film scanning and gettings details from bad or badly developed film

Dear Sirs, I scan my old films with family photos. Scanning of some from them are of ugly quality. The sample is on the photo attached. I heard it can be because of wrong exposition or underdeveloping. I use Vuescan for this job. I want to get as many details on resulting image as possible. Please write me, which scanners do you recommend or point criterias for scanner choice. The list of preferrable scanners is below. I do not want to use chemicals for films, because of no knowledge and equipment.

 

Nikon ls 4000 ed

Coolscan IV ED

Coolscan IV ED

PrimeFilm 3650u

PIE PrimeFilm 3600PRO

PIE PrimeFilm 3600U

PIE PrimeFilm 3610AFL

PrimeFilm 3650LAB

PrimeFilm 7250U Pro 3

PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3

PrimeFilm XA

PrimeFilm Xas

CrystalScan 7200

Reflecta ProScan 3600

Reflecta ProScan 4000

Reflecta RPS 10M

Reflecta RPS 3600

Reflecta RPS 7200

Reflecta Silverscan 3600

Kodak RFS 3600

FilmScan 2700

Microtek filmscan 3600

PrimeFilm 2700

PrimeFilm 3650 Pro3

iScan 3600

Reflecta ProScan 4000

SmartDisk SmartScan 2700

SmartDisk SmartScan 3600

MediaX SilverScan 2700 Pro

 

Is there a reason you did not include Epson scanners? Also, it would be helpful if you told us how big the prints are and what film types and sizes you'll be scanning?

Standard generic 35mm fillms. I included only models with relatively high resolution. and scan without cutting of films.

What scanner did you use for the example?

And how does the scan compare to any existing print from the same negative?

 

I have a Pacific Image Primefilm 3650 Pro 3, and it gave excellent quality at its price point.

Unfortunately it's no longer available new, and almost impossible to get its Firewire interface to work with a current OS. Although it works at a slower speed via USB2.

 

You might want to research which of your above scanner list might still work with a modern operating system. It might shorten the list considerably.

 

BTW, any scanner specification claiming more than 4000 ppi 'resolution' should be viewed with suspicion. Figures like 7200 ppi (or incorrectly dpi) are just hype and fantasy.

Edited November 18, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Now I use Hewlett Packard Scanjet 4600. I plan to buy scanner better. I use vuescan to solve issue of system conpatibility.

A Scanjet 4600 isn’t a transparency scanner. It’s not going to be possible to get a good result regardless of the quality of the negative. A transparency flatbed scanner, like an Epson V-whatever, has a lamp in the lid. When it’s in film mode it uses that lamp to shine light through the film.

 

An Epson will work for smaller prints. You can get about 6mp of image data. A dedicated 35mm film scanner can give you more, so that the limitation is the quality of the image in the negative, not the scanner. You want one that’s usb and either has software that supports your OS, or I’d in the compatibility list for Vuescan. Mine is a Minolta Dual IV, which is fine and cheap and works with Vuescan, but doesn’t have ICE. ICE is a nice feature that removes dust from the image.

There are simply too many variables involved in your question to give a good answer.

 

The days when everyone wanted to convert their old slides and prints to digital are gone by. As with rodeo_joe, many of us who are still doing these procedures are using our treasured scanners from those old days. What seem to be really good, new, high-resolution scanners are pretty expensive and most have drawbacks. The cheap ones, are hardly worth the trouble. Flatbed scanners with adapters for transparencies are barely adequate for internet use, and pretty much useless for real archival work. IMHO.

 

Just some general observations

• claims of resolution much above 4000 pixels per inch are misleading for most films and equipment. In fact, such claims are often a flag to the cautious, since they may suggest to me that the vendor/maker is not 100% trustworthy. Interpolation is mostly an illusion.
   
  
• Some old scanners like the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 are really excellent; but, as said by rodeo_joe, they often have antique interfaces that don't play well with modern processors and software. They are also expensive, and difficult-to-impossible to repair if they go south. The newer scanners don't seem immune to interface problems, either. I have kept an old G4 Mac running an older Mac OSX almost solely to use my Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED. It's much easier than getting the scanner working with newer equipment. That way the original Nikon software works too, and since it is not hugely fast, no more competent computer is held back.
   
  
• The best strategy, in my own experience, is to get the best scanner you can afford and scan at highest true resolution so that you don't end up going back and re-scanning, as some of us ended up doing.
  

here a couple of my laments and odysseys from the old days. There are more, but the Photo.net search engine is one of the weaker features of this site.

 

2015: A scanning Odyssey - Nikon Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED

Nikon Coolscan LS9000 ED, ICE, and CanoScan F4000US - Part 2

Edited November 18, 2020 by JDMvW

As with rodeo_joe, many of us who are still doing these procedures are using our treasured scanners from those old days.

Not any more JDM.

This is my 'scanner' now:

Fitted with a 24 Mp, or higher, digital camera it gives results better than any scanner I've used, and quicker.

 

It looks huge, but actually has a desk footprint smaller than most film-scanners.

 

Oh, and no interface problems! All that's needed is a card reader.

 

Single shot digital-copying, rather than true scanning, is the principle behind most of the cheap film-digitising boxes on sale these days. They're probably more than adequate for turning family snapshots into online JPEGs.

 

And +1 to searching existing archives, especially in PhotoNet. Almost everything worth knowing about film scanning has already been said and discussed.

Edited November 19, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

A Scanjet 4600 isn’t a transparency scanner.

I think that a 'transparent media' adapter is available for that scanner. Hopefully the OP has used that, but maybe the software settings were wrong.

It looks as if a high-contrast text treatment has been applied. Whereas the greyscale preset should have been used.

Well, I sometimes use this one. It is quicker for a few slides, but I still prefer the CoolScan for large batches

 

The Honeywell Universal Repronar is a post-Asahi Repronar made to use with any camera with TTL metering.

The lens is a Honeywell Lumetar 50mm f/2.8 in an M39 mount on the bellows. The Lumetar name was otherwise used for some catadioptric telephoto lenses, apparently made for Honeywell by Celestron. Bell and Howell also used the name for some lenses they marketed.

Other M39 enlarger and Leica lenses will mount on the bellows as well. The top of the bellows has a drop-in M42x1 male mount that is fastened to the bellows with a thumb screw, so it can be removed and mounted directly on an M42x1 camera, which is then mounted on the bellows. I rather suspect that other camera mounts were available with this Repronar. In any case, not only Pentaxes, Prakticas, and other M42 cameras can be directly mounted. but of course any camera that will take M42 lenses with an adapter (like Canon FD or Canon EF mounts) can also be used.

The built in flash unit still works perfectly at two levels (2-stops apart) and in sync with a camera mounted on the device with the older standard electronic flash connection. I will need an adapter plug to use it with a Wein Safe Sync on a digital camera, but to my surprise, the focus light built into the Repronar is plenty bright to copy slides on the digital camera without using the flash at all. Automatic white balance easily compensates for the tungsten bulb.

Edited November 19, 2020 by JDMvW