Scanning Negs and working from scans to digital without printing

I have just discovered 30 to 50 of my precious long- believed-lost copy negs of my

early work, hidden in a box. They are best extant copies of my early work; the

original negatives have been destroyed, and all existing prints have been made

from these copy negatives.

I have a super-high resolution Epson XL flatbed scanner, which is old enough that

it has USB 1.0 only, so it is slow, but its resolution is in the 10s of thousands of

pixels per inch. It also is oversize, but that is not necessary for scanning such

negs.

I would like to scan these negs and work on the scans in Photoshop CS3, and

wonder if it is possible without having them printed at all.

I am a complete novice at negative scanning.

I notice an 'invert' command in Photoshop and wonder, if the scans are really clean

and scanned at a very, very high resolution, can I then use the 'invert' command,

and proceed as though they were just an image (assuming there are no issues

about the negatives touching the scan bed and causing 'circles' or other such

issues)?

It would be greatly helpful and cost efficient not to have to print such negatives, as

I do not have a darkroom printer that I can use presently, digital or otherwise.

I wish to work them up in Photoshop for preservation purposes primarily, if

possible, from negative scans.

Is this possible to do, for archival and eventual gallery presentation purposes or is

there some element or problem I am unaware of.

Remember, I'm a total neophyte at the darkroom/digital darkroom game.

So, in your answer, please assume you are dealing with someone of almost no

knowledge in this area (and please do not use acronyms, as I may not be familiar

with them).

John (Crosley)

One place to start is www.scantips.com.

If Vuescan (http://www.hamrick.com/) supports your scanner, your life will be easier.

In my opionion, good scans are as good as it gets from film. Although you may find yourself buying a dedicated film scanner.

There's a lot to learn and it's a steep learning curve. But (again opionion), it's worth learning.

Hi John

<P>

well, Dave's suggestion is a good one, but here's a quick n dirty to get you going. Firstly

you didn't say what size negatives, but I'll assume that its something bigger than 35mm.

<P>

Have a look at <A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/photography/film/digiExposure.html" target="_blank">this page</A> (on a different topic, but you should be able to get the

relevant idea) and then consider the diagram below. This is a scan (using an epson flatbed 3200).

This ia a histogram, which represents the graph of how much you got of what levels

when you scanned. There's two sample histograms. The top one is of a 'dense' negative,

withoutmuch tonal range and the bottom one of a more well exposed one.

<P>

Basically you've got 2 steps

<OL>

<LI> set the black and white points (resulting in clipping off the noise at either end) </LI>

<LI> apply curves to get the image looking pleasing </LI>

</OL>

<P>

You can see that I've marked in the levels where basically information stops

(both at the highlight and shadow end), this represents where you want to set your

clipping points (or levels). This is where 16 bit scans are kind of critical,

as you'll often find that negs made for direct printing to non graded papers are

more like that above graph.

<P>

You see, when you get it looking good on the screen you'll need to spread that graph

to more like the one below it (or wider). This will mean that as you spread that

by applying curves in photoshop your data will start to 'band' meaning things will

start to share the same tonality where they may have been smooth changes before.

Using a 16 bit scan will really help avoid this.

<P>

Anyway, it might be worth borrowing or perhaps buying a better flatbed. Even the 3200

or 4870 models (which do 16 bit) are well up to the task of negative and will

give you good results.

<P>

Good luck

Best bet it to take them to a lab and have them use their professional film scanner to scan the negs at the resolution you will need for your intended use (large web images = ?, 4x6 prints = 1200x1800, 8x12 prints = 2000x3000, etc.). Or have them scan at several of these resolutions, to meet what ever needs you may have for the image data. I say to have a lab do it because their equipment will give much sharper, cleaner scans than you will get from your scanner. Their machines are dedicated film scanners, costing tens of thousands of dollars, and have been optimized for scanning negs. They also have digital ICE, which is an infra red pre scan that is used to remove dust and scartches from your negs. You may try your best to clean your negs, but trust me, there will be many, many, many microoscopic little bits you wont be able to remove, and these will ruin your scans and force you to spend a lot of time in photoshop removing them. Their scans will also be much much much sharper than yours, and with film, sharpening tends to exaggerate grain, so it is best to start with the sharpest scan you can.

Fuji Frontier and Noritsu minlabs are excellent. Find a local pro lab to do this for you. If you cant afford their services, I would recommend Costco or Sams club if you have memberships. Mine does excellent work. A CVS or Walgreens is also an option, but beware - only use if you can find one that has a Kodak or Fuji trained and certified lab tech, not some high school punk running the machines. Who ever you use, even a pro lab, make sure and tell them you are very particular about photography - wear gloves when they use your negatives, no fingerpints, and be sure digital ICE is turned on (it slows down scan time, so some labs turn it off). Talk to the person who will be scanning your negs, and insist that only they do the work, not anyone else who works there.

