# Scanning negatives and other ?s



## crazy_dragonlady (Feb 29, 2008)

Alright, I am attempting to understand just how you manage to get a photo from scanning your negatives.  I have a plain old flatbed scanner and I attempted to scan my negatives and well.. it looked like a negative... go figure! LOL Just what do you do to get from the negative to the photo?  Maybe I should do a search online for the process and I'm not clear on it.

I'm also looking up info on creating my own darkroom and just what's involved.  It's something I've been flirting with and I'm interested in the results.

ttfn
CDL.


----------



## domromer (Feb 29, 2008)

crazy_dragonlady said:


> Alright, I am attempting to understand just how you manage to get a photo from scanning your negatives.  I have a plain old flatbed scanner and I attempted to scan my negatives and well.. it looked like a negative... go figure! LOL Just what do you do to get from the negative to the photo?  Maybe I should do a search online for the process and I'm not clear on it.
> 
> I'm also looking up info on creating my own darkroom and just what's involved.  It's something I've been flirting with and I'm interested in the results.
> 
> ...




It depends if your scanner is set up to handle scanning negs. I don't think all are. If it is there should be a setting for shooting negs, pos, and monochrome. I've found that flatbed scanners usually scan 35mm poorly. They seem to do a better job with medium and large format. If you really want to scan a lot of negs you'd be better of getting a purpose built film scanner. I'm using a nikon supercool scan 9000 to scan my chromes. It takes a lot of tweaking and there is a leaning curve to scanning well.


----------



## OverlordXenu (Feb 29, 2008)

domromer said:


> It depends if your scanner is set up to handle scanning negs. I don't think all are. If it is there should be a setting for shooting negs, pos, and monochrome. I've found that flatbed scanners usually scan 35mm poorly. They seem to do a better job with medium and large format. If you really want to scan a lot of negs you'd be better of getting a purpose built film scanner. I'm using a nikon supercool scan 9000 to scan my chromes. It takes a lot of tweaking and there is a leaning curve to scanning well.



What about that Epson V700? I've been looking to get one to do 35mm now, and medium and large format in the future.


----------



## domromer (Feb 29, 2008)

OverlordXenu said:


> What about that Epson V700? I've been looking to get one to do 35mm now, and medium and large format in the future.



I know a lot of people use that model for their medium format scans and like it a lot. I don't know how it performs with 35mm.


----------



## crazy_dragonlady (Feb 29, 2008)

I found a couple of articles about scanning negatives online.. not as difficult as I thought but resolution would be a hard thing to overcome on my sloooow computer.

I have a Lexmark X5250 - or as they call it an "All-in-One" scanner/printer/fax machine.  I haven't looked at the settings in the software for it but I did attempt to scan a couple negatives once.  Only thing is to get an image that is any workable size I have to scan at such a high resolution that my computer wants to lock up.  I think I'll just stick with taking my film in to be processed.  I know, it's a cop-out but hey, I ain't rich! :er:

ttfn
CDL.


----------



## Early (Mar 2, 2008)

The Lexmark won't work because it doesn't have a transparency adapter which you need to scan film.


----------



## Battou (Mar 3, 2008)

crazy_dragonlady said:


> I found a couple of articles about scanning negatives online.. not as difficult as I thought but resolution would be a hard thing to overcome on my sloooow computer.
> 
> I have a Lexmark X5250 - or as they call it an "All-in-One" scanner/printer/fax machine.  I haven't looked at the settings in the software for it but I did attempt to scan a couple negatives once.  Only thing is to get an image that is any workable size I have to scan at such a high resolution that my computer wants to lock up.  I think I'll just stick with taking my film in to be processed.  I know, it's a cop-out but hey, I ain't rich! :er:
> 
> ...



Yeah, for flatbedding, your best bet is to scan the prints, but I would definately advise looking at Scanning  equipment on Ebay and find something within your price range that is compatable with your OS.

I did and I'll never go back to scanning prints again.


----------



## bhop (Mar 3, 2008)

I get tired of people putting down flatbed scanners.  Maybe they don't know how to use the settings, or maybe they're just used to older models... I dunno, but I use an Epson 4490 which is a flatbed and it works great.  I print photos all the time.   I haven't seen any proof that shows me that a dedicated film scanner is better than it.  It may have been true a couple years ago, but I read recently that even Nikon has pulled the plug on dedicated scanners and going to quit making them because flatbeds have caught up.  Plus it will scan medium format film while there aren't any dedicated scanners that will.

here are a couple 4490 35mm examples:














and a couple medium format (holga) scans... links, i don't want to flood this thread with pics
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/2293382820/in/set-72157603465807101/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/2293382754/in/set-72157594145464958/


.


