Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: Brian Skalinder on September 14, 2006, 01:37:42 PM
-
I have a couple 24-exp rolls of prints and ~50 24-exp rolls of negatives I'd like to digitize. I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations on:
- a reasonably priced negative scanner (wild stab-in-the-dark budget: $500). I'll probably use our current "good enough" flatbed for the prints
- websites for R&D around best practices - for example, should I scan in RAW (is that even possible?) or TIF, and then manipulate the images later, or should I perform some corrective manipulation at scan-time?
- organizations who may perform these print and negative scan services on my behalf at a reasonable cost (or maybe the answer is simply a quality local camera / print shop)
FWIW, a couple years ago I tried the generic cheap-o scan services from Kodak and the like, and frankly the scan quality and resolution -sucked-. But maybe that's changed? (Doubtful.)
-
I have a couple 24-exp rolls of prints and ~50 24-exp rolls of negatives I'd like to digitize. I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations on:
- a reasonably priced negative scanner (wild stab-in-the-dark budget: $500). I'll probably use our current "good enough" flatbed for the prints
- websites for R&D around best practices - for example, should I scan in RAW (is that even possible?) or TIF, and then manipulate the images later, or should I perform some corrective manipulation at scan-time?
- organizations who may perform these print and negative scan services on my behalf at a reasonable cost (or maybe the answer is simply a quality local camera / print shop)
FWIW, I'm also interested in this issue as well.
I'm interested in what might be the highest quality solution for digitizing prints/negatives,
in the event that Brian's budget is llimiting in some manner.
I have dozens of negatives that I would like to digitize and enlarge out of hundreds of shots I took using a
lowly Olympus P&S camera and Fuji print film (ASA 100 and 400). Most of these shots were miles
from a trailhead, hence the pocket camera.
If scanning prints (Fuji Crystal Laser processing/paper) is as good as or better than negatives, that would be good to know
as well.
Any advice would also be greatly appreciated.
thanks
Clay
-
I'm getting ready to sell my minolta dImage neg scanner that does negs, medium format and slides.
I'm going back to an older nikon scanner i liked a little better.
In any event, to your questions- I've got a couple of pieces on neg scanning, but i have always scanned in high resolution jpeg. I've never seen pixelation from my scanning and I'm often scanning highly sensitive film. Generally you perform corrective manipulation right at scan time. One thing to think about- never underestimate the value of a good light box and air duster to look at your negs before they go through the scanner and again once they are scanned.
As far as resolution, it is my experience that you get much higher quality out of scanning a negative than scanning a positive- there is less risk for scratches, dust, and correction.
As far as organizations- I'm not sure about that.
-
What size film?
The Nikons with DigitalICE were the machines to have a few years back.
The Minoltas were a distant second.
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/scanner.htm
Slide film is best, negative second best, scan from a positive print the least quality of the methods to get analog photography digitized.
This is due to many factors. First D-Max/D-Min, or dynamic range, and then defects and workflow error probabilities.
Slides should be in plastic frames, and an air duster is very handy, as is an de-ionizer.
-
What size film?
35mm.
As far as resolution, it is my experience that you get much higher quality out of scanning a negative than scanning a positive- there is less risk for scratches, dust, and correction.
Definitely going to scan negatives when I have them (which is most of the time).
In any event, to your questions- I've got a couple of pieces on neg scanning, but i have always scanned in high resolution jpeg. I've never seen pixelation from my scanning and I'm often scanning highly sensitive film. Generally you perform corrective manipulation right at scan time. One thing to think about- never underestimate the value of a good light box and air duster to look at your negs before they go through the scanner and again once they are scanned.
Slides should be in plastic frames, and an air duster is very handy, as is an de-ionizer.
Thought of the duster, but not the light box or de-ionizer - thanks for the tips. My initial thoughts on editing at scan-time are that it makes the most sense to scan without edits, and then manipulate afterwards. Kinda like whether or not to edit while audio recording. For example, why record with an HPF all the time: why not capture the recording as-is and manipulate in post at which time one has far greater control, not to mention a true (or at least truer) master so one may go back and re-edit if technology, education level, perspective changes.
In other words, what are they benefits of editing at scan-time v. in post? I've found a couple useful pages, both of which talk about editing at scan-time, but without explaining why one should edit during scan v. post.
-
The theory is that any digital manipulation will cause a loss of quality.
A few generally accepted truths:
1) Contrast and detail cannot be recreated digitally, if not in orginal scan. The "digital enhancing" software used on TV and in movies does not really exist for art photography. Certain forensic algorithms exist, but these don't apply to what most civilians take pictures of.
2) Even top-notch editing programs like Photoshop modify a file's appearance when you do many "stacked" manipulations
3) Any scan must contain the information to be manipulated. Sounds dumb?... you'd be surprized how many trained pros see something in a transparency, but scan too light or dark or with skewed color balance and never capture the details that they want to work with!
4) With photographs, the information in a slide almost always exceeds the capacity of the machine used to digitize it.
