# Scanning 35mm films



## doobs (Oct 13, 2007)

I've been scanning my film today with a regular flatbed scanner. So far, I've scanned all the 120 film, which is fine because it is perfectly clear; however when I am scanning my 35mm film (which has that bluish gray background tone color thing) it scans that blue color as well. What can I do to get rid of this.

I am editing my photos in Photoshop CS

Also how do I enlarge the photos with out them looking too soft and blurry?


----------



## moliver (Oct 16, 2007)

I've never had an issue with the colour of the film itself coming through when I scan film so I can't help you there, sorry.

If you want a large size just make sure you set your DPI as high as it'll go.  When I scan at 9600 DPI a single frame comes in at about 10,000pixels on a side, which should be large enough


----------



## Helen B (Oct 16, 2007)

Is there a greyscale scanning option in your scanner software? If not, then scan in colour then look at the three channels in PS. Choose the channel(s) you want to keep and dump the rest, then change the mode to greyscale. If you are scanning negatives developed with a staining developer it will usually be worth scanning in colour, then doing the Channel Mixer thing in PS.

Which flatbed scanner do you have? What is its optical resolution? Have you thought about getting a dedicated film scanner for 35 mm B&W?

Best,
Helen


----------



## doobs (Oct 16, 2007)

I've tried grayscale, but it still comes out with a darkened tone to it. I'll post a picture when I get home to show. I'll look at the channels and see if that helps any.

I have an HP All in one 1210. Yes I am aware it is not a photo/film scanner, but I wanted to scan the film to show some buddies of mine. I was thinking about getting a dedicated film scanner, but probably not until around the holiday season. Though, I'd like one that scans 35mm as well as 120 roll film.

EDIT: I'll try adjusting some of the settings tonight and sees how it works.

- Frank F. Frankfurter, Esq.


----------



## Battou (Oct 16, 2007)

doobs said:


> I've tried grayscale, but it still comes out with a darkened tone to it. I'll post a picture when I get home to show. I'll look at the channels and see if that helps any.
> 
> I have an HP All in one 1210. Yes I am aware it is not a photo/film scanner, but I wanted to scan the film to show some buddies of mine. I was thinking about getting a dedicated film scanner, but probably not until around the holiday season. Though, I'd like one that scans 35mm as well as 120 roll film.
> 
> ...



You are not alone, I too currently use an HP all in one (and am looking for a dedicated scanner,) I get the color of the film showing up and fouling up images as well. I stuck with scanning the prints, but I would like to see the results of your scans and tests.


----------



## Smith2688 (Oct 16, 2007)

I believe you need to backlight the film while scanning it.


----------



## Alpha (Oct 17, 2007)

What kind of film is this? The only 35mm films I know of with a pronounced bluish tone in the backing are plus-x and Foma. Either way, you can remedy this by either investing in a better scanner or asking your lab to pre-soak the negatives if possible (this helps cut down on the blue a little).


----------



## doobs (Oct 19, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> What kind of film is this? The only 35mm films I know of with a pronounced bluish tone in the backing are plus-x and Foma. Either way, you can remedy this by either investing in a better scanner or asking your lab to pre-soak the negatives if possible (this helps cut down on the blue a little).



The most of it is HP5 and a few rolls of FP4. I shot the FP4 in my 35mm camera and it had the blue tone, however when shot in my Holga (120 roll) it came out perfectly clear. I develop the film myself, and I do a water pre-soak before hand. I process the film with Xtol. Everytime I develop film it has been this color as has most other people at my lab, as far as I have seen. They also print fine from a Saunders/LPL Enlarger.

This is a sample of the closest I can get it to a normal looking picture (as you can see, whites are gray and dark):






Here is a scan of the negs shot in a Holga (35mm mod):




Note: all 35mm film came out this way.

Here is a scan of the negs shot normally in the Holga (120 roll):





About the negs being backlit, I have no idea how I would go about doing that.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Oct 19, 2007)

I was having a similiar problem scanning color film with a dedicated scanner.  My images were all turning out blue.  I was using Vuescan and switched to Silverfast, and haven't had a problem since.  Vuescan worked fine for months, and it wasn't until I used it on another computer that it started giving me problems, but oh well.  Anyway, you might want to try a different scanning software, just to see.


----------



## doobs (Oct 19, 2007)

I use whatever came with my scanner. I'll try something else. Has to be Mac compatible, though.


----------



## dinodan (Oct 20, 2007)

How is it that you are exposing the 35mm film outside the frame area?  I have never seen that.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 20, 2007)

You use it in a camera designed for a larger format. The simplest way is with a pinhole camera (which is how I've done it), but you can also use medium format cameras - in this case a Holga.

http://shop.lomography.com/holga-backup/35.html

Best,
Helen


----------



## doobs (Oct 20, 2007)

dinodan said:


> How is it that you are exposing the 35mm film outside the frame area?  I have never seen that.



As Helen said, you can use it in a Holga. I just put the film in there, tape it up a little and stuff the inside with foam. Then I cover the outside with a LOT gaffer's tape. It took me about 10 minutes to configure it and didn't think about it cropping some of the pictures (due to smaller format) thus coming out with some lame pictures. Oh well.

Helen posted the same link I used.


----------



## dinodan (Oct 20, 2007)

Interesting.  A friend of mine in high school had a Rolleiflex that converted from medium format film to 35mm, but it had a mask that was inserted in front of the film so that the frame size was maintained.  A similar mask was placed over the viewfinder screen.  It just looks really weird to see the entire film exposed!


----------



## doobs (Oct 20, 2007)

dinodan said:


> Interesting.  A friend of mine in high school had a Rolleiflex that converted from medium format film to 35mm, but it had a mask that was inserted in front of the film so that the frame size was maintained.  A similar mask was placed over the viewfinder screen.  It just looks really weird to see the entire film exposed!



That sounds pretty cool. I would love to see some of the pictures from that -- if you have any.

The Lomo society sells an adapter that you can put in the Holga, but foam was easier/cheaper.


----------



## dinodan (Oct 20, 2007)

doobs said:


> That sounds pretty cool. I would love to see some of the pictures from that -- if you have any.


 
Sorry, no.  That was many, many years ago.


----------



## doobs (Oct 20, 2007)

Smith2688 said:


> I believe you need to backlight the film while scanning it.



That just left a huge white spot on the scan.


----------



## Battou (Oct 21, 2007)

doobs said:


> That just left a huge white spot on the scan.



I could be wrong but I believe the backlighting is supposed to is supposed to work like an enlarger and scanning the aria where the photopaper would normally be. I think you may have had too small of a lightsource or the neg was too close.

but Like I said I could be wrong.


----------



## doobs (Oct 21, 2007)

Battou said:


> I could be wrong but I believe the backlighting is supposed to is supposed to work like an enlarger and scanning the aria where the photopaper would normally be. I think you may have had too small of a lightsource or the neg was too close.
> 
> but Like I said I could be wrong.



Uhh, I don't know understand. I put the negative on the scanner and hold a light high over that? I tried that and it left another bright spot on it. The lid has to be closed as well, because the film is slightly curved from drying. Also there is a light source on the scanning thing so that should be fine, I guess... I'm not sure what to do. I'm going to try that other software that Aquarium Dreams suggested later.


----------



## Alpha (Oct 21, 2007)

You don't have a transparency lid for your scanner, do you.

:meh:


----------



## Orrin (Oct 21, 2007)

dinodan said:


> How is it that you are exposing the 35mm film outside the frame area?  I have never seen that.



He's using a 120 roll film camera!


----------



## doobs (Oct 21, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> You don't have a transparency lid for your scanner, do you.
> 
> :meh:



I've a piece of glass I could use?


----------



## Alpha (Oct 21, 2007)

The problem is that your scanner is not equipped to scan negatives, as far as I can tell. As opposed to having a normal lid that you'd use for scanning documents, your scanner needs what's called a transparency lid, which has a piece of glass and a separate backlight.

A regular scanner has a lid like this:






A film scanner has a transparency lid, which looks like this:





If your scanner does have the second lid, then you need to learn how to use it. If it does not, then you need to buy a transparency lid or a new scanner that has one.


----------



## doobs (Oct 21, 2007)

Hmm, looks like I'm investing in a new scanner. :\


----------



## Battou (Oct 21, 2007)

Before you buy a new scanner, try sandwiching the negs between a couple sheets of glass and using a different or covered light. Put a thin white cloth between the light source and the negative (in much the same way one would approach lighting for a portrait and what not). 

I'll try this too just to see how it goes.


MaxBloom, there are a lot of different HP all in one scanners so it's likely doobs is using a different one than I but this is the one I am using and no it is not back lit in any way. In the same token though HP dose offer a good number of neg capable all in ones.





Img taken from globalvisionja.com


----------



## Alpha (Oct 22, 2007)

Battou,

It  may be possible to scan negs like that, but I guarantee it will be at significantly reduced quality compared to a proper transparency lid.


----------



## Battou (Oct 22, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Battou,
> 
> It  may be possible to scan negs like that, but I guarantee it will be at significantly reduced quality compared to a proper transparency lid.



Yeah, I'm just brainstorming right now, truth is I am actually somewhat satisfied with scanning the prints with this untill I can get a good dedicated scanner. I'm going to try just to find out what it will do, I'll never know if I don't try.


----------



## doobs (Oct 22, 2007)

I'll try that tomorrow. I have the same printer/scanner, but it's a different color -- not sure if that changes anything. It's the HP PSC 1210 all-in-one. I'm sure Max is probably right. The reason I want to scan negs is so I can scan pictures that I'd like to show friends and see what people think of them, etc. and don't have the need to print. I've scanned prints though as well. It comes out good.


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 22, 2007)

Max is right. H


----------



## Helen B (Oct 22, 2007)

doobs said:


> The most of it is HP5 and a few rolls of FP4. I shot the FP4 in my 35mm camera and it had the blue tone, however when shot in my Holga (120 roll) it came out perfectly clear. I develop the film myself, and I do a water pre-soak before hand. I process the film with Xtol. Everytime I develop film it has been this color as has most other people at my lab, as far as I have seen. They also print fine from a Saunders/LPL Enlarger.
> 
> This is a sample of the closest I can get it to a normal looking picture (as you can see, whites are gray and dark):




The first thing that strikes me about that image is that the sprocket holes are the only things close to a pixel value of 0. The darkest part of the image itself is around 20 to 21 - so the image looks grey in relation to the sprocket holes. Taking the darkest parts of the image down to 0 helps:






I think that your scanner appears to be doing a reasonable job of scanning negatives. When I look at the histogram of the scan of the full sheet I do not see evidence of clipping - the full range of tones on the neg appear to be being captured by the scanner. The lack of detail in the tree is not caused by a scanning problem but by underexposure.

Are you scanning with the emulsion against the scanner glass? Don't worry which way round the image appears, you can flop it round it later. You want as little between the emulsion and the scanner's lens as possible. It might also be worth finding the best focus plane, but that is the next stage.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Battou (Oct 22, 2007)

Well I faild, the light was still too intense with a lot of improv attempts this was the best I could do trying to emulate a back light







you are better off scanning the negs as a normal pic and comprimise with the film color or scan the prints, I can't think of anything else


----------



## Battou (Oct 24, 2007)

Battou said:


> Well I faild, the light was still too intense with a lot of improv attempts this was the best I could do trying to emulate a back light
> 
> 
> 
> ...



just to be theurough those negs are fine here is one of the scanned prints


----------



## doobs (Oct 24, 2007)

Hmm, I'll try messing around with it again tonight. I'm not sure how yours came out all liney and stuff.


----------



## Battou (Oct 24, 2007)

doobs said:


> Hmm, I'll try messing around with it again tonight. I'm not sure how yours came out all liney and stuff.



I think it has to do with the glass and the way the light was hitting it.


----------



## doobs (Oct 24, 2007)

Weird. Here's the best I could get.


----------



## Battou (Oct 24, 2007)

doobs said:


> Weird. Here's the best I could get.



How'd you do it


----------



## doobs (Oct 24, 2007)

I pressed preview scan, then I went into the settings and turned the brightness all the way up. Then I opened it in PS and adjusted contrast, etc. and used the healing brush on the dirt in the sky.

I'm still not pleased with the results. Small picture, really grainy for FP4, and extremely high contrast.


----------



## Zatodragon (Oct 25, 2007)

From what i've seen with film scanning, with a few exceptions, unless you have a dedicated film scanner like a nikon coolscan, other scanners pick up the grains of the film like mad.  My Epson 4490 photo has done a terrific job for me however, which is a flatbed style scanner with trans. lid.  I usually can get a decent print of up to about 11x14 to 16x20 (no, not razor sharp, but framed and hung on a wall looks very nice) out of 35mm.

The way trans. lids work is the light source moves with the scanning device at the same location and speed, insuring the exact same amount of light over the entire surface.  That's why just holding a light above the scanner is difficult because most light sources will taper off to the sides, causeing bright centers and dark edges.


----------



## doobs (Oct 25, 2007)

How much was the Epson 4490?


----------

