best way to scan Negative film ??? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: sony mavica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:38:18 am
content: i seen on youtube you can use a digital camera to back them upto digital anybody done this before was thinking of just getting one of those scanners but would be a waist as i only have 2 strips of Negative film i need to make digitalcan you do it with a scanner ?? i have one here i could try i just new to this

author: Kostas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:48:06 am
content: You can't do that with a simple scanner, you will need a film scanner. You only have few strips of film, so the best option is to give it to a film lab. The place where you used to develop your film. The minilabs they use to make prints scans the film and then projects the negative image on photosensitive paper. It shouldn't cost you much.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:15:17 am
content: You just need a light box to illuminate them evenly from the rear, then photograph the backlit image and then use the built in function in Gimp or PS to convert a negative. Light box is simply a small cardboard box lined inside with white bond paper, and then with a square cut out on the one side the size of the negative, and with a small square of waxed paper taped across the hole. Inside a CFL lamp of around 15W, cool white, and turned on in a darkened room. Camera on tripod above box and manual focus on the negative, and take a picture or three each time.

author: Kostas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 10:10:48 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on December 28, 2014, 09:19:45 amActually, there are two kinds of minilabs, the "wet" and the "dry" ones. The wet minilabs, like the first Fuji Frontier series scanned the film and projected the scanned image on photosensitive negative paper. Perhaps the verb "projected" isn't the best choice in this case, IIRC it's a laser system. They used theRA4 process, which involves chemical solutions. They used to be abundant and can still be found, but nowadays there is a shift to dry minilabs (inkjet) and thermal printers. BTW, I do have an enlarger... somewhere...Sean's method can give anything from a vague image to very good results, depending on the gear used; macro lenses combined with a suitable film holder is the best scenario. Film flatness is also something to consider. In a pinch, I've photographed a BW negative with a mobile phone camera (at the macro setting), in order to assess some negatives, but the result was barely passable. Anyway, the expectations one has dictate the suitable method. Oh, and one last thing... the orange mask of the colour negatives should also be corrected, it's not just an "invert" step in PS/Gimp. Try to capture the pure orange space between frames and try to correct it and make it look white,or pure gray, then invert the image. Needless to say color balance while capturing the image should be the same for all photographs, don't use th e"Auto" setting.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 11:40:20 am
content: Are you asking about the "best way", or the easiest way?Scanning film using a document scanner is possible if it has a transparency adapter. A film scanner is always going to give better results, though, because it has better optics. For a long time, the industry standard was a machine called a drum scanner that can easily scan and resolve 10,000 DPI or more:In the 2000s these fell out of style as more compact and affordable film scanners appeared that had almost as high quality as the drum scanners, but most of them are discontinued now. You should be able to get a used Minolta or Canon film scanner for <$100, which would be the best price/performance. Nikon and Polaroid also made good machines, and the Hasselblad Flextight is still in production, but extremely expensive.If you want to use a DSLR to "scan" the photos, what you are really doing is more like copying. You need to find or build a slide copier attachment. You won't be able to create quality copies using a light table unless you have a tripod that can be used inverted; the apparatus for holding a camera vertically above the table is called a copy stand, and I think they are still being made. But both quality light tables and copy stands are expensive in relation to slide copier attachments.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 01:18:01 pm
content: The primary issues are:1) Providing a nice uniform back-light to "illuminate" the negative (or positive, for that matter).This is not all that difficult to achieve for the typically small frame areas.2) Positioning the (typically small) frame of the negative to full-frame of your camera.That is perhaps not so easy. Most camera will not focus on such small areas.If you have only a few frames, it would be much easier to simply send them to a service bureau for scanning.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 04:36:05 pm
content: Many scanners have transparency or film adaptersYou can also get adapters that allow an SLR to photograph a slide or negative - used with a DSLR that will give you a digital copy. New ones are fairly expensive.There are also dedicated slide/file scanners available for PCs, at various price/quality points.Stuff can be found on ebay if you can't afford or justify new.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:06:27 pm
content: If you only have a handfull of print negatives then a scanner will probably be ok, dont expect high resolution output though.Best way is a dedicated film scanner from a good make like Nikon. You can often buy them off ebay, use them and sell them on again for as much as you bought it.I have a box full of slides and as many print negatives i would love to scan but it will take months of my time to scan them and probably as long to tweak them in photoshop afterwards.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 09:12:10 pm
content: Yes, if you have a DSLR and a lens that will let you fill the frame with the film frame and can focus on it then you have the basis for a decent copier. A macro lens is really what you want but if any lens will do this then it will work. You can actually turn many lenses into macro lense by turning them around and using them backwards.One example:http://www.instructables.com/id/Double-lens-reverse-macro-for-an-SLR/Then you build a simple cardboard box to block out the light around the negative and hold it flat and in the correct place.To get a good flat light source, go outside and point the apparatus at the sky away from the sun. Take your images and take one with just a piece of white paper in the holder. This can be used as a rough white balance reference but it will be a bit blue because paper is usually made a bit bluer to give it a brighter appearance. It gets you close at least.If you don't have a DSLR or don't feel like going through this exercise, then go to a place where they do film transfers and scans. It will be cheaper than buying the correct equipment to do just a few scans.

author: Prime73
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 10:08:51 pm
content: I use Canon's bellows FL slide duplicator with 50mm lens on my 5D. the setup is similar to what this guy has:https://www.flickr.com/photos/hpulley/4409539470/I'm quite happy with the results. I've printed some scanned negatives just to compare with original prints I have from the same negatives. at 9x10 size I don't see any significant difference between the two.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 10:50:29 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on December 28, 2014, 09:52:24 pm+1The other thing that reversing a lens did was to effectively move the rear element of the lens further from the film plane allowing much closer focussing - you could buy "reversing rings" to accomplish this. Of course with modern lenses this is a bit of a disaster as you disconnect all the electronics - however you can get macro extension tubes to do the same job, or "close up" filters - basically just a convex lens.