particular is quite pleasing. Beautiful family too!
With that quality I would definitely be able to print quite large.. but you do have a medium format Hasselblad hehehe. I'll be shooting right now with a 35mm Vivitar ^__^

Actually, its a Bronica GS-1. Dirt cheap, body plus 65mm lens was $190 and I just picked up a 50mm WA and 110mm macro for $300.

I have been thinking about the Pentax 645, but I've got enough money sunk into cameras for this year.

[JimJohnson]

I tried scanning my old negatives in my flatbed scanner but they won't come right, it seems I have to leave it open for light to go through the film, I may need to rig something up.

You are joking, right? You can't scan negatives or reversal (slide) film with just any flatbed scanner. Flatbed scanners capable of such have a cold cathode light source built into the lid. During the scan, the normal light below the glass for reflective material is turned off and only the light in the lid is used. The scanner does a calibration run (basically setting white balance) with this light source, just like it does with the light source below the glass.

I have an Epson V500 Photo. You can find these scanners for about double the price of the dedicated negative/slide scanners piled up in discount chain stores during the holiday season. The quality is many, many, many times better.

[stevebrot]

You can't scan negatives or reversal (slide) film with just any flatbed scanner.

You can't, but that has not stopped most of us (myself included) from trying


Steve

[LesDMess]

You are joking, right? You can't scan negatives or reversal (slide) film with just any flatbed scanner.

You can and I did. Below is a Super Ansochrome 100 that was included in the September 1957 Popular Photography magazine that I scanned on a regular flatbed scanner without a lid light - in this case an Epson RX680.. I was surprised on what I was able to get after some post processing.




To your point, scanning with a real film scanner - in this case a Coolscan 9000, the results will always be better depending on the condition of the film.

[JimJohnson]

Yeah - that's what was expected as some of the light glares off the film, and the light that made it through was double-saturated as it bounced off the lid and returned they way it came. Although that is a really nice scan of the slide holder!

I recognize you did some post processing on the second image, but the colors of the original seem to have held up nicely after more than 56 years.

[LesDMess]

The Coolscan scan is a straight-up automatic scan with no pre or post anything. I am not sure how the original colors were given the lighting condition and the age of it but it does look good especially compared to the printed photos in the magazine itself. However, the sharpness is not very good. I am not sure if that is due to the original being soft or because this is a copy slide - 1 out of 600,000 copies made and provided in the magazines.

[FoTom]

You are joking, right? You can't scan negatives or reversal (slide) film with just any flatbed scanner. Flatbed scanners capable of such have a cold cathode light source built into the lid. During the scan, the normal light below the glass for reflective material is turned off and only the light in the lid is used. The scanner does a calibration run (basically setting white balance) with this light source, just like it does with the light source below the glass.

I have an Epson V500 Photo. You can find these scanners for about double the price of the dedicated negative/slide scanners piled up in discount chain stores during the holiday season. The quality is many, many, many times better.

Not really joking, I didn't know why they would never come up right =P I knew I needed some light behind it, but couldn't figure a way without a proper scanner, which is why I said that I may need to rig something up. Just like Steve says, that didn't stop me from trying! Oh well, at least I tried hehe I guess I'll look for a used scanner, or simply rely on the lab to do it for me.

I just did a quick search, they are ~$100-150. I think the lab option seems adequate right now..

[JimJohnson]

The Coolscan scan is a straight-up automatic scan with no pre or post anything. I am not sure how the original colors were given the lighting condition and the age of it but it does look good especially compared to the printed photos in the magazine itself. However, the sharpness is not very good. I am not sure if that is due to the original being soft or because this is a copy slide - 1 out of 600,000 copies made and provided in the magazines.

From the 40's and into the 80's, soft lenses were valued for portraiture. They fetched a premium price. Nobody wanted their wrinkles or acne to show in the final product.

[JimJohnson]

I guess I'll look for a used scanner ... I just did a quick search, they are ~$100-150.

As previously indicated, about double the price of the discount store film scanners that aren't worth much at all.

[stevebrot]

I just did a quick search, they are ~$100-150

Those low end "scanners" are not a good idea. They are basically a type of low resolution digital camera setup.

Quality starts at about twice that amount.

[JimJohnson]

Those low end "scanners" are not a good idea. They are basically a type of low resolution digital camera setup.

Quality starts at about twice that amount.

I purchased a factory refurbished Epson V500 PHOTO for about US$125. It is a letter or A4 sized flatbed with film holders and secondary light within the lid and native optical resolution of 6400dpi at 48 bits.

This is certainly not a low end dedicated 35mm film scanner. That type of scanner now routinely sells for about $50-$80 at the big box discount chain stores coming into the holiday season. And you are correct. They are basically a cheap pre-focused web camera with a translucent panel behind the film that in many models is unevenly back-lighted by a few LED bulbs.

[Schmidt]

I purchased a factory refurbished Epson V500 PHOTO for about US$125. It is a letter or A4 sized flatbed with film holders and secondary light within the lid and native optical resolution of 6400dpi at 48 bits.

