What to do with old negatives???

[mabas9395]

On another thread somebody was looking for Disney photos from the 70's and someone else mentioned that they were looking for a good negative scanner to convert all those old photos to digital.

I am wondering what experience any of you have had with converting your negatives to digital. Did you send them out to a service to have done? Did you scan them yourselves (the option I'm most interested in)? Do you have a dedicated negative scanner or an adapter for a regular flatbed? What is the best way? What is the most economical way? What are a few good film scanners you would recommend?

Everyone on this board must have old negatives they want converted to digital (except you real youngsters whose first camera was a digital), but I haven't seen the topic discussed on this or the other photo boards I frequent.

The collective knowledge of this board should be able to shed some light on the subject.

 

[Groucho]

That was me and I'll repeat here what I said (since the earlier message) here to keep it on-topic. I did a little more research again today and hopefully will get an Epson 4490 one of these days. It's pretty cheap ($175 at Beach) and has hardware scratch/dust removal, which apparently makes a huge difference, much better than software tools. The Epson 4990 is a little bigger, has slightly better dynamic range, and has bigger film folders but costs more than twice as much. A dedicated scanner like the Nikon Coolscan is going to be much closer to $1k - too much for a hobbyist like me.

It's too bad that you can't rent such a device - or get a few people together and the cost wouldn't be too bad, and since most hobbyists have given up film entirely, they'll be "done" as some point and won't need the scanner any more.

Canon has a flatbed scanner comparable to the Epson but an owner recently told a nightmare story on Steve's Forums about getting two bad ones in a row and having a terrible time dealing with Canon support. Their software is supposed to be pretty lousy, too. I would also avoid HPs as their software is generally lousy and the quality isn't that great, either. (We have an older HP scanner at work which is OK, but man, the software is crummy.) I have an Epson Perfection 1200S now and am very happy with it - but it won't cut it for negative or slide scanning (you can buy a transparency adapter but it's pretty expensive, and the DPI is low compared to today's models.)

Oh, yeah, in case it wasn't obvious, you need a transparency adapter to do slides and/or negatives, to provide backlighting. If your current scanner doesn't have that ability, then you'll want to look at a new one.

Slides are ready to go when scanned in (I use some ones that used to be shown before the movie starts as a movie theater as a screen saver on my home theater PC - "buy candy", that kind of thing)... negatives need to be converted. Usually software comes with the scanner to do this, but apparently Photoshop can do it, and there are dedicated plug-ins that claim to do a better job.

 

[PoohJen]

oh! I was just gonna string mine along our Christmas tree as tinsel.

 

[Groucho]

You can do that too! I myself have a few CD-ROMs scattered here and there around the tree, behind lights - they make nice reflections. Of course, we also usually use a Duke Nukem action figure for the tree topper......! Last year, we even had a Cthulhu puppet up there. This year we'll have the WDW monorail that I bought in January going around the base, too. The rest of the tree is pretty normal though.

Just because a person's an adult doesn't mean that they have to act like one.

 

[JR6ooo4]

What resolution should one scan a negative?

assuming a negative is about 1.5 inches long x 1 inch tall and I did not remember to change the default setting of 72dpi. that gives 108 dpi long/wide. Then you find an amazing shot and want to print it 8x10. (without upsizing) the resolution would be approx. 11 pixel sper inch....?
so if I print an 8x10 at 300 dpi (is that average?) I need to scan the neg at 2000 dpi???

I think my 4 year old HP scanner does 1200 resolution. (I am also hoping that is optical resolution, not digitaly enhanced) That gives me 120 dpi for an 8x10. If that did not print well then I guess it would then be time for upsizing in PS.


Mikeeee

 

[boBQuincy]

I had to scan in about 1000 slides and even though I have a slide/negative scanner it is fairly slow and I wanted a faster method. Anyone remember the slide duplicators from the old film days? They fit on our dSLRs too, with a T-mount.

Except... with a 1.6x camera they only capture the center 60% of the image. Hmm, either move the slide further away or move the lens closer to the sensor. I did both.

