PDA

View Full Version : Scanning Negatives


sanjuan
06-29-2006, 10:25 AM
Ahoy there everyone, this is my first time posting here (and I'm not photography expert) so please bear with me :D

I still stick with my good 'ol Canon AE-1, partly out of preference, mostly due to lack of funds ^__^". I really like being able to control my shots rather than fumble with a point and shoot digi-cam....but I digress...

My question of the day is on Scanners that can scan negatives. Y'see, I like to have my stuff in both print form and digital, however, scanning the actual print does not do such a good job at it. An alternative is to sell my kidney to have my negatives scanned and put on a cd for me at some photolab. But I'd rather do things on my own; ie. proccess the negatives then scan them. Are there any good scanners that you'd reccomend? Or any advice with regards to shopping for one of these?

Thanks a bunch!

staereo
06-29-2006, 01:25 PM
I really like being able to control my shots rather than fumble with a point and shoot digi-cam....but I digress...
Are there any good scanners that you'd reccomend? Or any advice with regards to shopping for one of these?
Thanks a bunch!

Ok, Im a little confused. You observe that youre using your ae1 (great old camera, btw), because of funds. True negative scanners are pricey enough, so Im not sure how you feel about buying one. On the other hand, many of todays mainstream consumer scanners are coming with slide and negative adapters, that you can get decent scans from. Do you mean one of these?

On point to your orginal comment, however, todays dSLRs are almost all capable of running in a fully manual mode, and everything in between. They lack nothing, and gain everything.

Bruce

Oklahoma
06-29-2006, 01:54 PM
Here is a little information to get you going. The price of scanners has come down since the technology has gotten cheaper and easier to produce. Canon, Epson, and HP (the only ones I looked at) all have photo and negative capable (not dedicated) scanners for around $100 to $150 that include a negative tray to hold negatives and slides flat and strait in the scanner.

Just click on the link to look at what each company has available.

Canon Scanners (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=120)

Epson Scanners (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172)

HP Scanners (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/can.do;jsessionid=EkSrCXiwS2elbTn7pWRdy3OAFJdcIbRq pUDJUlB2RStM7oVWbRX2!2134296289?storeName=storefro nts&landing=photo_scanner&category=scanners&catLevel=1)

Hope this helps get you started.

staereo
06-29-2006, 03:58 PM
These are the other end of the spectrum, that are dedicated to this purpose:

This is a dedicated type scanner....
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_9000/index.htm

This is a flatbed pro type scanner...
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=235891&product=43532750

When one talks about negative scanners, this is what they mean. Flatbed scanners with adapters are less suited for making larger prints from the digital files that you create from the scan.

Thats not to say they suck. I, myself, use an HP flatbed with an adapter for my 35mm negative and slide scanning. But I also shoot mostly digital, and I would have a pro printer make any of my larger prints by giving them my negatives or slides directly.

Bruce

sanjuan
06-30-2006, 08:44 PM
Ok, Im a little confused. You observe that youre using your ae1 (great old camera, btw), because of funds. True negative scanners are pricey enough, so Im not sure how you feel about buying one. On the other hand, many of todays mainstream consumer scanners are coming with slide and negative adapters, that you can get decent scans from. Do you mean one of these?

On point to your orginal comment, however, todays dSLRs are almost all capable of running in a fully manual mode, and everything in between. They lack nothing, and gain everything.

Bruce

Sorry for the icky wording; what I mean was that I have my SLR and a P&S digi-cam but I don't like the lack of control with P&S. True enough, dSLRs are available, but way out of my price range ^__^".

Also, thanks for the links; my friend actually owned the 5000 and said he liked iit, so maybe the same holds true for the 9000.


Here is a little information to get you going. The price of scanners has come down since the technology has gotten cheaper and easier to produce. Canon, Epson, and HP (the only ones I looked at) all have photo and negative capable (not dedicated) scanners for around $100 to $150 that include a negative tray to hold negatives and slides flat and strait in the scanner.

Just click on the link to look at what each company has available.