This is certainly not a low end dedicated 35mm film scanner. That type of scanner now routinely sells for about $50-$80 at the big box discount chain stores coming into the holiday season. And you are correct. They are basically a cheap pre-focused web camera with a translucent panel behind the film that in many models is unevenly back-lighted by a few LED bulbs.

Another thumbs up for the Epson Perfection class flatbeds. They beat those cheap dedicated scanners hands-down every time. Those chepos might call themselves dedicated but their results come nowhere near what a V500 or V600 can do scanning 35mm negatives. And you can pre-process in VueScan, then post-process in your favorite graphics editor (or just use what comes free with the scanner). Then add the all-round versatility of the Epson (scanning medium-format negatives, prints, documents, whatever) and it's a clear choice. Oh yeah, did I mention the Epsons (and similar Canons) have IR dust removal built in?
If what you're looking for is a dedicated 35mm film scanner that actually has some quality, the least expensive you will probably find are some of the Plustek scanners (can be got starting at about $270 or so). I've seen some favourable reviews on them. Look around you might find one for less.

[Lowell Goudge]

Hello Film Pentaxians, I'm glad to say I'm back to shooting film. Kind of.

I stopped shooting film many many years ago when I bought my first digital camera. The truth is I was never technical about it. My first SLR was digital, so even though I've shot hundreds of film rolls, I don't know anything about film. Now I just bought an inexpensive Vivitar film SLR, a K1000 clone [K mount of course] and I want to start/return to shooting film, not exclusively, but more like as another tool in my bag [figuratively speaking]. Also because it's my cheap alternative to full frame

One of the things I've come across [I still don't have my camera, it's arriving this week] in my mind is developing film. I don't have a darkroom, and I will not build one. So what do you guys do if a lab won't do push/pull on a film? How do you scan your photos, do you scan the film itself or a print? I'm thinking of working with some sort of film/digital hybrid: shoot film, scan an uncopressed image from the negative [somehow], "develop" in Lightroom.

I want it this way because I know that, in the end, a) I will want my photos online, and b) to re-print them, having a digital file is just easier nowadays. My prints are typically 8x12 and 11x16, so having a digital file of an analogue photo is perfectly acceptable -not to mention desirable, for me.

I'd be silly to think I'm the only one approaching film photography this way, so I hope you guys can share some insights and thoughts on what I'm planning to do, maybe I'm wrong about something, or some tips to make it better?

I can't wait for my film camera to get here ^__^

Welcome to the insanity of film. My last rolls were B&W which is what I assume you are going to shoot. The lab I use charges $5 extra to push 3 stops. They scanned each roll of 36 for an additional $7 and put them on a photo CD. They did 12 bit tiff files at 5 MP.

I did this because I was lazy. I can scan them at 10MP myself but it takes time with my old scanner. I could also, with minimal effort develop them because B&W is easy. The only dark you need is to load the film to the reel, and put it into the developing tank, the rest is all done in normal light. A bathroom with cover over the window and a sealed door can do just fine.

Wen you consider a 3stop push takes 30 minutes in developer alone (D76 processor solution) over normal exposure, to pay $5 for push process is reasonable. Since you are looking to scan there is no magic moment as images appear in the print tray so I think unless you are really pushed for cash, your time may be worth more unless you process a lo of film

[maxfield_photo]

Last time I took a roll in to have it pulled two stops, the kid at the camera store looked at me like I had two heads. He said "I'm not sure what you mean". Now this place is supposed to be the hot-shot pro camera store in town, yeah... Anyway, though he didn't understand the concept, he transcribed what I told him onto the package. The store sent it out to their lab, it took a week, I think I paid 8 bucks for 3MP "High-res" scans, but because I told them not to do any tonal corrections to the scans, they couldn't use their automated routines, one of which is dust removal. So a week later I got back some dirty negs, with dirty low res scans on a CD. Didn't even have n index printed on it like some places do now. Think it cost me 20 bucks total for film+developing+scanning. Total waste of money, I could have done it faster, cheaper, and better myself. From then on I've done all my B&W negs at home.

Now E-6 I still send out. I use Denver Digital Imaging, and they deliver beautiful slides every time. Haven't tried their scanning service because I never know ahead of time which images I'm going to like, and it's way to expensive to scan a whole roll. But they offer drum scans for those, have-to-be-perfect commercial shots. Dwayne's in Kansas is another reputable lab, and I hear wonderful things about Richard Photo Lab in L.A., but I think they deal exclusively with pro clients, and charge accordingly.

[JimJohnson]

The only dark you need is to load the film to the reel...

Actually, you don't need ANY dark. Just purchase a film change bag and load the reel and put it in the tank inside the bag. Towards the end, I was even processing my prints in tanks, so the only dark was during the enlargement exposure.

Interestingly, my prints actually improved because I HAD to process by the numbers instead of by the look in the tray.