The lens inside the generic "Bower" duplicator can be moved to the other side of the plate on which it mounts. This moves it much closer to the sensor and gets you almost there. I added a 1/4" spacer behind the slide mount and that was it, good enough to see the grain in the slide.

The duplicator is fast, as fast as you can change slides. It works for negatives too, but as noted, requires some software to invert the colors and remove the orange cast.
Some cameras can be attached to the computer for a direct image download.

It may not be the easiest to construct but it sure is the fastest to use.

 

[Groucho]

What resolution should one scan a negative?

My understanding is that 35mm negatives are good for about 3000dpi - after that, you're just getting grain. So if the goal is absolute archiving (no need for the analog medium in the future), you'll probably want to scan at around 3200dpi (I think that's the nearest choice.) The Epsons I mentioned (and their competition) go to 4800dpi.

I agree, though, when I bought my 1200dpi, I couldn't imagine ever needing more!

As for mass scanning of slides, the Epson 4990 can do 8 slides at once or 24 35mm negatives. (The 4490 is lower - I think 4 slides, not sure how many negatives.) It does take a little longer because of the ICE function, which does the hardware dust/scratch removal, which is apparently far more effective than software solutions and doesn't blur the image like software ones do, either.

One other option, if you want to use your DSLR, is to put up the best white projection screen you've got, dust off the projector in the back of your closet, put the DSLR on a tripod, set to full manual and determine the ideal settings, then just photograph the screen. I think DSLRs tend to do slightly wider pictures than slides, though? So you'd have some empty space on the sides (no matter how you do it, slide adapter or projection.)

 

[manning]

Here are three pictures scanned with the new Canon LIDE 600F scanner costing $150.00. It has the same specs as their 9950F for $399.00.

The first two pictures are scanned from 35mm negatives.
The third one is scanned from a 35mm slide.

All not retouched except for rotation

I would have put another slide up but I have to take it out of the mount.

Negatives -- taken Oct 1989

slide taken maybe Oct 1989

 

[Olaf]

. . . because of the ICE function, which does the hardware dust/scratch removal, which is apparently far more effective than software solutions and doesn't blur the image like software ones do, either.

Yes, it does. At least mine does. I have an Epson 4870. I've scanned negatives with and without ICE and I noticed a blur. I'll try it and post the results.

 

[Groucho]

Here are three pictures scanned with the new Canon LIDE 600F scanner costing $150.00. It has the same specs as their 9950F for $399.00.

The first two pictures are scanned from 35mm negatives.
The third one is scanned from a 35mm slide.

Not to pick nits, but...

I can see faint vertical lines (like the picture was printed on corrugated cardboard) throughout the first two photos - most visible in the sky and ground of the first and the ground in the second one. Not really noticable in the third - not sure if they're not there or the colors hide them.

I wonder if the slides were rotated 90' in the scanner and the scanner head didn't move smoothly enough over them? If it moves in a slightly jerky manner, it might be inconsistent light which would cause those kind of effects. Hopefully that's something that a software change can cure.

Also, this page (the only proper review I could find on a quick search) and this page says that the 600F can't do 35mm slides - the second one is a user comment who states that you have to remove the slide from its mount to scan it?
(edit: just saw that you did mention that.)

Yes, it (digital ICE) does. At least mine does. I have an Epson 4870. I've scanned negatives with and without ICE and I noticed a blur. I'll try it and post the results.

A couple user comments said that they saw a little, but the consistent thing was that it was always much better (in terms of both removal and not blurring the details) than any software solution. Canon have a comparable system in their scanners, they call it FARE. I think some film scanners have it, and as far as I know, HP doesn't - but I'm not sure.

It sounds like the Epson 4490 for $175 is the best choice for scanning mounted slides and negatives. As far as I can see, there's no real competition in its price range.