Get the images burned to CD, and have fun!

If spending some money is no object you could have them scanned somewhere. This seems like a "once in a lifetime" operation and even the cheapest dedicated Nikon scanner will simply thrash flatbed results.

Scanning, especially with an old flatbed and post processing the results is not something you learn instantly. But if you want to do it yourself, 2400dpi is the max, don't go over it even if there are options. You'd only get very soft and bloated file.

All of you above:

Wonderful Advice.

Now the missing part: I have an Epson Epression 1640 XL, the cream of the crop flatbed scanner when it was made -- capable of the highest resolution flatbed scanning when it was produced (although it only has USB 1.0 so results come out slowly.

I also do not have money; all my cameras (almost all) and lenses just were stolen (don't ask).

I may have to make do with what I have. The negs are copy negs and have been protected 15 years in glassine sleeves -- they are 4 x 5 inches and only were out of the sleeve when the pro lab that made the original prints made those prints, then stored in those sleeves, long believed lost (original negs are lost). They are the highest quality copy negs, although surely there will be dust issues and if I could borrow somebody's 4 x 5 negative scanner, that would be ideal, but I don't know anybody in the Bay Area who has one, or anyone to ask. ((I'm in the Bay Area for a while and not in Ukraine.) I recognize the benefits of digital ICE, of course, and it would be greatly worthwhile.

However, this scanner is capable of supersharp scans of highest quality, I have been informed (am I wrong?) and not just high res producing 'bloated files' if one goes above 2400 dpi, but I am willing to be educated.

I have great thanks to everybody above who has contributed; I have learned something from each post and am grateful that each person has taken my lack of knowledge in this area seriously, and avoided acronyms, to avoid my being lost in acronym mumbo-jumbo.

Does this additional info (scanner model number/quality especially) have any bearing on any of the answers above, and the same from my recent sour turn of finances? (Money is an object, regrettably and wasn't before May 4 when nearly every major camera/lens I had got clouted.)

John (Crosley)

Hi John

I suspected that you'd be having 4x5 internegs.

The Epson you have was fairly impressive in its day, from 4x5 you can scan to make a reasonable x3 or so enlargement with that scanner. But depending on the film you'll perhaps really need that 16 bit advantage I mentioned. I suggest that for a modest investment (less than $200) you could buy a better Epson such as the 4870 or 4990 on eBay. You don't mention if you're negs are colour or black and white, but if they're colour I don't see the 3200 (older version of the 4870) as being worth it.

If its black and white (and on the Epson in general in my opinion) ICE will not be useable.

Check out my blog http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/ and my hope pages (linked above) for an idea of what sort of quality you can get from these scanners.

good luck

<p>Coda: (to all who contributed, especially if you asked to be notified by mail of any followup: thank you and here is the outcome)<br>

1. I took these negatives for pro scanning to 1. Bay Photo, Santa Cruz for scanning. The results were less than good. In fact they were so bad, I asked for (and got) my money back. It was frankly a waste of time. I am surprised because they support pros throughout the Monterey Bay area and in particular the Northern Monterey Bay Area/Santa Cruz areas, and are very professionally managed.<br>

2. I then took them to Keeble & Schuchat, Palo Alto, one of Northern California's premier Camera Stores, to their photofinishing department and was told they only could do these 4 x 5 negs on a flatbed scanner (and of course no digital ICE since they were B&W). <br>

Regrettably somebody in the department which was a long distance -- 75 miles-- from where I was staying, didn't listen and files were way, way, way too small to be useful, and one or more scans were missing so when I got the package and examined it, I had to drive back (75 miles each way) to ask for rescans (two trips each way total). Regrettably the rescans were not of the top quality I expected, and although useful for general purposes, they were INCREDIBLY GRAINY (as were the first go-around with them), and I feared somehow the negatives had become damaged over time. I carried that fear until just a few days ago.<br>

3. About a year later, fed up and getting ready to print my material for gallery/museum submission, and not wanting some of my best, early work to be so grainy, I went to Samy's 'Service Bureau at their Fairfax store, Los Angeles.<br>

There I gave the entire package to Robert, who both admired the photos, thanked me for the opportunity to work with them, demonstrated his Imacon scanner, explained how it worked (which I understood was not a drum scanner and would not obtain the absolute maximum resolution), then gave me a few Photoshop cleanup hints for dealing with the files involving 'history brush' after using the dust and scratch filter, and after negotiating what I felt was a very price, left them with him.<br>

