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

Film scanners?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #72  
Old April 20th 17, 10:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Phillip Helbig[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Film scanners?

I moved to SLR digital photography in 2008 (Pentax K10 D) and later
bought a compact digital camera (Ricoh GR). I used film 1983--2008
(Ricoh KR5 Super). I probably have about 1500 photos made with film. I
still have the negatives, like the 10 15 prints in plastic envelopes
in a ring binder.

I want to scan the film (presumably both easier and better than scanning
the prints).

What resolution should I choose?

What is the resulting size of the JPEG file?

Should I save some raw format as well? If so, which one? What would be
the file size?

I notice that the prints from the first couple of rolls of film have
faded, but those after still look OK---probably a difference in quality
of the prints rather than age (since the difference in age is only a few
weeks for prints almost 35 years old). Should a standard scan of the
negatives result in correct colours? Or does some correction need to be
done? (I used mostly Kodak ISO 200 film, occasionally 400 or 100 and/or
AGFA.)

I have practically no experience with digital image processing. I would
thus prefer to get this done in a shop, rather than doing it myself.
What would be a fair price for scanning all the negatives? If some
colour correction needs to be done, is this something that I could
expect a shop to do?

  #73  
Old April 20th 17, 12:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,209
Default Film scanners?

On 20/04/2017 7:13 @wiz, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:


I want to scan the film (presumably both easier and better than scanning
the prints).


If the film is in good condition, indeed.
But whoever scans it has to know what they are doing.
And that is easier said than done...

What resolution should I choose?


Varies enormously with the quality of the film.
I push the Coolscan film scanner to its max of 4000dpi for very good
slides and colour negatives such as Kodak Ektar or similar.
The resulting images are around 20Mpixel in resolution *IF* the original
is in good condition.
Some Kodachromes I've pushed to 10000dpi on the Plustek Opticfilm
scanner, but that was a special case.
For the rest I leave it at 2000 or thereabouts, all that's needed.

What is the resulting size of the JPEG file?


Scans should be left as tiff files. JPG should be used only for final
images for show on the net or for printing. Count on 30-40MB per image
for tiff with basic compression.

Should I save some raw format as well? If so, which one? What would be
the file size?


TIFF is the best to preserve the quality of the original scan. 16-bit
colour if you can get a good editor like Photoshop or similar. Sizes
vary a lot with the resolution of the scan and the amount of detail in
the image. You will also need sharpening software such as Focus Magic,
otherwise the scans will look very bad. It's also good to use something
like Neat Image or similar to clean up any scanning noise.
It all can get very complex...

I notice that the prints from the first couple of rolls of film have
faded, but those after still look OK---probably a difference in quality
of the prints rather than age (since the difference in age is only a few
weeks for prints almost 35 years old).


Indeed. Chemically made prints unfortunately tend to fade badly.
My old ones are mostly gone, but the good thing with prints is taking
shots of them with a digital camera and a macro or close-up lens setup
is likely the easiest way of preserving what is still there.

Should a standard scan of the
negatives result in correct colours? Or does some correction need to be
done? (I used mostly Kodak ISO 200 film, occasionally 400 or 100 and/or
AGFA.)


More than likely you will need some correction as the age of the
negatives will have affected things. The Agfa stuff will likely be
gone, mine are only 30 years old and are already gone!
But Kodachrome slides last a lifetime. Some of mine are over 50 years
old and are in perfect condition.
Colour negatives are pot luck. Some last really well, but the Kodak
Gold series was as bad as the Agfa ones...


I have practically no experience with digital image processing. I would
thus prefer to get this done in a shop, rather than doing it myself.


That will cost a LOT. Scanning is a very long process even with the
best material and requires a good knowledge of software and hardware
used, as well as perfect physical conditions re flatness of negative,
cleanliness, etcetc. Don't expect that time investment to come cheap...

What would be a fair price for scanning all the negatives?


No idea. Here in Australia it'd be prohibitively expensive, hence why I
do all of mine at home.

If some
colour correction needs to be done, is this something that I could
expect a shop to do?


Very likely not. They will do basic colour correction but that's all.
It's a process that takes time and hence gets expensive if not done by you.

Sorry to not be more positive, but it's better if you are informed
upfront of the snags of this process.
  #74  
Old April 20th 17, 12:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,209
Default Film scanners?

