Please help -- scanning negatives and making digital positives?

[HamdenRice]

Thanks for taking your time out to read this question from someone who is not a regular participant in the Photography Group.

Recently I found about 30 rolls of B&W film I had taken when I was a photography buff as a kid. These negatives, which I developed myself and fortunately carefully stored in negative files, have pictures of my late parents and grandparents, as well as many other friends and relatives.

I don't have a darkroom or equipment any more to make prints. Can you recommend a way of scanning the negatives and reversing the images into digital positives.

I have done searches on google and posed this question here some time ago, but the answer seems to be that there are many, many ways that do this and there is a big choice of equipment and programs.

What I am seeking is a clear-cut choice of equipment and software, that is cheap but has decent resolution and that has worked for you. I'm not really interested in the theory or all the choices -- just a package that worked for you.

Thanks in advance.

[DS1]

1. Go buy any film scanner, select negatives from the options

that the software will provide, and it'll invert them automatically.

In other words, shouldn't be a problem

[NV Whino]

2. I just bought (with a friend) the Nikon Coolscan V

i have yet to scan negatives, but have scanned some slides with it. Dynamite! Not cheap though--$600.

The Epson RX620 all in one scanner/printer/copier is supposed to scan slides and negatives. $300. Haven't tried scanning with it, but printed out a shot directly from my flashcard. Amazing quality.

[HamdenRice]

3. Thanks for the specific suggestion

The nikon sounds too expensive. I already have a flat bed scanner, so I am looking for a dedicated negative scanner for less than $300, preferably a lot less. Is that feasible? My flatbed scanner was only about $100.

Thanks in advance.

[NV Whino]

4. Take some negs or slides

to the nearest Staples, Office Depot, computer store or whatever and ask to test the RX 620. This machine doesn't need a computer. You should be able to scan and print a test right there in the store. I printed a test from my flash card and was really impressed with the quality. Don't know if the slide/negative scan portion will live up to hype. But give it a try.

[HamdenRice]

5. Is this too much?

I already have a regular flat bed scanner and a HP laserjet printer. I didn't think I need yet another machine that scans and prints regular material, no?

In other words, I was looking for maybe a dedicated slide/negative scanner for a modest price.

Also, I want to create digital picture files; if this doesn't need a computer, does it just create a picture? Would I then have to scan the pic on a flat bed scanner to send the pictures by email to friends and relatives?

I'm really just looking for a negative/slide scanner. If I have to get a flat bed scanner that takes negatives/slides also, that's ok, but I heard that dedicated negative slide scanners do a better job on slides and negatives.

Also, do I need a graphics software package, or will that come with the scanner?

[NV Whino]

6. If you want just a slide/neg scanner

you are pretty much locked into the $600 Nikon... and that's the low end model. I haven't seen any others as good or as cheap.

(I have an Agfa flat bed scanner that supposedly scans negs and slides, but it does a lousy job. I suspect the RX620 does a much better job but probably not as good as te Nikon dedicated scanner.)

And I may have misled you with my "no computer" statement. You can print Flashcards and such without a computer and may be able to scan and print without a computer, but you will need a computer on which to store and manipulate the scanned files.

The Nikon scanner comes with software to scan and do some tweaking of the scan. If you want to do anything major, you will need something like PhotoShop. PhotoShop lite is excellent for dealing with photos and a lot less expensive than the full version. There are other programs out there, but I've not used any other than PhotoShop.

[kliljedahl]

13. I use this one, I've had good results

The only drawback is it only does one at a time, although that's no different than most flat beds.



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1788129,00.asp


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Scanners are priced mainly according to resolution and speed

You might want to look through the comparisons at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM and http://dpreview-cnet.com.com/4007-3142_9-0.html?tag=dir to get an idea of how specs/price relate to your needs. You can save some money by looking for a used, refurbished or older model of whatever scanner seems closest to your ideal. Basically, the PPI (pixels per inch) rating depends on the size of the prints you might want to make, and there is no need to pay for capabilities you will never need. I would look mainly at speed unless you are thinking of producing larger size prints or determined to pull out every bit of detail from the film. In that case DMax and the ability to generate 48-bit data become important.

A good explanation of scanner specs and their relevance is at: http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html To quote: "Bottom line: 2400 PPI is excellent if you don't plan to print larger than 8½x11 inches (A4; Letter size); it's very good for11x17 (A3). 2900 PPI has a slight edge at 11x17 (A3). 4000 PPI is excellent for 13x19 and even 17x24. If you plan to print larger, consider 5400 PPI."

As for software, most scanners come with a decent program for making the scan. Some also come with something like Adobe Elements for further processing. Most image processing programs also allow you to control your scanner to generate a source file. You may find a stand-alone program like Vuescan http://www.hamrick.com/ to be more versatile and capable than whatever comes with the scanner, and it can do most everything you need to do including making the prints.