----------



## Battou (Mar 3, 2008)

bhop said:


> I get tired of people putting down flatbed scanners.  Maybe they don't know how to use the settings, or maybe they're just used to older models... I dunno, but I use an Epson 4490 which is a flatbed and it works great.  I print photos all the time.   I haven't seen any proof that shows me that a dedicated film scanner is better than it.  It may have been true a couple years ago, but I read recently that even Nikon has pulled the plug on dedicated scanners and going to quit making them because flatbeds have caught up.  Plus it will scan medium format film while there aren't any dedicated scanners that will.
> 
> here are a couple 4490 35mm examples:
> [IMG - pulled for space]
> ...




bhop, the difference here is that you are not using the same consumergrade scanning equipment, Epson has been producing Photo scanners for quite some time and far surpass any home office scanner like the lexmark and HP all in ones in image quality. Any Epson, Canon, and Minolta flatbed are going to out do what we have due to the glass and a few other things that only experience can teach scanner manufacturers. I can assure you that if you try scanning those same pictures on a common home office all in one scanner the results will be displeasing. I would assume you likely know some one with an HP like mine, they are dirt common, like the Lexmark X5250 they are not film enabled.

That Epson 4490 runs what 150 - 200 UDS, that is a fairly expencive scanner when the HP home office scanner can be bought for under a hundred, I paid a little over seventy for mine. When I was looking at new scanners for my film stuff, a Canon lide only ran for 80 USD, but like the 4490 it is only a flatbed scanner. I do not have the space to keep a dedicated film enabled photo flat bed and a separate printer and copier. Even then the Epson photo/film enabled All in one I have loafin around is way too big and clunkey, it takes up too much space. I bought it used some time ago so I don't know off hand what a new one would cost. So not only is price a factor but also space and use intentions, It may not be practical to get a flatbed like that or a dedicated like mine. It boils down to what the OP needs be it flat bed, dedicated, or photo/film enabled All in one. 


Additionally the discontinuation of dedicated scanners is not simply due to flatbeds catching up in quality. The dedicated home scanning equipment is yes largly 35mm and APS, but there is an increasing demand for digital display of medium and large format as you well know. It is more cost effective to amend the existing inexpencive and more versatle technology than it is to try making expencive technology like a medium and large format dedicated scanning equipment affordable that only one in a thousand will buy. The flatbeds are catching up to dedicated because their getting more attention than they used to. People to day want one thing to do every thing and manufacturers know this.


----------



## OverlordXenu (Mar 4, 2008)

People shoot APS?


----------



## LeftyRodriguez (Mar 4, 2008)

Speaking of scanning negs, I have a new(-ish) Canon 8800F and I think I've got the process down, but does anyone know of an online guide to getting the best scans out of this?  I'm mostly doing a bunch of old B&W negs right now, but eventually I want to get around to scanning all of my late father's color negs and slides.


----------



## Battou (Mar 4, 2008)

OverlordXenu said:


> People shoot APS?



From what I hear they used to 

Ironically enough I went down to pick up a roll of APS the other day for a prop only to find out the store no longer carries singles and had sold their last one reasently.


----------



## domromer (Mar 4, 2008)

bhop said:


> I get tired of people putting down flatbed scanners.  Maybe they don't know how to use the settings, or maybe they're just used to older models... I dunno, but I use an Epson 4490 which is a flatbed and it works great.  I print photos all the time.   I haven't seen any proof that shows me that a dedicated film scanner is better than it.  It may have been true a couple years ago, but I read recently that even Nikon has pulled the plug on dedicated scanners and going to quit making them because flatbeds have caught up.  Plus it will scan medium format film while there aren't any dedicated scanners that will.
> 
> here are a couple 4490 35mm examples:
> 
> ...



Is this scanned 35mm negs? If so I'm impressed. I'm thinking of getting the Epson 5000 so I can start scanning my MF stuff.


----------



## bhop (Mar 5, 2008)

domromer said:


> Is this scanned 35mm negs? If so I'm impressed. I'm thinking of getting the Epson 5000 so I can start scanning my MF stuff.



Yes, the 3 embedded pics were HP5+ taken with my FE.  Epson 4490 scanner.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 5, 2008)

Well, dragonlady, in short: if your scanner does not have a transparency adapter, you simply cannot scan your negatives. 

