A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

scanning old negatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 24th 15, 10:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Phillip Helbig[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default scanning old negatives

Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR),
of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from
the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when
developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a
CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things,
including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about
500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best
and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB.

Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is,
what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D
definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen
(scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not
infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on
screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not
infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen.

When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D
look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that
rescanning the film would improve the quality.

What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the
resulting JPEG size?

Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from
2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20
years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for
most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh
mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had
an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the
time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want
to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than
2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the
stuff I already have.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?

How is film developed today? At some point, did developers start
scanning the negatives and printing the JPEG files on film, as opposed
to doing it the old way? If so, the prints I have from 2002 to 2008
might be prints of the JPEG files I already have. IIRC I printed a few
of these files and they looked very similar to the prints. (Presumably
in 1983 no-one was scanning negatives; I don't see any difference in the
quality of the prints from 1983 to those from 2007, which is not to say
that there would be no difference visible in enlargements.)

  #2  
Old May 24th 15, 01:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default scanning old negatives

In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote:

Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh
GR), of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as
well from the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then,
when developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for
scans on a CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on
various things, including where I got the film developed and
scanned, these are about 500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the
K10D (set to produce the best and highest-resolution JPEG files) are
between 2 and 4 MB.


Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher
resolution would produce better results?


The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image is also
a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot of
compression. A small file and a small image means there's less compression, and
the image would look better, but smaller.

If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good
choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at
least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you
could possibly find in it.

For the developers that scan to CD/file that I've seen, usually have a pretty
low scanning quality for small files (understandable when delivery is via the
web, less so when delivery is on CD).

(Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily high resolution and
produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is, what
resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)


The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain) of the
film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75 lpmm, which means
that the very highest granularity you can get from that negative is about 20
megapixels.

So, what resolution does your scanner need to be for it to create a 20MP image
from your negative? It needs precisely 4153 DPI. And the Epson I mentioned
above is 4800DPI, so you would have no problem scanning the negatives into the
best possible digital format you can create using this scanner.

If you have professional analog film, that is highly rated (upwards to 200
lpmm) then the Epson has microstep technology and can scan up to 6400 DPI and
above.

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the
K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch
screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they
are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from
film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that
they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the
screen.


Which of course can be due to the scan or the camera or the lens. But it's more
likely the scan.

When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the
K10D look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that
rescanning the film would improve the quality.


It most probably would.

What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be
the resulting JPEG size?


You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with the
files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max out the
resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or such, you needn't
exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test scans at various resolutions
and you'll quickly notice what fits you best.

Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film
from 2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from
the 20 years before 2002.


The Epson V750 Pro comes with several film inserts where you can easily scan
negatives from 135-film (35 mm film) and 120-film. It also comes with inserts
for reversal film in frames.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?


For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and most of
the "cost" is your time.

--
Sandman
  #3  
Old May 24th 15, 01:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Phillip Helbig[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default scanning old negatives

In article ,
Sandman writes:

The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the image
is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means there's a lot
of compression. A small file and a small image means there's less
compression, and the image would look better, but smaller.


Right. What I would like is a scan which, when printed, is comparable
to printing from film the old-fashioned way.

If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro is a good
choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in high resolution and at
least match the granularity of the film, i.e. scan all the detail that you
could possibly find in it.


I think I would rather let a professional do this.

For the developers that scan to CD/file that I've seen, usually have a
pretty low scanning quality for small files (understandable when
delivery is via the web, less so when delivery is on CD).


Mine were on CD.

The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution (grain)
of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best rated at 75
lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity you can get from
that negative is about 20 megapixels.


Right. That's a figure I had in mind, though for ISO 200 and presumably
less than perfect exposure, 10 megapixels is probably closer to the
truth. This would be enough.

So, what resolution does your scanner need to be for it to create a 20MP
image from your negative? It needs precisely 4153 DPI. And the Epson I
mentioned above is 4800DPI, so you would have no problem scanning the
negatives into the best possible digital format you can create using
this scanner.


OK.

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the
K10D definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch
screen (scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they
are not infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from
film on screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that
they are not infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the
screen.


Which of course can be due to the scan or the camera or the lens. But
it's more likely the scan.


I think so too.

You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do with
the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you need to max
out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting to the web or
such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In short, do a few test
scans at various resolutions and you'll quickly notice what fits you
best.


