Negatives Question

[Superdan138]

I have lots of negatives taken from my Leica M6...and want them to be on the computer....how do I get a super high quality scan of them so they look like a nice picture on here....maybe high enough quality to be sold via a website? thanks....

-Daniel

 

[fixbones]

Best qualiity - drum scan but expensive to own one. Expensive to get it done at the prolabs too.

Next in line would be either Nikon coolscan 9000 or 5000.

Thereafter probably older dedicated 35mm scanners like minolta dimage, nikon coolscan 4000 or flatbed scanners........

Someone please correct me if i am wrong 🙂

 

[kywong]

A dedicated 35mm film scanner such as the Nikon Coolscan IV or V, or the Minolta Dimage 5400 would produce scans of more than enough quality to be sold in my opinion.

 

[degruyl]

Flatbed is the wrong choice for 35mm. You absolutely want a film scanner.

Be aware, no matter what you do there will still be work to do on the images after scanning. Even if there is no dust (huge if) there are always issues with exposure and color balance that need to be dealt with. In order to do a good job, I would recommend either Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop or both. If you have neither of these, I suggest you go for Lightroom. It is easy to do what it does, but (unfortunately) impossible to do what it does not do, and its edits are entirely non-destructive.

 

[payasam]

All I could afford was a flatbed, so I make do with that. Results acceptable even if barely that. I use the GIMP software, which is free and quite capable. Some examples in my gallery.

 

[degruyl]

All I could afford was a flatbed, so I make do with that. Results acceptable even if barely that. I use the GIMP software, which is free and quite capable. Some examples in my gallery.

No argument. Gimp is good software. The only gotcha is that it does not support 16bit tiffs very well. At least not the ones edited in photoshop.

I also have a flatbed scanner. film curvature is a serious issue, and the best option appears to be the dedicated film scanners. However, they do not support large format (most don't support medium format, either).

 

[Roger Hicks]

For B+W:

Print the negs in a real darkroom.

Scan the prints.

For colour:

Buy a decent scanner & learn how to use it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[venchka]

I scan with a flatbed. I adjust the scan files in Lightroom. If you have good negatives to start with and IF you get the hang of scanning there is very little to do in Lightroom. Sometimes nothing more than output sharpening.

My $150, 10 year old Epson 1680 scanner makes very nice 8x10s from 35mm and 16x20s from 6x7. Good enough to sell even.

Recent 35mm scans:

And 6x7..............

 

[degruyl]

My $150, 10 year old Epson 1680 scanner makes very nice 8x10s from 35mm and 16x20s from 6x7. Good enough to sell even.

That is roughly the same as the scanner I have (which was not $150). At least according to Epson. (I have the V-750). Once I added some ANR glass plates, all 35mm film scans fine. The only issue was curvature of the film, especially B&W film.

On the other hand, your experience differs from mine:

I have found that you either have to do a ton of work while scanning (color balance with negatives, exposure, levels, curves, etc) or use auto and make fine adjustments in a different (better) program.

My workflow has some pretty automated scanning, adjustments in lightroom, including local adjustments (dodge and burn, dust spotting, curves, input sharpening), then import into Photoshop for stuff you can't do in lightroom (soft proofing, local contrast masks, selective sharpening), then bring it back into lightroom to "print to jpeg" and send it out.

None of this is difficult, but it is time consuming with large files (35mm is not an issue). I have had some fantastic results, though.

I have much better results with slides than negatives.

 

[rogue_designer]

Alot has to do with your comfort level with a scanner and computer. If you don't want to mess with the expense of a scanner, and software to learn - outsourcing the scans can be an option.

Many labs will do a medium resolution scan - large enough for 8x10 prints (and more than large enough for web stuff) for not much money. Without your spending the time to adjust, cleanup, etc. Bonus - pre-archived to DVD.

 

[venchka]

You may be more particular...

You may be more particular...

...

My workflow has some pretty automated scanning, adjustments in lightroom, including local adjustments (dodge and burn, dust spotting, curves, input sharpening), then import into Photoshop for stuff you can't do in lightroom (soft proofing, local contrast masks, selective sharpening), then bring it back into lightroom to "print to jpeg" and send it out.

None of this is difficult, but it is time consuming with large files (35mm is not an issue). I have had some fantastic results, though.

I have much better results with slides than negatives.

