# How can I get my negative scans to look like my prints?



## Vautrin (Apr 1, 2010)

So I got a holga and I've been shooting off some film.

It's nice but it tends to really overexpose the negatives -- they look black and sometimes the scanner has trouble recognizing them -- but if I hold them up to a light I can see details.

And the weird thing is the prints my lab made look great, but the scans of the negatives are terrible.  

So how can I recover my pictures with a negative scanner (I have the Canoscan 8800F)?  

When I scan it I get:






But when I look at the prints I had made it looks completely different:





How can I get my negative scans to look like my prints?


----------



## usayit (Apr 1, 2010)

I know nothing about that scanner but you just might be pushing the scanner's limitations.  Flatbeds are especially limited.  

There is more flexibility in traditional chemical printing process.  You might want to consider finding a way to borrow a true negative scanner or other scanners to see different results.


----------



## Paul Ron (Apr 1, 2010)

Scan your prints.


----------



## compur (Apr 1, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> So I got a holga and I've been shooting off some film.
> 
> It's nice but it tends to really overexpose the negatives -- they look black and sometimes the scanner has trouble recognizing them ...



What film are you using?


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 2, 2010)

compur said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > So I got a holga and I've been shooting off some film.
> ...



Those pictures were Kodak E100 cross processed as C-41

I've also had this problem with other films both black and white and color (kodak ektar 100, porta 800, and rollei retro 400)


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 2, 2010)

Paul Ron said:


> Scan your prints.



Well the thing is I only got prints because I thought it would be fun and they were pics of my vacation.  

But prints are expensive so I'd like to stick to just getting the negatives (the lab I'm using charges me 3-5 to develop the film, and the prints are an additional 8 so it doubles the cost of each picture)


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 2, 2010)

usayit said:


> I know nothing about that scanner but you just might be pushing the scanner's limitations.  Flatbeds are especially limited.
> 
> There is more flexibility in traditional chemical printing process.  You might want to consider finding a way to borrow a true negative scanner or other scanners to see different results.



Well I'm shooting 120 film so there wasn't really a cheap dedicated film scanner out there.

The Canoscan 8800F has a backlight so it does a good job, and I've gotten some nice scans off of negatives that aren't overexposed.

Holga lacks any kind of shutter speed controls / aperature controls so on a bright sunny day even iso 100 film gets overexposed


----------



## Paul Ron (Apr 2, 2010)

Then your other alternative will be to learn how to use PhotoSHop. It's fun and can achieve really nice results, not as nice as a real print but pretty darn near. 

Scanning is generally used as a proof sheet. Pic the ones you like most n have em printed? 

Another good solution is to start shooting B&Ws n do it yourself, including printing. Lots of fun playing in the dark.


----------



## usayit (Apr 2, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> The Canoscan 8800F has a backlight so it does a good job, and I've gotten some nice scans off of negatives that aren't overexposed.


'

Regardless... I think you are pushing the limits.  The scanner needs to pull out details in the very dark areas of the negative... simply it isn't doing enough.  The key words in your response is "aren't overexposed".  

Try to find a shop with a dedicated film scanner to give it a shot.  There is a reason why dedicated scanners cost thousands and not hundreds of $$$.


----------



## vonnagy (Apr 3, 2010)

Have you checked out betterscanning.com, they have some adaptors for Canon 8800 which improve the scan quality: The Single Channel Variable Height MF Film Holder For Canon 8800F 8600F


----------



## Dwig (Apr 3, 2010)

Vautrin said:


> ...
> So how can I recover my pictures with a negative scanner (I have the Canoscan 8800F)?
> 
> When I scan it I get:...



How are you scanning them???

By this I mean how are you using the scanning software. A you simply letting it make automatic density, contrast, and color balance decisions or are you adjusting these manually before making the scan. Also, are you letting the scanning software save a JPEG to disk for later editing or are you launching the scanning app via an "Import" or "Acquire" function in your image editor.

The best way to handle problem images such as your massively overexposed negs is:

1. Scan from an image editing app or have the scanning software save a 16bit TIFF file for transport to the image editor. NEVER EVER use JPEG for this transfer file; JPEG is limited to 8bit data.

2. Always scan in 48bit color or, if scanning B&W, 16bit Grayscale.

3. Always make as much of the adjustment as possible in the scanning software. DO NOT rely of making any significant adjustment in your image editor later. If the scanning software isn't adjusted to capture the desired data it won't be there for the image editor to "recover".

4. Don't make any large scale adjustments in you image editor. If the scanned image needs more than modest tweaks you need to rescan making better adjustments in the scanning software.