 

[0bli0]

because i shoot fair amount of film, i have a HP 4890 (since it comes with an adapter for 120 film) for scanning negatives i develop at home (street photography, Holga shots, etc - nothing for sale.). it's really crap compared to the coolscan which is crap compared to getting something drum scanned, or other high-end scanning process at the lab. you lose some dynamic range - including subtle shadow highlights. this actually gives it a characteristic contrasty feel. as long as you recognise they won't look as nice as the slides, it's actually great.

it does do 4800dpi across (optical) and it's amazing what detail you can pull off a 6cm x 7cm negative from my mamiya.

for your old slides, a 4850 would be great. as far as the resolution. natively my camera shoots at about 3100 pixels per inch across, and a 20d shoots about 4000 pixels per inch. start your scan on 35mm about 2000dpi and see your results to judge up or down. that's where i scan most of my 35mm's

 

[manning]

Not to pick nits, but...

I can see faint vertical lines (like the picture was printed on corrugated cardboard) throughout the first two photos - most visible in the sky and ground of the first and the ground in the second one. Not really noticable in the third - not sure if they're not there or the colors hide them.

I wonder if the slides were rotated 90' in the scanner and the scanner head didn't move smoothly enough over them? If it moves in a slightly jerky manner, it might be inconsistent light which would cause those kind of effects. Hopefully that's something that a software change can cure.

Also, this page (the only proper review I could find on a quick search) and this page says that the 600F can't do 35mm slides - the second one is a user comment who states that you have to remove the slide from its mount to scan it?
(edit: just saw that you did mention that.)


A couple user comments said that they saw a little, but the consistent thing was that it was always much better (in terms of both removal and not blurring the details) than any software solution. Canon have a comparable system in their scanners, they call it FARE. I think some film scanners have it, and as far as I know, HP doesn't - but I'm not sure.

It sounds like the Epson 4490 for $175 is the best choice for scanning mounted slides and negatives. As far as I can see, there's no real competition in its price range.

This is the first time scanning for me, I just got the scanner and am learning.

The scanner can do slides as you can see. Maybe I'm missing something as this is new to me. When making a scan you can chose between negative film (color) and positive film (color) plus other choices.

I did have to remove the slide from the mount. Trying to scan with the mount caused the scan to come out out of focus.

I may have to look at the Epson scanner after I get the hang of this one. One thing I like about the canon and the reason I will keep it is that it is small and portable. A good matchup for a laptop. It gets its power from the laptop thru the USB cable.

I do have a lot of slides, negatives and prints to scan, but one of the things I'm having trouble with is justifying the cost of a higher price scanner as when I get done with this project what do I do with the scanner. All my shooting now is digital. I'm back to the need of only an all in one scanner which I have.

Decisions decision

 

[manning]

Here's something puzzling to me. I enlarge the Minnie picture and I can't see the card board effect on her face.

 

[Olaf]

A couple user comments said that they saw a little, but the consistent thing was that it was always much better (in terms of both removal and not blurring the details) than any software solution. Canon have a comparable system in their scanners, they call it FARE. I think some film scanners have it, and as far as I know, HP doesn't - but I'm not sure.

I misspoke. I have an HP computer and an Epson 4870 scanner.

It takes forever to scan when you apply it--huge resource hog. This is what it has to say about Digital Ice under the help menu:

Digital ICE™
Digital ICE™ removes dust or scratch on films and photos when you are scanning.

Digital ICE is enabled only when you are scanning photos or films.


The result of the Digital ICE feature does not appear on the previewed image. Check the result on the scanned image.

Depending on your scanner model, Digital ICE may not be available.

When you are using Digital ICE, the moiré reduction feature is disabled.

When you scan photos using Digital ICE, the scanned images become softer in texture.

When you scan photos using Digital ICE, you can specify a resolution of 4800 dpi or lower. However, the images are scanned at a maximum of 1200 dpi.

Before using Digital ICE, make sure that your computer has sufficient system resources. See the following table for details on the required hard disk space and system memory. If your computer's resources are insufficient, the scanning time increases.

I have to admit, I don't understand this last bit.

When you scan photos using Digital ICE, you can specify a resolution of 4800 dpi or lower. However, the images are scanned at a maximum of 1200 dpi.

It's also difficult to apply. You have to do a preview scan with the Digital Ice applied, and then check the box again, and then do the full scan.