In Ukraine, he delivered the results to me by FTP .rar file, and I felt the scans really were very good. Some photos required NO photoshopping at all. Others that will require extenswive Photoshopping are the result of original issues with the prints that were copied or the original negatives (e.g. dust., etc.). The glassine holders had worked remarkably well,even though Samy's Service Bureau had said they would not 'wash' the negatives (for fear of damage because they're a couple of decades old, but would blasst them with 'something' the name of which I've forgotten.<br>

Some scans had substantial defects, and on reflections, I am absolutely certain these defects were from defects in the original negatives (dust/dirt/etc.) and not from the copy negs, or if on the copy negs were embedded on the copy negatives in a way that defied removal, and Robert had said he would not do anything that smacked of possibly damaging the copy negatives since he recognized they had 'value' (and they really do), both as photography and as 'historical documents'.<br>

I opened the .rar files in Ukraine and set a pair of Photoshoppers in competition to work on them, and got good results from the most damaged and will decide when I get back who to do the work (and much more). Years worth of work. <br>

Maybe I'll divide it. <br>

I can buy a month's worth of work for $400 from a highly skilled Photoshopper who does not speak English except Photoshop commands, but who is delighted to work on such varied work as my negatives (not photos of chairs, tables, dresses, gloves, and catalog, newspaper advertisement stuff which is what such people generally make their living doing--nude photo retouching has largely stopped/Ukraine has a new anti-porn/anti-glamour, even anti-nude law that has shut down what once was a very big industry there.)<br>

On return to LA, Robert of Samy's Service Bureau gave me a disk of scans (one had been scanned reversed, so he rescanned, just in case there was a slight focus problem (film is slightly thick and emulsion was on a different side than maybe machine/operator expected?), and rescan with proper emulsion side in correct place meant that would not be an issue any longer (and I am so much happier, rather than being required to 'flip' the image).<br>

In addition to the scans, Robert ran off (as a test he said) one image of my photo 'Balloon Man' from a copy negativce in glassine, not retouched, but which had survived almost perfectly.<br>

The photo was blown up to about 16" x 20", and it is beautiful. <br>

It was my first post on Photo.net, and since it is my highest scoring photo ever, I reasonably believe if I had submitted it for critique it might have been Photo of the Week. It's on cover of a private book for galleries I had printed. It was an excellent choice.<br>

THE PRINT WAS STUNNING . . . Robert had it photoshopped a little by his resident photoshopper or himsself and he ran it the print off (as a test he kept saying) on his giant Epson 9000? which is wider than the width of some bedrooms, he said 'for fun' and to 'give me an idea' of what the image would look like.<br>

It looks stunning!<br>

Frankly, when cut, framed and mounted, that image could be placed on the wall of a museum -- any museum, anywhere in the world. Yes, I might Photoshop it differently, and will have it worked on more, but the printing was fantastic (toned a little too).<br>

Robert and Samy's did themselves proud, even when two venerable California photo institutions which otherwise are quite reliable (and Keeble and Schuchat has been wonderful on everything else in my life) failed me this time.<br>

The grain is NOT excess, but visible; it blends in perfectly.<br>

I have never seen this photo look bette, and the print froom the rescanned copy neg file is now the 'gold stanard' for my scanned copy negatives.<br>

Now, my next task is that there are about 20-35 more exhibition quality photos for which I cannot and will not ever find negatives and those must be drum scanned.<br>

I am searching this minute through a 'close personal friend' and also using Kyiv Ukraine's possibly most well informed photo instructor/analyst/critic (who knows everybody) for a quality drum scanner up to a first quality job, without high expense.<br>

If I find that such is available, then I'll take prints with me to Ukraine and have others professionally scan them (mamy are oversize).<br>

Provided a drum will accommodate 'oversize prints, (16 x 20 in ~) then I'll be 'in clover' as my photoshop fiinalists both have shown proficiency and patience in restoration of dust motes, pixel by pixel and still retaining grain.<br>

I told them I want my work to be cable of hanging in the Getty, the MOMA, the Louvre, or anywhere else (or Aunt Tilly's barn - yes, I even did have an Aunt Tilly).<br>

In short, anywhere, without embarrassment.<br>

And since they're digital files -- to be used 'forever' -- even if enhancement changes from time to time as printers' needs change -- perhaps as paper profiles or printing techniques develop.<br>

I really did believe these photos were important and valuable, and a Lucie Award winning critic/printer/art expert who advises me agrees and urges me on. In fact for two years he has been my mentor, and we meet again in two days (I think he'll be surprised at my perfectionism, and he's been named 'best printer in the world').<br>

I thank each one of you who has contributed, and wish I could shake each of your hands, even if I did not follow your advice; this was personally very, very important to me, and every word written was read with great care, and digested with gratitude.<br>

John (Crosley)<br>

Copyright 2010 John Crosley, All Rights Reserved.</p>