10x15 cm is normal for prints. Occasionally I might want an
enlargement, but not poster-size. For the web, it is easy to downsample
a JPEG file and produce a smaller one, so I would rather have "master
scans" of the highest quality which is reasonable, then produce smaller
files if necessary for some purposes.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?


For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive, and
most of the "cost" is your time.


No, I meant if some photo shop does the scanning. I'm thinking they
might have a really good scanner. I have none and no experience either.

When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from scans?

  #4  
Old May 24th 15, 02:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default scanning old negatives

Phillip Helbig:
Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files....


When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D
definitely look better....


What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the
resulting JPEG size?


First off, if you are concerned about quality, scan to TIFF, not to
JPEG. JPEGs are the last step in the process--you use high-quality
software such as Photoshop to convert to JPEG before you post to the
web.

I would scan 4x6 prints at 1200 ppi. The resulting digital image will
be 4800x7200 pixels. That allows for easy retouching and gives you the
resolution you need to crop and resize if you decide to print the
photo. You *could* print such a scan at up to 20x30 in. and get decent
quality. Chances are you will print smaller than that and get excellent
quality.

Please see
http://www.scanyourentirelife.com/dp...your-paper-pho
tographs/ and
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/image-resolution/ and
also do your own search for all of these terms: "scan," "resolution,"
and "pixel dimensions."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #5  
Old May 24th 15, 04:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default scanning old negatives

In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to
reply) wrote:

Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR),
of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from
the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when
developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a
CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things,
including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about
500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best
and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB.


don't scan to jpeg.

Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is,
what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)


you don't say at what resolution they were scanned, but based on the
size and that they were scanned at a store, it's probably a low
resolution scan.

buy a used 4000 ppi dedicated negative scanner such as the nikon
coolscan 4000 and scan to tiff and then sell it when you're done for
roughly what you paid for it. if you don't want to do the scanning
yourself (it's easy but very time consuming) find a professional
scanning service to do it, *not* the local camera store.

....

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?


there are many companies that can do it for you and prices are around
$1/ea for quality scans.

keep in mind that there are no backups with film so if they lose or
damage what you send them, it's gone.

How is film developed today? At some point, did developers start
scanning the negatives and printing the JPEG files on film, as opposed
to doing it the old way?


no.

film is developed the same way it always has but prints are now done
with digital printers not optical ones, which produce as good or better
results. although the negative is scanned at a very high resolution,
there is no interim jpeg (or any format).

If so, the prints I have from 2002 to 2008
might be prints of the JPEG files I already have.


they're not.
  #6  
Old May 24th 15, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default scanning old negatives

On 2015-05-24 05:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR),
of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from
the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when
developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a
CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things,
including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about
500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best
and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB.

Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is,
what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)


4000 dpi is a good practical limit for basic scanning (dry air). So a
Minolta 5400, Nikon 4000, etc. are fine scanners for the job.

A 4000 dpi scan results in:
4000 x 36/25.4 X 4000 x 24/25.4 = 21.4 Mpix.

Bit depths are 12 or 14 bits/colour, but typically encoded as full
words, so the file size (uncompressed TIF) will run up to:

21,400,000 x 6 = 128 MB - though my TIF's usually run about 85 MB. In
JPG that will come down quite a bit. (less than 20 MB).

"Wet" scanning up to about 8000 dpi or so will give cleaner, better
contrast ... but it's expensive if you don't have the equipment.

You can get a wet scanning kit for the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners that
provides converted trays that use an oil (?) as the wet media. That
improved contrast but doesn't increase the resolution of course.

Digital cameras have little dyncamic noise and 0 dimensional noise, so
images are always much cleaner on digital cameras for a given lens, ISO,
shutter speed and lighting conditions.

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D
definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen
(scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not
infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on
screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not
infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen.

When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D
look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that
rescanning the film would improve the quality.

What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the
resulting JPEG size?


I likes various Kodak chromes (elite chrome, kodachromes...) and Velvia
from Fuji.

For negatives, the cleanest scans were from Fuji Portra 160 (exposed as
100). Colour was just a tad above neutral.


Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from
2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20
years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for
most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh
mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had
an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the
time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want
to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than
2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the
stuff I already have.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?


You could buy a used scanner (Nikon 4000/5000, Minolta 5400...) and then
scan the ones worth scanning. Scanning services will not give you the
max resolution available (generally).