Canon Scanners (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=120)

Epson Scanners (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172)

HP Scanners (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/can.do;jsessionid=EkSrCXiwS2elbTn7pWRdy3OAFJdcIbRq pUDJUlB2RStM7oVWbRX2!2134296289?storeName=storefro nts&landing=photo_scanner&category=scanners&catLevel=1)

Hope this helps get you started.

Those links help a bunch, thank you ^_^

staereo
06-30-2006, 09:26 PM
Great stuff, san juan... and Oklahoma knows his stuff. ^^

If theres any other questions, feel free to ask as always...

Bruce

EJ Shin
07-09-2006, 04:25 PM
On point to your orginal comment, however, todays dSLRs are almost all capable of running in a fully manual mode, and everything in between. They lack nothing, and gain everything.

Bruce

I'm actually offended you would spout digital as the superior format. Most CCD chips on digital cameras are still smaller than a 35mm frame, resulting in less information that is being recorded in the image. This annoyingly makes most digital users have to multiply the focal lengths by 1.4. This means your wide angle lens better be pretty wide if you want it to stay a wide angle lens on a digital camera. Yes, there are some digital cameras out there that have CCD chips that are the size of the 35mm film plane, but they cost more than 10 times your standard professional film camera.

Film is also resolution independent, meaning you can scan a film image at any resolution and maintain quality. I can get my negatives scanned at 40 mega pixels if I wanted to and I got my camera for under 200 bucks.


Cross processing is also something you can't get with digital cameras. Sure, you can imitate the look with photoshop, but it's not going to be the same as the unpredictable color shifts of doing a real life cross process.

People like to talk about cost efficiency when it comes to digital. Think about how much more digital cameras cost. Then think about the life span of a digital camera compared to a film camera. Digital cameras get outdated every couple months or so as a higher resolution version with better picture quality comes out. With film cameras, all you have to do is change your film stock. A Canon AE-1 can take pictures just as well as a Canon EOS 1V.

And trust me, digital is very far away from ever reaching the quality of medium and large format film.

There is much digital cameras lack in comparison to film cameras. Get your facts straight before you brush aside film.

staereo
07-09-2006, 04:51 PM
I'm actually offended you would spout digital as the superior format. Most CCD chips on digital cameras are still smaller than a 35mm frame, resulting in less information that is being recorded in the image.

No need to be offended my friend. The truth hurts us all. The fact is image sensors size has NOTHING to do with the amount of data the sensor sends to the processor. A sensor the size of a pinhead may be able to send a gigapixel image to its processor, if within that pinhead there were enough photo receptor cells to capture all the data in front of it. Furthermore, it is mere fact that the photocells used today pick up more data than chemicals are able to. This often appears in the form of digital noise, a type of light that chemical didnt ever pick up, but is ever present. This is why colors look richer on velvia chemicals than your average digital capture. The ambient light between the lens and the subject is brought into the image by the more sensative image sensor. Thus washing out many of the pretty saturated colors found in the film of old. Sooo, the image sensor is the superior light recorder. It's just a matter of reversing its 'goodness' to yield an image thats pleasing to the eye.

This annoyingly makes most digital users have to multiply the focal lengths by 1.4. This means your wide angle lens better be pretty wide if you want it to stay a wide angle lens on a digital camera. Yes, there are some digital cameras out there that have CCD chips that are the size of the 35mm film plane, but they cost more than 10 times your standard professional film camera.

In a digital workflow, your cost is easily recaptured with the price of consumables. Furthermore the crop factor of smaller image sensors affects purely the crop of the image. And that value not only affects your focal length, but also your CoC. Not a big deal, I suppose. But its different with each different image sensor out there. Not a straight 1.4.

Film is also resolution independent, meaning you can scan a film image at any resolution and maintain quality. I can get my negatives scanned at 40 mega pixels if I wanted to and I got my camera for under 200 bucks.

Untrue. Film suffers from CoC. The larger media you use for film, the larger you can blow the image up to. It is not resolution independant. Your facts are just wrong. This is why there is medium and large format cameras. The CoC is much different. There are other factors that also affect how large your print can become from film. But there are medium format cameras for a reason, and its not just to spend extra money. A 35mm really isn't an idea camera for anything larger than home size print. And even things larger than a page can begin to show these faults.