BTW, are you sure that HPF pre and post gives the same result?
My guess is it depends on how clean the pre and DAC and mic's amps are.
-
A few generally accepted truths:
1) Contrast and detail cannot be recreated digitally, if not in orginal scan. The "digital enhancing" software used on TV and in movies does not really exist for art photography. Certain forensic algorithms exist, but these don't apply to what most civilians take pictures of.
2) Even top-notch editing programs like Photoshop modify a file's appearance when you do many "stacked" manipulations
3) Any scan must contain the information to be manipulated. Sounds dumb?... you'd be surprized how many trained pros see something in a transparency, but scan too light or dark or with skewed color balance and never capture the details that they want to work with!
4) With photographs, the information in a slide almost always exceeds the capacity of the machine used to digitize it.
Thank, Bob. The above mostly makes sense to me. Most of the tutorials and FAQs and such I've found recommend at least some editing at scan time. But they mostly talk about digital ICE (Image Correction and Enhancement, as best I can figure), which apparently works wonders on artifacts like dust and scratches, as well as color / contrast / brightness tweaks. But I can't figure out whether or how digital ICE, as implemented on the scanners, differs from ICE post-scan in a PC app.
At this point, I'll probably use ICE to achieve a Good Enough image and archive at high res TIFF in case I want to go back later and apply additional tweaks.
BTW, are you sure that HPF pre and post gives the same result? My guess is it depends on how clean the pre and DAC and mic's amps are.
Nope, not sure. But even if we assume HPF at record-time sounds better (likely), for me the flexibility of applying HPF in post outweighs the (probably) minimal quality differences.
-
OK, FARE and ICE are different, but even more important.
These need to be done in hardware to be the most effective.
They use an infared channel in the scanner device itself to remove defects like specks and tears.
Some of them even use on-the-fly rescanning of defect areas when detected.
The scanner must have this capability.
Software implementations of these are less effective.
You sound like you are right on in using the auto-function to capture and then Photoshopping later, if needed.
What scanner did you get?
-
OK, FARE and ICE are different, but even more important.
These need to be done in hardware to be the most effective.
They use an infared channel in the scanner device itself to remove defects like specks and tears.
Some of them even use on-the-fly rescanning of defect areas when detected.
The scanner must have this capability.
Software implementations of these are less effective.
Thanks for the tips, Bob. This meshes with what I've read elsewhere. Gonna have to read up on FARE, though, haven't stumbled across it, yet.
You sound like you are right on in using the auto-function to capture and then Photoshopping later, if needed.
So far, so good. I doubt I'll find anything that changes my strategy, but I'll poke around some more, anyway.
What scanner did you get?
Haven't, yet. May use my father's Canon something-or-other neg/slide scanner (probably 2-3 years old), or may pick up something new. Haven't decided yet. Still trying to educate myself enough so I may make an informed decision.
-
FFIW, I was always told to buy Microtek scanning equipment by all my digi photo professors/photographers when I was in school.
-K
-
Anyone have any recent experiences with new scanners?
I've been pouring over scanner reviews.. Seems like there are expensive drum scanners at the high end and the consumer stuff between $200-$2K. Doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference between the $400 flatbeds with ICE and the $2k film scanners?
I have a bunch of vintage SRV in 35mm neg that deserves a very high quality scan (I have 20x30" enlargements that look great). I just shot 17 rolls of 120mm Velvia transparency and have a bit of mounted 35mm kodachrome and a bunch of various 35mm neg.
-
- organizations who may perform these print and negative scan services on my behalf at a reasonable cost (or maybe the answer is simply a quality local camera / print shop)
Hey Bri and all,
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I just found out about a cheap online service:
http://www.scancafe.com/price_comparision.php
Each negative is just $0.19, while other services charge $0.35-$0.75.
I'd love to try them myself, but they only ship to US addresses! :P
/Jan
-
I have a Canon 5000F, second Canon I've owned, they are the BEST, IMO. 4 years old, used pretty heavily every day, never a problem.
Canon has really good service as well as excellent Twain compatability with Photoshop. My 8 year old Canon 3200 is still working well on my old setup. I use the 5000 for negatives (35's) as well as anything I need scanned. I use it as a magnifier for leaves and fern fronds. 1200 dpi for those items, 600 for negatives...
-
Been doing a lot of reading on scanners... I guess it isn't surprising that converting analog film to digital is a lot like audio. The issues are very similar.
Apparently scanners aren't really capable of accurately representing the original grain. As a result some digital scans appear much more grainy than they should. This page gives an overview of the aliasing issue:
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
A lot of folks apparently don't know about the aliasing issue, including the vast majority of scanner reviewers.
For ultimate quality it would be interesting to use a hybrid approach where the first 3-5X of enlargement come from a conventional enlarger. Others have thought of this but I didn't find anyone who has hacked apart a scanner to do it. Closest I've found are folks who use scanners to make digital view cameras.