  #7  
Old May 25th 15, 07:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default scanning old negatives

In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote:

Sandman:
The size of the file is only one parameter, the dimensions of the
image is also a factor. I.e. a small file and a huge image means
there's a lot of compression. A small file and a small image means
there's less compression, and the image would look better, but
smaller.


Right. What I would like is a scan which, when printed, is
comparable to printing from film the old-fashioned way.


Then you need to scan in high resolution and scan to TIFF, not JPEG.

Sandman:
If you own or have access to a good scanner - The Epson V750 Pro
is a good choice if you ask me, you could scan the negatives in
high resolution and at least match the granularity of the film,
i.e. scan all the detail that you could possibly find in it.


I think I would rather let a professional do this.


It'll cost you, though. It's really easy to do yourself. It only takes time.

Sandman:
The resolution of the scanner is only one part, the resolution
(grain) of the film is another. Most "common" films are at best
rated at 75 lpmm, which means that the very highest granularity
you can get from that negative is about 20 megapixels.


Right. That's a figure I had in mind, though for ISO 200 and
presumably less than perfect exposure, 10 megapixels is probably
closer to the truth. This would be enough.


Presumably.

Sandman:
You should choose resolution depending on what you're going to do
with the files. If you want to print them at 24" x 36" then you
need to max out the resolution (see above). But if you're posting
to the web or such, you needn't exaggerate the resolution. In
short, do a few test scans at various resolutions and you'll
quickly notice what fits you best.


10x15 cm is normal for prints. Occasionally I might want an
enlargement, but not poster-size. For the web, it is easy to
downsample a JPEG file and produce a smaller one, so I would rather
have "master scans" of the highest quality which is reasonable,
then produce smaller files if necessary for some purposes.


That's the route I would use myself, and suggest as well.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):
For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable
price?


Sandman:
For scanning? The aforementioned scanner isn't all that expensive,
and most of the "cost" is your time.


No, I meant if some photo shop does the scanning.


Do not let a photo shop do the scanning. Most photo shops aren't professional
scanners and have automated processes for developing and enlarging photos, not
creating high quality scans.

I'm thinking they might have a really good scanner. I have none and
no experience either.


When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from
scans?


Depends on the equipment. There are film developers that scan to an
intermediate format and then print with a digital printer, and then churn out
low-quality JPEG's for the CD/download.

--
Sandman
  #8  
Old May 25th 15, 03:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default scanning old negatives

On 5/24/2015 11:19 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-05-24 05:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Now that I photograph exclusively digitally (Pentax K10D and Ricoh GR),
of course I have all the pictures as JPEG files (and RAW as well from
the K10D). I got the K10D in 2008. From 2002 until then, when
developing film (usually Kodak, usually ISO 200), I asked for scans on a
CD. (I was using a Ricoh KR10 Super.) Depending on various things,
including where I got the film developed and scanned, these are about
500--1500 kB. JPEG files produced by the K10D (set to produce the best
and highest-resolution JPEG files) are between 2 and 4 MB.

Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is,
what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)


4000 dpi is a good practical limit for basic scanning (dry air). So a
Minolta 5400, Nikon 4000, etc. are fine scanners for the job.

A 4000 dpi scan results in:
4000 x 36/25.4 X 4000 x 24/25.4 = 21.4 Mpix.

Bit depths are 12 or 14 bits/colour, but typically encoded as full
words, so the file size (uncompressed TIF) will run up to:

21,400,000 x 6 = 128 MB - though my TIF's usually run about 85 MB.
In JPG that will come down quite a bit. (less than 20 MB).

"Wet" scanning up to about 8000 dpi or so will give cleaner, better
contrast ... but it's expensive if you don't have the equipment.

You can get a wet scanning kit for the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners that
provides converted trays that use an oil (?) as the wet media. That
improved contrast but doesn't increase the resolution of course.

Digital cameras have little dyncamic noise and 0 dimensional noise, so
images are always much cleaner on digital cameras for a given lens, ISO,
shutter speed and lighting conditions.

When I compare the JPEG files on a computer screen, those from the K10D
definitely look better. They are completely sharp on a 17-inch screen
(scaled to about 1/3); in full size, one notices that they are not
infinitely sharp, but they still look OK. The ones from film on
screen (scaled to about 2/3) look OK, but one sees that they are not
infinitely sharp even when scaled down to fit the screen.