On 19/04/2017 9:44 @wiz, -hh wrote:

I raise this point because for a lot of my old UW photography images,
the local ("next day") E6 processing was done by hand and you got
back the uncut strip, unmounted (the service of slide mounting simply
wasn't offered at these dive resorts & Liveaboards,

But because the overall photgraphic yield was also typically quite low,
it wasn't considered to be a particularly big deal for the photographer
to spend an hour at a light box and cutting up the strips by hand and
hand-mounting the ~4 keepers per roll. Plus, it was slightly cheaper.


I can so relate to that. Most of my UW film stuff was slides taken back
in early 80s and I had to do a LOT of fiddling to scan them to an
acceptable level. One thing I found was that the more time I spent
cleaning them up with dedicated film cleaner chemicals, the less time I
wasted fixing things during scanning and post-processing.
Some slides were hopelessly gone, like most of the Agfa stuff.
But the Ekta64 and Kodachrome and Fuji stuff lasted sufficient time for
me to make good scans off them.


My brother has one of these and their general appeal is similar to
the slide projector process I mentioned: they're a "quick & dirty".
For some people (& uses) that's adequate, but when the user is more
meticulous, there's going to be a lot of time spent in post-processing
no matter what, so starting with a better scan becomes more beneficial.


Couldn't agree more!
I tried flatbeds and the digital sensor scanners and found that only the
Coolscan9000 and the Opticfilm120 gave me truly satisfactory results for
most of the time, although at a huge time investment from my part.
Still got a Primefilm 3600 which I use for quick and dirty stuff when I
don't have time to do everything in the other two. It's quite good in
that its transport mechanism keeps the film reasonably flat but the only
software worthwile using with it is vuescan.

  #75  
Old April 20th 17, 03:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default Film scanners?

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

I moved to SLR digital photography in 2008 (Pentax K10 D) and later
bought a compact digital camera (Ricoh GR). I used film 1983--2008
(Ricoh KR5 Super). I probably have about 1500 photos made with film. I
still have the negatives, like the 10 15 prints in plastic envelopes
in a ring binder.

I want to scan the film (presumably both easier and better than scanning
the prints).


you definitely want to scan the film (or slides). only scan prints if
you don't have the former.

What resolution should I choose?


scan at the highest resolution your scanner supports. you can always
downsample it later.

if you want better quality than what you scanned, you will need to
rescan, which is a pain.

What is the resulting size of the JPEG file?


that depends on the quality of the jpeg, but you do *not* want to scan
to jpeg. that's a final step, not initial step.

Should I save some raw format as well? If so, which one? What would be
the file size?


scan to tiff, and its size depends on the scanner resolution.

I notice that the prints from the first couple of rolls of film have
faded, but those after still look OK---probably a difference in quality
of the prints rather than age (since the difference in age is only a few
weeks for prints almost 35 years old). Should a standard scan of the
negatives result in correct colours? Or does some correction need to be
done? (I used mostly Kodak ISO 200 film, occasionally 400 or 100 and/or
AGFA.)


all film has faded. how much depends on the film.

I have practically no experience with digital image processing. I would
thus prefer to get this done in a shop, rather than doing it myself.
What would be a fair price for scanning all the negatives?


shop around. price isn't everything.

If some
colour correction needs to be done, is this something that I could
expect a shop to do?


that depends on the shop and will cost more, but keep in mind that
they're guessing because they weren't there and don't really give a
**** beyond looks acceptable.
  #76  
Old April 20th 17, 03:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Note that I never said I don't use digital.

apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance.

Probably nobody does.


plenty of people do.


Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented?


no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote?????

Come now ...


indeed.
  #77  
Old April 20th 17, 03:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default Film scanners?

In article ,
wrote:

Note that I never said I don't use digital.

apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance.


apparently, you don't have a clue what I do or how.


anyone who thinks film can outperform digital does not know how to get
the most out of digital and/or has delusional ideas about film. simple
as that.
  #78  
Old April 20th 17, 07:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/19/2017 06:40 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?


I'm not.


you definitely are if you're using film.

No, I am not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.


relative to what?


Exactly!

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.


that must explain why kodak went bankrupt and almost no film cameras
are made anymore. it also explains why so many camera stores have
closed, mainly the ones that made their money with film processing. it
also explains why kodachrome processing is no more.