Cross processing is also something you can't get with digital cameras. Sure, you can imitate the look with photoshop, but it's not going to be the same as the unpredictable color shifts of doing a real life cross process.

One could easily argue benefits of exposure compensation in shooting digital RAW. Lossless exposure changes AFTER a photo is made. Ill take that any day over cross processing.

People like to talk about cost efficiency when it comes to digital. Think about how much more digital cameras cost. Then think about the life span of a digital camera compared to a film camera. Digital cameras get outdated every couple months or so as a higher resolution version with better picture quality comes out. With film cameras, all you have to do is change your film stock. A Canon AE-1 can take pictures just as well as a Canon EOS 1V.

My canon 20D is old, and replaced already in the lineup. Not yet discontinued, but I would be willing to bet I can put forth an arguement to say that it will be good for at least another 2 years.


And trust me, digital is very far away from ever reaching the quality of medium and large format film.

Youre wrong. Do a search for the gigapixel project. ^^ Not to mention the 45+MP digital backs for said medium format cameras.


There is much digital cameras lack in comparison to film cameras. Get your facts straight before you brush aside film.

I think youll find my facts are perfectly in line. If you would like written evidence, quoted from industry professional level websites, I would be happy to share. But its really a lot of time for me to spend, and I think that the community here can speak for my knowledge in the area.

Bud, please please dont come in and feel the need to come out swinging. We're all friends here.

Bruce

EJ Shin
07-10-2006, 02:17 AM
A 35mm really isn't an idea camera for anything larger than home size print. And even things larger than a page can begin to show these faults.


I've been able to get high res scans at a color lab and have been able to get large poster size prints. Yes, there is no comparison in quality between 35mm and medium format, but you can scan 35mm and blow it up pretty far. Film grain is also getting smaller and smaller as newer stocks come out.


My canon 20D is old, and replaced already in the lineup. Not yet discontinued, but I would be willing to bet I can put forth an arguement to say that it will be good for at least another 2 years.

So you're telling me your camera has an effective life of 4 years(20D was release in 2004) and you're telling me that's cost efficient? Film isn't that expensive and if you just pay for development and scan your negatives, you end up saving because you can keep whatever camera body you have for 20+ years. I have a 20+ year old camera(AE-1) and it still gives me great images. My primary body, EOS 1N is from the nineties and it still holds up.


Youre wrong. Do a search for the gigapixel project. ^^ Not to mention the 45+MP digital backs for said medium format cameras.

And I'm sure those cameras are worth a lot more than their film equivalents.


I think youll find my facts are perfectly in line. If you would like written evidence, quoted from industry professional level websites, I would be happy to share. But its really a lot of time for me to spend, and I think that the community here can speak for my knowledge in the area.

Yes, you have a lot of facts, and I'm sure you're quite knowledgable in your field. If I come out as aggressive, I appologize. I'm a die hard fan of film and whenever someone dismisses it as old and outdated, I have an urge to contend. I'm also from the cinema realm where HD cameras hold no contest to 35mm film and in fact, are more comparable to 16mm film. I do realize that still photography is light years ahead of motion photography. If there must be something said about film that cannot be denied, is that its the last medium that humans can read. You look up at a slide, you'll see a picture. You look at a memory card, you see plastic. All you need to read film is some light and your eyes.

staereo
07-10-2006, 10:25 AM
If I come out as aggressive, I appologize. I'm a die hard fan of film and whenever someone dismisses it as old and outdated, I have an urge to contend.

I think every pre-digital photographer has felt this way along the road. I know I had to have film beat out of me. I think I cried when kodak started cancelling their B&W papers.