 

[Groucho]

Manning: do you see the effect on the ground and sky in the first two pics? Just want to make sure that you do see it at all. Playing with the color levels may make it more or less obvious.

I would guess that it's like image noise where it's worse on certain things - ie, we have green walls in our living room and they always show image noise terribly while other colors are fine. Skin tones seem to not pick it up. Another example is that my home theater projector can somethings show faint vertical banding, not unlike in your picture, but it's generally only noticable on things like smooth sky or large white areas. Supposedly it can be mostly eliminated by playing with some settings but it's not really bothersome so I haven't bothered yet.

For slides, normally you don't have to take them out of the mount. The bigger Canon and the Epson 4x90 (4490 or 4990) have holders that you put the mounted slides into and they can scan several at a time - if you have a lot of slides to scan, it's probably a much easier and faster method than removing each one from the mount and maybe trying to put it back later, if you wish to still have it usable as a slide. I would have to lean towards the Epson for only $25 more if you're doing slides. I think the Canon's small size is handicapping it in this regard - the Epson is not trying to be portable. If Canon put FARE on a cheaper but full-size scanner, that would be a more direct competitor.

Olaf, I don't think you misspoke, at least I think I understand your original message about scanner vs PC. My rudimentary understanding (and I'd welcome any correction) is that the ICE is a fourth scan layer - the usual red, green, and blue are captured, than an infrared pass is made. The scanner gives your PC this information which then performs the calculations to decide what is a dust speck or scratch and what isn't. The larger the scan, the longer it'll take - sounds like you'd better have at least a gig of memory. But it is common for it to take a verrrrry long time, but most seem to feel that the results justify it. The extra time is going to be pretty similar for any ICE implementation, whether in the Epson or Nikon, or Canon's FARE system. The Nikon dedicated system can do the actual scan faster though (at significant cost).

As for dpi... not sure. I did a quick search and found this thread where it sounds like they're not sure if it's true or not? One says that it may not be valid if you use VueScan instead of Epson's software. The thread is two and a half years old, so maybe the current generation can do ICE at full resolution - I hadn't seen any mention of such a restriction in anything I'd read about the 4x90.

I recently upgraded my system and have an Athlon X2 4200+ and 1.5 gigs so hopefully it won't be TOO bad - but I don't expect to get a scanner until some time next year (and probably not early in the year) so I probably won't have actual results to reference until then.

 

[boBQuincy]

What resolution should one scan a negative?

It depends. I needed scans to display on a monitor so I scanned the slides at 1200 x 800, plenty of resolution for display. For prints I would try to stay with the rule of thumb, 240 to 300 dpi. Dpi is not the issue these days, dynamic range is.

Dynamic range is a real sore spot, most scanners don't have enough to accurately capture the image, regardless of what the specs say. If you have a really good slide or negative pay the $$$ for a drum scan and compare it to the flatbed scan. Prepare to be amazed at the difference.

 

[Master Mason]

Well, Luckily for me, I don't have time for this project at the moment. But I have most every negative my parents and grand parents took in the last 70+ years....

In a few years, when the kids are gone, I'll take on that project, hopefully and surely the technology will improve by then as well.

 

[0bli0]

btw with any scanner - i highly recommend vuescan - it greatly enhances the capability of the scanner through better controls.

 

[DemonLlama]

Well, if anyone is reading this thread who can't afford a scanner that does justice, I discovered that my local Walmart Photo Center will put as many pictures on a CD that will fit for $2.78. I brought all my 2000 and 2002 negatives in to them in a box and a day later had 6 CDs of pictures I copied onto my hard drive in batch.


Maybe I haven't developed the eye for faint lines, but I was pleased, since some of the original prints were underexposed and I could now improve them. These were taken with a cheap point and shoot and the negatives had been in-expertly stored in a shoe box.

This one was completely dark in the print, so it was like Christmas getting to see these photos I'd forgotten I had.

 

[Groucho]

That sounds like an amazing deal. What resolution are the photos at?

If only it were someone other than Wal-Mart... What's the going rate for getting a bunch of negatives drum scanned nowadays?