# Negative Scanner?! ._.



## Sbuxo (Sep 26, 2010)

*Please don't be alarmed at my block-'o'-text! Stay. *

Okay. So I'm mainly a film shooter, and the way I 'digitize' my film work is by scanning the prints, so scanning negatives are unfamiliar territory to me. I've always heard about negative scanners and such, but never paid much mind to it. 

Until lately, many photographers on Model Mayhem, which I just got approved to join blushing have been telling me to scan negatives, get a negative scanner, etc. It still leaves me as exactly *how* the scanner scans the negatives. No, I do not want the science er but does it depend on the scanner for the size the negative scans up to?

Example: I shoot 35mm, will it scan it as 35mm frame or will it scan like a (example!) 8x10 print?

I went through the photographers on MM that said they scan theirs and the photos are good sized ones...meh 
But I must make sure! 

***One thing I'm scared of if I do purchase one. I've seen some people with pictures confused showing that their scanners drastically change the way the negative looks. Not the physical negative,* the scan..drastically changes the color/tonalities, lighting, etc.* They just look way off from when the poster showed the actual print. *Why is this? How can this happen?*

****When you scan the negative, does it show the image that it would look like if you printed it without adjustment with filters, dodging, burning, etc? If so, that's not a problem for me because I can fix the contrast and such online.

Please please please help me!


----------



## Freelancephotog25 (Sep 26, 2010)

When it comes to products, I enjoy using the Chat feature on the B+H website.  You can ask questions of product professionals, all of which, are much more versed in the things they are talking about, than the average bear.  I have asked questions concerning what the DPI has to be on a medium format film scanner to pick up grain from 800 speed 400 speed and 100 speed films respectively and gotten concise answers.  I am sure that the quality you receive from a film scanner will be respective to how much you are willing to spend.  B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 26, 2010)

You sound like a promoter.:er:
I'd rather get answers on here than have B&H tell me BS answers just for a sale.
Yes, I'm a strong believe in self-interest.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2010)

Most dedicated film scanners that are "affordable" scan 35mm or smaller filmstrips. Nikon, Minolta, Plustek,Polaroid are four brands that have made good,affordable 35mm negative and slide scanners, and which scan at 2,400 to 4,800 dpi. The size the scan is output to is dependent upon the software settings you select, typically. Most people would scan a 35mm film negative at full-resolution, and get somewhere in the neighborhood of an 18-megabyte to a 36 megabyte, un-compressed .TIF file, which could be compressed to make a 2-5 megabyte JPEG image file.

A scan will not always look like a finished image; in fact, it's probably better if it does not look exactly like the "finished" image. it's better to scan a bit "flat", and get as much dynamic range as possible, and then apply the right Tone Curve in post software. A lot of B&W negatives made from traditional, old-style films like Tri-X Pan, for example, do not scan all that well, and tend to look a bit grainy.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> When you scan the negative, does it show the image that it would look like if you printed it without adjustment with filters, dodging, burning, etc? If so, that's not a problem for me because I can fix the contrast and such online.
> 
> Please please please help me!



Derrel is correct..

When you take a negative and send it through a traditional wet darkroom for processing, adjustments are made in order to get to print.  This is no different from processing a digital RAW file.  This is also no different from scanning a negative.  I personally haven't seen any drastic changes between what is on negative and scans... never the less.. some post processing is still required as you work towards a print.

Also... remember a lightroom setup for scanning a negative can often be just as expensive as digital.   You need a proper scanner, proper monitor, and proper calibration of that monitor.  If you also do your own printing, a good printer and proper profiles (or a way to calibrate/make your own profiles).

There are some samples of scans from my V700 here:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/62119-epson-v700-experiences.html

The samples are initial scans I did when I first purchased the V700 very little post process.. notice the b&W scans are a bit flat.  The color scans are from Kodak 100UC or 400UC.  



btw.. if you do B&W negative scans you need to read the manual of your particular scanner.   Often, you'll need to disable some processing that is performed during the scan. In my case, anything that attempts to sharpen or enhance the scan "on the fly" simply makes B&W scans look too grainy thus they are all disabled.