Such is the evolution of technology. :bigcry:

Oklahoma
07-10-2006, 01:51 PM
Some of the things that are commonly missed when comparing digital to film are:
Processing costs; if you look at the cost of purchasing a roll of film and then having it processed it usually comes out to about 20 cents per print assuming a 36 picture roll of film. Most places charge 19 cents per print for a digital. So why the cost difference if there is only 1 cent difference in printing. It all comes down to the usuable shots. Most of the people here have said to get a 50-80% usuable picture percentage of the total shots taken and a 10-20% for those that are really good. When using film that means that if half of your shots are ok but not worthwhile for show your cost per usable picture just went from 20 to 40 cents a picture; and those that are good enough for a portfolio or display the cost goes from 20 to 85 cents per picture. This also assumes that you are printing 4x6's also. Where as with digital you can look at the image and only print those good enough for showing others or even those for display all at that same 19 cents per picture. Yes you pay more for the digital body but you only have to print those you want to and that saves you a lot of money. If you consider that I payed 1600 for my 20D and have about 3000 pictures with it so far. I also have probably only printed maybe 100 of those. So I will have paid 19 dollars in printing of those that I want printed instead of 600 for printing all my images so that I can see what ones are good and which ones aren't and then pay more for reprints of those or enlargements, the costs start to add up once you actually start lookng at it.

Another thing about digital that many people overlook is the new lenses for the new slr cameras. With digital a lens can be made to speciffically do one thing to counteract something the image sensor does and will thus produce a better image. With film a lens had to be made to accomidate all makes of film and the differences between them and find a middle ground between all the different makes and thus some films will produce a better image with one camera lens than another make of film will with the same lens.

Unfortianatly for those who hate the crop factor with APS-C image sensors it looks like they are here to stay. Both canon and nikon are releasing lenses that are made for this type of sensor. The EF-S lenses with canon and the DX lenses with nikon. Which means that it is here to stay. Also, canon is the only slr maker to at this point release a full frame image sensor and 2 at that.

While I say all of this in support of digital I will not deny that film is still very good but it is slowly going away which also means that eventually the cost of may go back up some due to its limited use. As companies get better at making digital cameras the cost will come down even more. Just look at the 20D to 30D change. The 30D released at a lower price than the 20D was currently selling for (20D usually sold for about 1500-1600 and the 30D came out for around 1400-1500) so the cost is coming down.

You can still find the Canon EOS 1V for about 1900 and the digital replacement for it the Canon EOS 1Ds MKII is about 8000 :eek:. So looking at just the cameras yes the cost difference is there but one has to look at the whole picture not just one part of it.

EJ Shin
07-10-2006, 04:29 PM
Another thing about digital that many people overlook is the new lenses for the new slr cameras. With digital a lens can be made to speciffically do one thing to counteract something the image sensor does and will thus produce a better image. With film a lens had to be made to accomidate all makes of film and the differences between them and find a middle ground between all the different makes and thus some films will produce a better image with one camera lens than another make of film will with the same lens.

Okay, I understood most of your post, but you're going to have to explain this one more clearly. Did you mean that because digital cameras use the same kind of CCD chip in every camera(not true), camera manufacturers can manufacture lenses that are optomized for digital CCD chips? Or do you mean that the camera manufacturers can make lenses for each individual digital camera for optomized performance?(not a great idea as it does not promote "moving up" to a better camera).

Also, I don't get all of my negatives printed. I get them scanned, choose the ones I like and print those. Or, I print them at home. It would be a waste to print each and every frame. I know a lot of film people who come into the color lab I go to with slides and they individually select which frames they want printed.

One thing I hate about the digital age is the level of expertise in color labs is going down. I went down to a nearby color lab(not the one I normally go to), and asked if I could get my negatives pulled 1 stop. The guys looked at me as if I was crazy. They had no idea what I was talking about. I also tried to get a cross process done at the local RiteAid, but the guy there didn't know what cross processing was and kept telling me he couldn't process E-6 film no matter how many times I told him I wanted the C-41 process. Slowly, this world is going to be filled with "Best Buy" dealers that don't know anything about the products they sell. It's a shame when people assume digital is idiot proof and stop hiring people with expertise.

staereo
07-10-2006, 05:15 PM
Okay, I understood most of your post, but you're going to have to explain this one more clearly. Did you mean that because digital cameras use the same kind of CCD chip in every camera(not true), camera manufacturers can manufacture lenses that are optomized for digital CCD chips? Or do you mean that the camera manufacturers can make lenses for each individual digital camera for optomized performance?(not a great idea as it does not promote "moving up" to a better camera).