Mine has got one, and came with its accompanying software (of course), which enabled it (at first) to convert the scanned negatives into positive pictures on my screen in the scanning process, plus create a large enough picture, but for some odd reason lost this ability in the course of time. It now no longer recognises them and produces a very purple, small and negative picture. 

So I am back to scanning my prints, which are in sore need for SOME pp work after the scanning process has taken place (for despite my best efforts I could not find any means - neither on the scanner itself nor in its software - to manually set the scanning process) to bring back the colours (!) of the print and its sharpness. ( My_newest_examples ).


----------



## Overkill-F1 (Mar 6, 2008)

My Canon MP970 printer/scanner came with a negative and slide adapter. The lid has a strip of plastic with a lamp in it for scanning negs and slides, but this lamp isn't much wider than a strip of 35mm film so I cannot use it for my 4x5" negatives.
I would like to try using a larger light source to cover the larger negatives. Has anyone experimented with substituting a light source on a flatbed scanner? I have a Zone VI cold light head from my enlarger that I might try. Any advice or comments?
...Terry


----------



## BostonBrother (Mar 7, 2008)

Those are some nice pictures.  You are making me rethink which scanner I should buy.


----------



## Battou (Mar 9, 2008)

Overkill-F1 said:


> My Canon MP970 printer/scanner came with a negative and slide adapter. The lid has a strip of plastic with a lamp in it for scanning negs and slides, but this lamp isn't much wider than a strip of 35mm film so I cannot use it for my 4x5" negatives.
> I would like to try using a larger light source to cover the larger negatives. Has anyone experimented with substituting a light source on a flatbed scanner? I have a Zone VI cold light head from my enlarger that I might try. Any advice or comments?
> ...Terry



Yes, all my expariments with this have met with failure. Using an alternate light source to backlight a neg had a strong tendancy to blow it out to the point of nothingness. I was unable to effectivly diffuse the light to get a good scan. 

One thing I did and had marginal success with was just scanning the neg as a regular image, converting to CYMK and manually removing the Magenta from the film, however for color negs this is pointless as I found I was unable to get the colors correct after doing so.


----------



## registradus (Mar 15, 2008)

Hi!

Do any of you know of a Multi-Function Printer/Scanner that does a decent job of scanning medium format film? I've heard that the Canoscan 8800F is excellent, but I can get a Canon Pixma 970 for only another $50 (includes printer, print cd's, etc)... only I am not sure of the quality? The resolution is the same.

Thanks


----------



## Early (Mar 16, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Well, dragonlady, in short: if your scanner does not have a transparency adapter, you simply cannot scan your negatives.
> 
> Mine has got one, and came with its accompanying software (of course), which enabled it (at first) to convert the scanned negatives into positive pictures on my screen in the scanning process, plus create a large enough picture, but for some odd reason lost this ability in the course of time. It now no longer recognises them and produces a very purple, small and negative picture.


You should try re-installing your software.


----------



## bhop (Mar 16, 2008)

registradus said:


> Hi!
> 
> Do any of you know of a Multi-Function Printer/Scanner that does a decent job of scanning medium format film? I've heard that the Canoscan 8800F is excellent, but I can get a Canon Pixma 970 for only another $50 (includes printer, print cd's, etc)... only I am not sure of the quality? The resolution is the same.
> 
> Thanks



The links in my post above (the one with the pics.. links are underneath) is medium format.  Epson 4490


----------



## Cappahayden (Mar 17, 2008)

You've gotten good results bhop. I also scan 35mm with a flatbed (Canon 9950f) and am very pleased with the results. I am also very happy with the results from scanning prints. I was not happy with my son's school pictures but apparently waited too long (3 days) to complain about it. I contacted the photographer, who said it was too late to do anything about it. I asked him would it be OK if I scanned it for adjustments and make a couple of prints for myself, he was too happy to say go right ahead to get rid of me. I did just that. Scanned an 8X10, cropped ,adjusted levels, colour, and sharpened. I was quite happy, if not a little amazed at what my printer spit out. I think there are some very good flatbeds out there capable of some very good results. As long as your not one of those people who scrutinize results at the tip of your nose.


----------



## CanTex (Mar 18, 2008)

This may not be the place to ask BUT for 40 years worth of amateur-level slides and negatives that I wish to scan and archive, what scan resolution is best?  Some family "snaps", some B&W wannabe shots.  There may be the odd one that I'd blow up to 11 x 14 but that would be rare.  Also, for this level of scanning, what is the best compromise scanner from all the above?  Flatbed with adapters?  Dedicated film/slide scanner?  Lastly, is there a good "dust wipe" for old slides/negatives?


----------