Oh, brother . . .

Try it you'll like it.


i did. digital is way the hell better.

you should try it sometime, and with an open mind.

I started shooting digital in 2003 or 2005, Can't remember for sure. I
have three digital cameras sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.


insults means you have nothing


More and observation but you are right. Uncalled for. I apologize.

Russell
  #79  
Old April 20th 17, 07:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 05:20 AM, Noons wrote:
On 20/04/2017 7:13 @wiz, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:


I want to scan the film (presumably both easier and better than scanning
the prints).


If the film is in good condition, indeed.
But whoever scans it has to know what they are doing.
And that is easier said than done...

What resolution should I choose?


Varies enormously with the quality of the film.
I push the Coolscan film scanner to its max of 4000dpi for very good
slides and colour negatives such as Kodak Ektar or similar.
The resulting images are around 20Mpixel in resolution *IF* the original
is in good condition.
Some Kodachromes I've pushed to 10000dpi on the Plustek Opticfilm
scanner, but that was a special case.
For the rest I leave it at 2000 or thereabouts, all that's needed.

What is the resulting size of the JPEG file?


Scans should be left as tiff files. JPG should be used only for final
images for show on the net or for printing. Count on 30-40MB per image
for tiff with basic compression.

Should I save some raw format as well? If so, which one? What would be
the file size?


TIFF is the best to preserve the quality of the original scan. 16-bit
colour if you can get a good editor like Photoshop or similar. Sizes
vary a lot with the resolution of the scan and the amount of detail in
the image. You will also need sharpening software such as Focus Magic,
otherwise the scans will look very bad. It's also good to use something
like Neat Image or similar to clean up any scanning noise.
It all can get very complex...

I notice that the prints from the first couple of rolls of film have
faded, but those after still look OK---probably a difference in quality
of the prints rather than age (since the difference in age is only a few
weeks for prints almost 35 years old).


Indeed. Chemically made prints unfortunately tend to fade badly.
My old ones are mostly gone, but the good thing with prints is taking
shots of them with a digital camera and a macro or close-up lens setup
is likely the easiest way of preserving what is still there.

Should a standard scan of the
negatives result in correct colours? Or does some correction need to be
done? (I used mostly Kodak ISO 200 film, occasionally 400 or 100 and/or
AGFA.)


More than likely you will need some correction as the age of the
negatives will have affected things. The Agfa stuff will likely be
gone, mine are only 30 years old and are already gone!
But Kodachrome slides last a lifetime. Some of mine are over 50 years
old and are in perfect condition.
Colour negatives are pot luck. Some last really well, but the Kodak
Gold series was as bad as the Agfa ones...


I have practically no experience with digital image processing. I would
thus prefer to get this done in a shop, rather than doing it myself.


That will cost a LOT. Scanning is a very long process even with the
best material and requires a good knowledge of software and hardware
used, as well as perfect physical conditions re flatness of negative,
cleanliness, etcetc. Don't expect that time investment to come cheap...

What would be a fair price for scanning all the negatives?


No idea. Here in Australia it'd be prohibitively expensive, hence why I
do all of mine at home.

If some
colour correction needs to be done, is this something that I could
expect a shop to do?


Very likely not. They will do basic colour correction but that's all.
It's a process that takes time and hence gets expensive if not done by you.

Sorry to not be more positive, but it's better if you are informed
upfront of the snags of this process.


Excellent stuff. Thanks, Noons.
  #80  
Old April 20th 17, 07:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?

I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell

It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.

While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic
choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice.

For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an
artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors
will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an
charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil.


I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are
strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can
do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic
choice to be make in the first place.


No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view,
how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience
goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making
prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys.

In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the
print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts
enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone
feels the same way.

If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going
through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never
understand why the film photographer does what he does.

Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in
photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing
something in this wonderful hobby.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.
 




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
film scanners James[_3_] In The Darkroom 0 October 8th 09 08:37 AM
Film Scanners Stephen[_2_] Digital Photography 1 July 10th 09 07:56 PM
Film scanners anyone? Ted Gibson Digital Photography 15 January 8th 08 03:31 AM
Film Scanners Gel Digital Photography 20 February 21st 05 12:25 AM
M/F film scanners - again? Rod Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 May 31st 04 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.