When comparing 4x6-inch (10x15-cm) glossy prints, those from the K10D
look better, but only slightly so. This is why I suspect that
rescanning the film would improve the quality.

What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the
resulting JPEG size?


I likes various Kodak chromes (elite chrome, kodachromes...) and Velvia
from Fuji.

For negatives, the cleanest scans were from Fuji Portra 160 (exposed as
100). Colour was just a tad above neutral.


Of course, I could ask whether it is worth it to rescan the film from
2002 to 2008. However, I definitely want to scan my film from the 20
years before 2002. (I was using a similar Ricoh model, KR5 IIRC, for
most of this time. It was stolen and I replaced it with the used Ricoh
mentioned above. They were very similar except that the second one had
an automatic setting where one could set the stop and it would set the
time; also, the light meter looked a bit different.) If I do so, I want
to get it right the first time. Also, this is much more than
2002--2008, so it wouldn't be that much more effort to scan rescan the
stuff I already have.

For a couple of thousand pictures, what would be a reasonable price?


You could buy a used scanner (Nikon 4000/5000, Minolta 5400...) and then
scan the ones worth scanning. Scanning services will not give you the
max resolution available (generally).


Very true. My solution was to make friends with the kid hat did the
scanning, at a local drug store. I got High resolution tiff files fjor a
reasonable cost.

--
PeterN
  #9  
Old May 25th 15, 03:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Whiskers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default scanning old negatives

On 2015-05-24, RichA wrote:

[...]

Even with the best modern-day colour negative 35mm film, you won't get
more than about 6 megapixels (compared to a digital image) of detail
out of it. All high resolution scanners do is image the dye clouds or
grain clusters more than they need to be.


I think that statement needs a little expansion.

According to Wikipedia today, early estimates of the relative
"resolution" of 35mm 'full frame' (36x24mm) film cameras with digital
cameras suggested that the film cameras were equivalent to about 20Mp in
digital terms; more recently this equivalent has been put at anything
between 6 and 16Mp. Note that 35mm film cameras range from disposable
cardboard boxes with simple moulded plastic lenses all the way to
exquisite pieces of optical-mechanical engineering costing very large
amounts of money - and the range of film qualities is almost as great,
although 'professional quality' 35mm film was (is) just about within the
reach of really keen amateurs.

A technically skilled and artistically gifted 35mm film photographer can
and usually will get much 'better' pictures than a person with no
aptitude or willingness to learn, particularly if the 'real'
photographer does all the processing and printing as well - which the
snap-shooter almost certainly won't.

A complete beginner using a modest point-and-shoot digicam will probably
get better results than they would using a typical cheap 35mm
'automatic' as sold circa 1980 or any size of 'box camera' of any
vintage. Such a person might be lucky to get anything usable at all out
of a Rollie 35SE or a Leica M4 - but someone with the skill and
knowledge to exploit such machines can produce prints of which anyone
would be proud.

It's also a lot easier to destroy the evidence of one's mistakes with a
digital camera; just delete them!

Arguments about 'resolution' 'grain' 'sharpness' 'noise' etc are
somewhat pointless. If you need 'more detail' then use a bigger camera
with a larger film or sensor.

Analogue colour printing is inevitably somewhat objective, which is why
colour prints from automated 'booths' were always more or less
disappointing. Files from digicams specify colour values fairly
precisely so an automated printing system can produce consistent and
remarkably often quite satisfactory prints, and cheaper than the D&P on
a roll of film too, so of course most people find they get much better
pictures with digital than they do (or did) with film.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
  #10  
Old May 26th 15, 10:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default scanning old negatives

On 2015-05-24 18:14, RichA wrote:

Even with the best modern-day colour negative 35mm film, you won't
get more than about 6 megapixels (compared to a digital image) of
detail out of it. All high resolution scanners do is image the dye
clouds or grain clusters more than they need to be.


BZZZT.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning Negatives mueller Medium Format Photography Equipment 30 May 26th 07 03:18 PM
Scanning old negatives Stuart Digital Photography 17 April 20th 07 05:53 AM
Help scanning negatives, please! iamcanadian 35mm Photo Equipment 12 December 3rd 06 03:32 AM
Scanning 126 and 110 negatives Terry Tomato Film & Labs 7 March 14th 05 12:06 PM
scanning negatives Mike - EMAIL IGNORED 35mm Photo Equipment 12 November 27th 04 08:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.