----------



## ann (Sep 26, 2010)

just an fyi, B&H is not open now and won't be as it is a holiday. So i really don't think the person trying to help you by suggesting them is spamming you.

I have no direct connetion with this company, but they are a  group with high ratings in the photo community.


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 26, 2010)

ann said:


> just an fyi, B&H is not open now and won't be as it is a holiday. So i really don't think the person trying to help you by suggesting them is spamming you.
> 
> I have no direct connetion with this company, but they are a  group with high ratings in the photo community.


I knew they weren't a spammer, they just sounded like one.


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 26, 2010)

Turns out I'm not going to get one anymore, I'll just scan the best prints to give models when I pay TFP.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 26, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Turns out I'm not going to get one anymore, I'll just scan the best prints to give models when I pay TFP.


Why not?

If you shoot a lot of film, I would think a negative scanner would be high on the list of 'things to get'...

I shoot mostly film these days, and I scan most of it in using a Plustek OpticFilm 7300.  I like it.  Been using it for 3 or 4 years - no problems to date.  I think I paid about $250 for it.

It can scan at 7200 ppi, which is plenty.  I scan my 35mm negs (it can only do 35mm - that's the only con, IMO) in at 6000x9000, which is maybe 80% of the size it can do.  (Maybe less - I haven't actually done the math on it...).

6000x9000 works well for me, and many would probably consider that overkill.


So...  What made you decide against a negative scanner?


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> Turns out I'm not going to get one anymore, I'll just scan the best prints to give models when I pay TFP.



IMO and my experience, scanned prints simply don't work well nor give due justice to your quality work.

Are the models ok accepting TFP from scanned prints?


Maybe you can find a quality shop to have your negatives scanned for you?  Before they closed, I used to have the local shop develop and scan (no prints) my negatives.


----------



## Sbuxo (Sep 26, 2010)

Yes they're fine with it. All my images on flickr from my film work are scanned prints. 

I simply don't have the money for a high quality NS, quite honestly. I was just inquiring because I thought I would have to waste more of my fiber paper for the prints for the model but turns out they only need 3-5 which is the amount I'll be printing anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a NS..but as a necessity, I don't need it atm.


----------



## Ryanjohnlee (Oct 4, 2010)

I was in a boar quite similar to yours but involved six by seven negatives... I got a cheap Epsom v500 and it changed the way I was able to see my work... I suggest getting one if you can afford it, while it may not be an awesome drum scanner it allows one to do processing of color much easier...


----------



## Sbuxo (Oct 4, 2010)

I only shoot B&W film.


----------



## Ryanjohnlee (Oct 5, 2010)

I mostly shoot b and w film too... But sometimes I can't get intonthe darkroom, so thus then scanner offers my economic relief.


----------



## Sbuxo (Oct 5, 2010)

I mean, it's not that I don't have a lab cuz I do. 24/7 available to me at anytime, it was just for a matter of saving paper but I decided to stick w/ scanning the prints and adjusting levels after if needed.


----------



## chmille (Oct 7, 2010)

So, I've used to shoot only film and scan in my negatives using the negative scanner. I'd love to tell you exactly how it works, but I'm not sure.  But yea, when you scan it, the image as it's viewed will show up on the computer without your edits, you'd still have to do those edits like in the darkroom etc.  As far as the scanned image looking different from the print, that's a matter of your computer and printer being calibrated correctly.  ( I think that's what you asked., oops if you weren't)


----------



## Wendy 5202 (Oct 19, 2010)

Sbuxo said:


> You sound like a promoter.:er:
> I'd rather get answers on here than have B&H tell me BS answers just for a sale.
> Yes, I'm a strong believe in self-interest.


You  Go Girl ! WELL SAID.


----------