Your problem is probably that you haven't made the necessary manual adjustments in your scanning software. It might be that you Canon software is too limited. Youi might look into better software. SilverFast from LaserSoft Imaging and VueScan are the most common recommendations. 

The EPSON Scan software that came with my EPSON v700, along with SilverFast, has proven to be rather good. It does, though, frequently require manual adjustments when scanning very significantly over or under exposed images.


----------



## Vautrin (Apr 3, 2010)

The canoscan comes with silverfast and it still can't seem to recover my image.

Auto toning doesn't work -- I just see white.   

So one of the things I tried doing was scanning the negative as a positive.  I read on the internet this preserves details, and -- indeed -- there's a lot of details in my picture:






But when I invert it, it's completely washed out:






Most of this appears to be from a wacky histogram:






But here's where I get stuck -- I move the levels up to the right since I think part of the problem is the histogram needs to be more evenly across the image.  But my entire image is blue -- that roof should be red!  The thing I don't get is how do I fix this?  If I start playing with the blue only slider then I tend to create green or yellow images.

Basically I can't seem to get an image near the same quality as the one that they printed!


----------



## Professional (Apr 9, 2010)

Can you scan the negative again and send me the file [tiff] if you can?
I scan my negatives even i am new in film and scanning but i get nice  results as colors and so, only the problem is that i couldn't get any  sharp frame, either my manual focus or my scanning with V750, i can't  afford film or drum scanner now.


----------



## Proteus617 (Apr 13, 2010)

When scanning poorly exposed negs my Epson has trouble finding the edge of the frame.  At least one of those big spikes on the left side of your histogram is actually the edge of your neg and not the image at all.  The scanner then "stretches" the histogram and tries to preserve info that is not really there.  Start my scanning in manual.  After your preview, manually select your image area.  Once this is done, your histogram will be showing only info for the image and the software will be able to make adjustment more easily.


----------



## rick92 (Jun 22, 2011)

I know what you were doing bad back then (I have a 8400f, and saw a video of how to scan holga negatives before buying it Scanning For Sprockets on Vimeo), you were selecting the area around your photograph, and the software adjusted the colors for the whole selection, what you need to do is to select the area of the actual picture, so you get the results you want! watch the vid so you can understand better, I think you already solved the problem though lol


----------



## Ron G (Jun 23, 2011)

You need to make the adjustments in the scanner software to see your negative.I use Vuescan but most any scanner software will enable you to adjust brightness and contrast and tailor the upper and lower curves to bring out the details that you want.
I find it very interesting that flatbed scanners are "extremely limited".That is a good one.
You can get a useable picture from negatives that yield no obvious detail to the naked eye with the proper setup of your scanning software.....yes,even a flatbed can do it.Ron G


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 24, 2011)

Vautrin said:


> So I got a holga and I've been shooting off some film.
> 
> It's nice but it tends to really overexpose the negatives -- they look black and sometimes the scanner has trouble recognizing them -- but if I hold them up to a light I can see details.
> 
> ...



The first thing I notice is that you have the film in the scanner wrong side up...

Look at the letters of the sign...  (Is the sign meant to be read from the roof-top, or from the water-front?)  (Why did it take over a year for somebody to notice that...?)

The whole scene is flipped 180 degrees horizontally.  On every film scanner I've used, you put the film in the holder so that the frame numbers are backwards.  (So the 'front' is down.)

If that doesn't fix your problem, it should at least help.


----------



## Professional (Jul 6, 2011)

For your scan, use Auto color or Auto Tone on Photoshop and you will have it corrected.

Good luck with your scan.


----------



## Vautrin (Jul 6, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > So I got a holga and I've been shooting off some film.
> ...



Wow, who knew this thread was still going?  

The backwards text is the correct direction.  The shot is across a factory and you're looking at the sign from the wrong side.

The other post was correct, I selected the "black" part of the negative, and adjusting levels allows me to get more realistic colors


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 6, 2011)

Vautrin said:


> The backwards text is the correct direction.


Yes.  Which is why I said you had the film in the scanner upside down.

Your scan has 'normal' text.  The print has backwards text.  Therefore - you put the film in the scanner wrong.  It might not matter much (I haven't actually tried putting the film in upside down just to see what would happen...), but for optimal results, I think it would be best to have the film in there right side up...


----------



## Ron G (Jul 7, 2011)

The scan will be the same whether the film is upside down or right side up.The scanner will never know the difference.You can usually flip the image in software with most scanner programs or any of the graphic/picture programs will do it if you happen to scan it upside down by mistake.Ron G


----------