I *think* he was referring to media problems that the individual light recorder presents to processing. An example of this is the way a bright light against a subdued background will reflect from the sensor, to the back of a lens, then back onto the sensor (at a different point). Thus ghosting and the like. So you get lenses that are coated or curved glass to counteract this issue, effectively removing the recording media's flaw by virtue of a specialized glass. I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure thats what he was going after.


One thing I hate about the digital age is the level of expertise in color labs is going down. I went down to a nearby color lab(not the one I normally go to), and asked if I could get my negatives pulled 1 stop. The guys looked at me as if I was crazy. They had no idea what I was talking about. I also tried to get a cross process done at the local RiteAid, but the guy there didn't know what cross processing was and kept telling me he couldn't process E-6 film no matter how many times I told him I wanted the C-41 process. Slowly, this world is going to be filled with "Best Buy" dealers that don't know anything about the products they sell. It's a shame when people assume digital is idiot proof and stop hiring people with expertise.

Im going to guess that you knew, walking into riteaid, that they were going to just blink at you when you gave them ANY special request other than double prints.

This is very true, unfortunately. But it was mass marketing and compact developing that brought this monster upon us. Thank goodness for small specialized labs. Cost more, but worth it. On a brighter side (since Im not for leaving on a negative note) many of the nicer online labs are happy to do a full service job with your order now. I was shocked when a pro lab was willing to do my prepress work for me, at no additional cost. Furthermore, color management is becoming a printer service, taking one more headache away from the photographer. For the most part, they do a pretty good job, all by themselves. HURRAY!

Bruce

Oklahoma
07-10-2006, 08:03 PM
I *think* he was referring to media problems that the individual light recorder presents to processing. An example of this is the way a bright light against a subdued background will reflect from the sensor, to the back of a lens, then back onto the sensor (at a different point). Thus ghosting and the like. So you get lenses that are coated or curved glass to counteract this issue, effectively removing the recording media's flaw by virtue of a specialized glass. I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure thats what he was going after.



For the most part that is correct. That is one of the things that can be put into the lenses that are being made for the digital slr's coming out. Another thing is more on the lines of how the picture is taken. If you put say Kodachrome 400 in a Canon Elan 7 and the same film in a EOS 1V both rolls of film would react very similar even though the camera is different. But because you can also put say Velia (sp) in that same body a lens must be made to accomidate both makes of film. So that means that if something can be done to make the Kodachrome produce a better picture but at the sacrafice of the Velia picture quality it won't be done because you don't know what the end user will put in the camera. But with digital a lens can be made to bring out the best of the image sensor because there is no other option to be put in the camera. You may ask then what about different cameras because they have different sensors? The sensors for one makers line of digital slr's will all react very similar in the same situation so you can predict what will happen even though the different cameras have different sensors. This is more what I was pointing to.

staereo
07-10-2006, 08:05 PM
For the most part that is correct.......................... have different sensors.

And also the interpertation of the various processors.

Oklahoma
07-10-2006, 08:19 PM
And also the interpertation of the various processors.
Very true. Now to finnish my thoughts because I had to log off for a minute due to being at the library currently.

So, because all will react similarly a lens can be made to account for the way the sensor and processor will react to something. With this capability the group that makes the lenses has to account for less when making them. It would be like saying that a camera can only take one type of film and then build a lens to bring out the best for that film; and because it can only use that film you don't have to worry about hurting image quality on other makes of film. Take a look at the Canon EF-S lenses MTF charts and see how sharp some of those are. None of them are L series yet but most of them are as sharp as the L series lenses that cover the same focal lengths. This also means that the lenses can be smaller and lighter which makes them easier to use because you don't have to lug that large lens around with your body and external flash which already have a decent weight to them.

As consumers demand more cameras that one can just point and take the picture as does the demand for places that can just print them and don't have to worry about anything else. The market goes where the consumer points it.