...or I might get better results with your approach. I don't own Photoshop. If I knew how to dodge and burn I would dangerous. 😀 A friend was telling me the other night how easy dodge & burning in Lightroom is. I'll give that a try. As for the other elements of your workflow: Might as well be Greek. I'm clueless.

Color is kicking my butt. I'm very tempted to let Epson Scan do an autoexposure scan. That couldn't be any worse than my feeble attempts at color. I agree: slides scan better than color negatives. Or easier.

 

[bagdadchild]

High-end 'flatbed' CCD scanners deliver drum scanner quality and their ease of use and productivity is hard to beat. Keep your eyes open for those scanners. They often cost less than a new coolscan 9000.

 

[Roger Hicks]

High-end 'flatbed' CCD scanners deliver drum scanner quality and their ease of use and productivity is hard to beat. Keep your eyes open for those scanners. They often cost less than a new coolscan 9000.

Have you ever used a drum scanner, or worked with a skilled drum scanner operator?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bagdadchild]

Have you ever used a drum scanner, or worked with a skilled drum scanner operator?

Cheers,

R.

I own a Scanmate 11000 drum scanner. A good CCD scanner like the Eversmart is just as good. Any differences comes down to the operator and efficient post processing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I own a Scanmate 11000 drum scanner. A good CCD scanner like the Eversmart is just as good. Any differences comes down to the operator and efficient post processing.

Fair enough. You have more experience and knowledge than I. And -- I'm not being funny, merely reporting his view -- more than the master printer (and Crosfield drum scanner owner, and lecturer in printing) who taught me the little I know about scanning. I can only conclude that his advice is now behind the times; which is entirely possible, given when I received the advice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bagdadchild]

Roger, I am sure you have more knowledge! Judging by your thousands of posts here and my relatively limited experience as a scanner operator. I am sorry if I just sounded like a besserwisser. I am only convinced that there is no idea in splitting hairs between drum scanners and the CCD:s. Drum scanners normally have higher optical resolution than CCD:s so when scanning 35mm you are indeed right that a drum scanner is better as it will offer a greater magnification possibilities. For larger formats I do not think there's any practical difference. Perhaps the top end ICG and Tango do deliver a tad better quality but looking at the final image I think you need to print very large to spot the difference.

 

[rogue_designer]

It would be good to point out that when you talk about the high-end CCD flatbeds - you are not referring to an Epson V750 or anything easily available on the consumer market. But rather a subset of large production machines from CreoScitex, Fuji and others.

We had some of the large Fuji machines at the Tribune - and they were every bit as good or better than the Imacon 848's we used. We did not have a true drum scanner to compare though.

 

[bagdadchild]

It would be good to point out that when you talk about the high-end CCD flatbeds - you are not referring to an Epson V750 or anything easily available on the consumer market. But rather a subset of large production machines from CreoScitex, Fuji and others.

We had some of the large Fuji machines at the Tribune - and they were every bit as good or better than the Imacon 848's we used. We did not have a true drum scanner to compare though.

Yes, thank you for your clarification. I am somewhat surprised how little attention these scanners get now that so many people are returning to film. I am hopefully not buying any more scanners but I still search the market at times to see what is on offer. I saw among others a Fuji Lanovia including Macintosh for $2000, a Scitex Smart 340L for a $150 (!) and old Crosfield and Heidelberg drum scanners given away for free for those willing to transport the beasts. Apparently the very old Scitex scanners have the sharpest lenses of all CCD scanners but they also weigh at least 200 lbs and I wouldn't like the prospect of finding spare parts...

 

[venchka]

ps: Did anyone mention that all files viewed on monitors dumb down to something like 72 to 96 pixels per inch? A really good scanner can make web images look better than those from a not so good scanner. However, web images will never equal files used for printing. My point: Don't confuse scan quality for the web with scan quality for printing.

 

[gnuyork]

Not too long ago I bought the Epson V750. I would have preferred a dedicated film scanner, but I wanted something I could scan 4x5 film with, and the Epson does it all. I haven't used a dedicated film scanner in a long time, but I have to say the Epson is giving me very good scans even for 35mm negs and slides.

I plan to take it a step further by getting some custom made holders to keep the film flat and have the ability to raise the film from the bed in very small increments to get optimum focus.

A scan from Kodachrome with the Epson V750. I have done nothing as far as post processing yet.