[TahitiNut]

9. It has never made sense to me that one would equate sanner PPI ...

... to some SIZE of print. I've always understood that 2400 dpi/ppi is regarded as "photo quality" -- i.e. that the resolution of any hardcopy was deemed "photo quality" if it was 2400 dpi/ppi or more.

For a scanner, that seems to me to imply that if I wanted to create a print that was up to double the (linear) size of the image scanned, then my scanner should achieve a resolution of 4800 dpi/ppi or better if I wanted "photo quality" hardcopy. When it comes to slides, the ratio of the size of desired hardcopy to slide seems far larger than 2::1 ... perhaps 10::1 for a 5x7 print.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Printer DPI vs Scanner PPI

Remember that scanner pixels can have values of 0-255 for each of the primaries, while printer dots are either on or off. So to reproduce an color that might be represented by a few pixels in the image data the scanner, the printer has to be able to put anything from a few to very many dots of ink into that very small area.


The DPI rating of a printer is one indicator of the ability of that printer to reproduce a full range of color without the viewer seeing artifacts, and approaches (exceeds?) the fineness of detail that paper can hold.

From the image data side, by sending 300X300 pixels of data THROUGH the printer to the paper, there is enough data so that a person will see all the detail that could possibly be seen in that square inch without using a magnifying glass.

One issue is whether the printer does a good job of transforming the data into its inked paper analogue, and part of this might be how many DPI it prints. But even if the printer is absolutely perfect people just can't see more than the amount of detail than a 300X300 matrix with 65556 discrete colors in each box. Accurately rendered detail that needs 600X600 data points would also need a magnifier.

In short, 300DPI/PPI image data is used as a high standard simply because that is the maximum that can be seen. This means a scanner (or camera) that generates 2400 pixels or data points per inch will also give you all the data that can be reproduced and perceived across an 8-inch print, while one with twice the number of sensors per inch would yield a 16" width. In practice, viewing distance is normally larger with larger prints, so less fine detail is needed and 200 data points per inch becomes acceptable unless viewers decide to get real close.

[CornField]

8. Alternative Idea

If you can go through the negs and decide which ones you'd really like, you can mark just those and then take them to one of your local shops. I know our largest newspaper has a great negative scanner and they'll take in jobs for others. Just open the yellow pages and start calling around. There must be someone in your area that already has the equipment and wouldn't mind making some extra money.

Good luck!

[HamdenRice]

11. Great idea! But how do I know which ones I like without ...

scanning them or producing a contact sheet. They are 35mm, so they are quite small.

I was trying to avoid making contact sheets, because there are so many rolls. I thought that I could quickly and cheaply scan the negatives into my computer and reverse them, to see which ones I liked. Doesn't look like this is feasible.

I guess I could get a cheap flat bed scanner that would not produce good pics, just so I could tell which images to have processed, but it seems silly to buy an inferior scanner for that purpose.

Boy, you would think there would be a quick, cheap solution to this very common problem!

[CornField]

12. A light table and a loupe

Again, if you don't have access to these items, most newspaper offices and HS yearbook/newsletter rooms do.

[HamdenRice]

14. Digital Photo Geek god says ....

Thank you all for your suggestions, especially the one about going to a photo shop that does digital imaging. So I went to a photo shop that didn't seem to have any digital imaging machines and started to explain my problem. The guy behind the counter interrupted me and pointed to the back of the store and said, "you want to talk to Michael."

He directed me to a cave like room in the back of the store where with some trepidation, I found Michael, the digital photo geek god. He spoke in that lilting geek accent, but I could understand most of what he was saying.

The jist of what he said was that there are a couple of flat bed scanners that take slides that are the best value for the money. He confirmed what Whino said -- which is that if you want a dedicated film scanner, the lowest in quality you can really go is the Nikon. Anything cheaper than that is not worth the money, because the scans are of such low quality.

As for the flat bed, he said the quality has improved dramatically in the last year or so. He would not have recommended a flat bed last year, but there is the Epson which is excellent, and produces images of better quality than many dedicated film scanners.

Another advantage of the flatbeds is that they scan up to 8x10 films because they don't rely on a carrier. And I have some old 120 and 620 format negatives I would like to scan.

I will be taking a roll of negatives to be scanned by them, just to see how the digital image thing works, but I think I will then buy the recommended Epson.

Does anyone have any experience with Epson flatbed negative scanning?

[HamdenRice]

15. Here is a glowing review of scanner that digital geek god recommended

I guess I am now convinced, after reading this review. The Epson 4870 is much cheaper than the Nikon and produces results that are almost as good, and certainly good enough for my purposes.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm