How to digitise 35mm negatives
 

I'm interested to look into digitising my 35mm film negatives. I've always been put off by the cost and time associated with the hardware plus I've just not had the time. What are the current "best" options? Storage is now cheap enough, hopefully the hardware and software is more affordable and gives the right results.....

It seems like the kind of gear that you buy, use and then sell on. Any ideas much appreciated. What has everyone else done with their negatives and slides?

Cheers.

Matt

Doing it well by yourself is a lot of work, I mean A LOT. There are many variables, like what quality do you expect, what size/resolution etc. If you want to have full control over the process and know how to tweak images then you can do it yourself.
It is also possible to scan all your stuff in lab, the same small digital/film minilabs that are everywhere can basically also scan your film in bulk, without making prints. From there you'll get auto-adjusted images (even film scratches and dust is removed), similar to prints from film.
I scan with my own Nikon Coolscan V film scanner, but it is slow process.

Wolverine F2D Film Scanner
 

Although too cheap ($150) to be good, there is interesting new device available:

Wolverine F2D Film Scanner

The concept is very interesting but I doubt it will deliver good results. But perhaps for mainstream customers the quality of scanned images is acceptable. I have not had a chance to see any scans from it.

To get decent quality you have to use a dedicated film-scanner.
As Rebaseonu says it’s a lot of work, I have scanned 2000+ negatives and dias and it took quite some time.

If you use a good scanner and learn the basics you can get great results. I have prints in 50*75 cm and they look great!

One tip is to learn the basics before you start volume-scanning.

If you choose to do it in a shop check quality and picture-size.

BTW: I used Minolta Elite 5400

Neg or Pos?
 

Hi, can I ask which should be used if scanning is to be done followed my sending digital images to editor? Negative film or positive? I want to buy a used, quality film SLR camera for the first few jobs. Linzi.

With a quality scanner (high dynamic range) you can get best results with negative film, but sadly negative film is more difficult to scan so in the end the quality depends on the operator.

I have used mostly positive film so maybe that’s the reason why I struggle with negative film.

Some types of film are more difficult then other, personally I like Fuji Sensia or Fuji Velvia 50, both are positive film.

Thanks
 

Thanks, it's down to me now to get good shots for the scanner. Linzi.

You can get a professional spec slr for about £50 on ebay - most of them amateur used.

Film is best chosen for the subject, not the actual scanner. Just use something you know.

Good luck.

If you're really going to go down this route don't even think about using neg film. Slide film is hard enough to digitise to acceptable standards but you'll tear your hair out trying to do the same with neg film.
Most of the diy film scanners don't really have a good enough d max for contrasty film like Velvia. They're ok for personal use but I've had pre press guys telling editors that images are not good enough for publication in the past. If you only have a few to do you'd be better off farming it out to a bureau to scan on a drum scanner.

For the cost of a good film SLR and a reasonable scanner you could probably buy a good secondhand digital SLR - Nikon D200 for example and bypass all of these problems.

A few years ago I used a company which had a drum-scanner. The result was very good but it was expensive.
If you have a quality scanner and do your tweaking right the result is as good as most dSLRs.

Velvia is difficult to scan and it’s easy to loose details in the dark areas, especially if the exposure is not 100%.
It might be an idea to test your setup before you leave.

Now I use a dSLR and I would not say that all the “problems” are gone. You don’t have to scan anymore but the tweaking is still there. You also have to pay for backup-solutions, memory-cards++ and the camera itself is more fragile.
It’s also more expensive to get a decent wide angle (for most cameras).

I may be coming at this from a different perspective as this kind of stuff has been my day job for the last 20+ years and usually it's anything for an easy life / time is money etc.

Very few of the magazines / P.R. agencies etc I've worked for would accept images shot on neg film unless they were really desperate for that image and even then the printed results were frequently poor.

If the image was shot on tranny film they would want the original to scan themselves as a lot of pre press companies ran a closed system that was internally consistent but could produce off colours etc if the scan came in from outside. If you insisted on sending your own scan data they would want you to take financial responsibility for the press run in case the results were unacceptable - something, fairly obviously, you would never do.

Since digital cameras have become widespread everybody is now used to receiving RGB digital files but they have to be in the right colour space etc. I've not shot 35 mm film of any sort for 7 or 8 yrs now so I've no recent experience but I do wonder if editors / pre press are still used to dealing with transparencies in the way they used to be. I'm sure there are some specialist publications that are but a lot of general, backs to the wall financially magazines may not want the added expense of paying for a scan but would be unhappy when a supplied tranny scan reproduces badly.

Tweaking digital camera files is a LOT (about x10) quicker than scanning / correcting tranny film and imho unless you're using medium format film (and then scanning costs go through the roof) the quality from dSLRs is much better than from scanned 35mm slides - even drum scanned ones. For me the break even point was around 5 - 6m pixels equaling scanned 35mm quality.

Bottom line is, I suppose, don't make a rod for your own back. If you're starting from scratch doing what what is normal industry practice makes life a lot easier.

Thanks, nice to see how a professional thinks.
I have done some comments based on my experience making a few articles the last 7 years.

In my experience this was valid when you delivered the film directly to the magazine, and I think it had technical reasons.
Nowadays you give them a file and it’s the quality of the picture that counts. It doesn’t matter if you have used positive film, negative film or a digital camera.
But it is easier to get a good scan on positive film.

Since 2003 (when the Mag I write for wanted files instead of positive film) they wanted me to provide the scan.
But I’m sure it can be different and I think it’s vise to talk to the customers before you go on a trip. Show them some pictures and ask if that’s how they like it.

I don’t think most of them are used to deal with film anymore, but you hand them the file so that’s not a problem.

Yes the analog workflow is slow and painful. For someone who works with this on daily basis it’s far to slow. For someone that publishes 20 pictures a year it doesn’t matter that much.

As you know the breaking point is hard to define. I have made picture in 50*75 cm based on Velvia 50 and I have not managed to get the same quality from my 10MPIX dSLR. But the dSLR is much better then Sensia 200.


Yes I agree, if you can fork out the cash.

My point is that both analog and digital cameras are up to the job, digital has a higher entry-level price and analog requires more work.

Specific
 

Hi, my needs just now are very specific. I have a tight deadline to meet, little cash to play with and must produce publishable quality. I'm going for a used Canon EOS film, pro quality colour ASA 400 and need to produce the goods. Later, after a breather, I'll look into it more closely. My main concern is why do banks make it so difficult to rob them these days when you need cash fast? How selfish can you get? Linzi.

Used to be medium format for cover/centre page and digi for the rest. Just handed the jpegs over at the end of the day and sent the processed film later, but that was a couple of years ago. Was actually given a drum scanner. Only a small one, but still £40000 when it was new - just not today.

This thread's taken a turn. Poor Matt.:confused1:

Good luck Linzi. Break a leg an' all that.:thumbup1:

I think you're trying to break into a closed shop (in the trade union sense). Most of the banks spend their days trying to rob each other at the moment so you haven't got a hope. Watching them all tumble reminds me of a game of pass the parcel. He who ends up with all the debt when the music stops is out of business.

Yes, apologies to Matt for hijacking his thread.

Break a Leg
 

Hi Teflon, no need to break a leg. I used caustic soda to clear a blocked drain and . . . seems 3 crystals were left on the carpet. Next day they stuck to my sock. Put on my boots, went out to mate's house to work on the Guzzi. Hm, sore foot? Hm, more sore foot? Hm, very sore foot? Four hours later at home I took off my boot and found I'd burnt a hole in my foot. Why did I not look sooner? Darwin had something to say about that hadn't he? Limp'n Linzi.

I'm assuming you mean about hitting a dinosaur on the tail.:laugh:

Hope all's well.:scooter:

I think National Geographic magazine was using/requesting slide film exclusively on film days.

Miscellaneous
 

Hi teflon, burnt right through the skin. As soon as I washed off the alkali the pain vanished. No nerves left, doctor commented. Next few days it hurt a bit as the surrounding skin healed. I can't help feeling confused: Doctor is concerned, but look at the attitude of bike racers! Hell it's only a tiny wound!

As for film, I bought positive, top quality film, but on asking in a photo shop about all this I was told it's FAR easier to scan negative film. So should I exchange the film tomorrow? I've been told to go to a photo shop and have the pictures put into a Flikr account which I need to open now. The editor can then get the photos from that account. Due to time constraints I'll need to do use a shop in Munich or Basel. I must admit to being nervous at not getting it right in time. Linzi.

Positive answer
 

Just read back through the thread and realized my question has already been answered. Odd that the operator in a photo lab advised using negative film for scanning. I'll stick with my Kodak Professional 400NC. Trouble is any faults are down to me! No excuses. Linzi.

It is because they dont want you to know that through bad fiscal mangement they dont have any money.
Buggering about with the interest levels cannot make any difference.
Printing more money to give to the banks will devalue your currency.
In the uk they will devalue until the £ equals the euro, then join the euro, thereby wiping 40% off the assets of the population.

Barclays
 

I read various papers and guess I understand some of it but----I was in Barclays yesterday sorting out a direct debit and on leaving, was handed a business card with the teller's name and informing me of the £6,900 which I am cleared to borrow! My 1st year university economics studied years ago doesn't help me suss out what's going on there. It seems very sinister to me though. What are they up to? They could expect me to fail to meet payments and then get penalty payments to add to the already high interest rate. Hm. Linzi.

Long as you're happy with what you've got - and 400 is always a good start. I almost envy you really. There's such a nice 'feel' to it all, when using film.

Glad you're healing up. Made me think of that initiation scene in 'Fight Club'. Either you've got no feeling in your feet, or you're a right hard b*stard.:wink3:

Hurt and feelings
 

OK so it DID make me limp, use a stick and ride the bike for trips over 400 metres for two days but I was always brought up not to complain. The agony of lowering the foot vanished if raised above my head so I stayed at home rather than do Dead Ants! in the street. Haven't seen Fight Club. I remember as a kid of 8 years old I fell out of a bush, running the back of my head down a stone wall till I landed on the ground. Ringing the front doorbell of my own house (didn't want to get blood on the carpet), I said to Mum, " I seem to need an elastoplast", turning round to reveal a red pony tail to my waist. Aren't all boys like that then? It's that damned attitude that led me to have a lot more than a slight skin blemish. I ignored the burning foot for at least 4 hours. Hard, no. Thick headed, yes. Linzi.

Using grenades at the bank
 

Not really. Hang on a minute. What happened to my digitising 35mm negatives thread?

As far as I can see, a good quality scanned negative should be ok up to A3 enlargement when digitised to a high standard. True or false?

My basic requirement is to bulk scan many years of photos and perhaps look at a professional solution for pictures I want printed. What's the typical scan time for negatives to give a high quality digital file. Everywhere has mentioned time consuming but just how bad does it get?

I do question if the technology is ready yet for what I want to do at the price I want and the time I have. I guess that was the point of the thread.

Anyone else have any answers?

Cheers.

Matt

True! If your negative is good you can print bigger then A3.


It depends on the type of scanner and the quality you want. The Nikon scanner is faster then mine (Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400).
If I choose to scan at highest resolution and dust-removal and ICE is swithed on it takes around 7 min for every negative.
If you switch of ICE it’s much faster but (normally) you loose quality. You can also lower the resolution and switch of dust-removal to gain time. I always scan at highest quality.

I can insert 4 framed slides or a film-strip with six pictures in one batch. Nikon have a system where you can insert a lot of slides, not sure about film.

Hopefully some Nikon-owners can tell how fast the Nikon-scanner is.


The last years it hasn’t happened a lot, most people are shooting digital and I’m not sure if the technology gets much better.

Cheaper
 

Hi Matt, sorry for going off topic. If you have a lot of material to scan how about checking about costs in other countries: maybe Slovenia, Turkey or Morocco to save a lot of money with no loss of quality? Just a thought. Linzi.

You'll end up looking like Gollum and your brain will have fallen out.:eek3:

Getting all your film scanned to something like Kodak Photo CD (reasonably cost effective and saves on sanity) is probably the way to go - then, as you suggested, choosing the images you want blown up and getting those frames done specially. Or, you could always bulk-scan them yourself on a standard flatbed. It all depends on how much time/money you are willing to spend.

I should do the same - just can't get round to it.:(

Kodak 400NC is negative, not positive (slide) film.

Looks like we're getting there. Hope the brain does not fall out along the way as Teflon suggests.

I was hoping that these scanners would be the kind of thing that get bought and sold on e-bay once you've finished scanning. Perhaps the time consuming bit just means it's a life's work so they never end up back on the market.

I guess I am tempted with the Nikon scanner. Would be good to do a try before you buy....

Good luck to you Linzi! Sounds like you have a mission on your hands.

Thanks guys for your help on this.

Matt