Best way to get film to digital

[david_henderson]

<p>He didn't say "how can I get the best scans" . He said whats the best way to digitise. "Best" in his mind might be easiest, cheapest, quickest, or whatever. He hasn't said. Neither do we have a clue what he wants the digital copies for. Difficult then to assume that he wants the very best scans money can buy without a bit more information, but frankly given the options he's put forward its pretty unlikely that he's going to spend $000's on a scanner or $00's per scan. </p>

<p>Maybe if Mr Buzaid hasn't been scared off we could ask him what film format he's using (eg 35mm colour neg) and what he wants to be able to do with the scans ( eg make proof-sized prints; make enlargements, show them on a computer screen or whatever.) and what volume of scans he anticipates having made or making in the course of a year. Then maybe we could cast a view that might help him. <br>

I do recognise that some others have been actively trying to push the thread in that direction.</p>

 

[dave_redmann]

<p>Although I'm sure I sometimes fail miserably, I think our main goal when responding ought to be to provide the most useful information for what we can discern about the original poster's needs, which may or may not be the same as answering the exact question most directly. To me, 'beginner / amateur' is what jumps out from a question discussing, "One is getting it done at Costc[o], second is getting the Lomography DigitaLIZA flatbed adaption for scanning, and third is just scanning the 4 x 6 on a flatbed scanner." So a discussion aimed at upper-end professional is really more appropriate for other posts, to try to maximize the 'signal-to-noise ratio' for the original poster in the original thread. No doubt there is much other worthwhile discussion to be had, but a separate thread would be a better place to have it.</p>

<p>I stand by my advice for a newbie who wants to use 35mm film: get it processed and scanned somewhere moderately-priced that will both return your film in decent condition and sell you a CD of minilab scans for an extra $4 or whatever (maybe that Costco), then get a Minolta Scan Dual III or IV on eBay ($70 - $200) and experiment with scanning the best ones yourself. Obviously like with almost anything there's a learning curve, but this is a fairly inexpensive way to get into it that <em>can</em> achieve very usable results.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Certainly it is reasonable to provide information that speaks to the questioner's needs - or slightly above. I think its a bit over the top to suggest I am chasing people away from film. I spend much of my time explaining to people that film has much more to offer than digital. You may disagree with me all you like. But I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do or to ruin their world.</p>

<p>If what someone is trying to do is appropriate for a $5 solution, that's great. Personally, when doing serious work, I wouldn't care much for the results if they come out of anything less than a film scanner. However, I shoot family snapshots with my iPhone, and its all I need for that purpose. I'm quite happy with it. However, I'm looking down at a few shots at the bottom of the page and they would look really nice printed well. They probably have been....</p>

<p>I think in this instance we would have to hear back from the OP and hear what he actually wants.</p>

[wblynch]

I think our friend, Jimmy Buzaid, was scared off long ago...

[lenny_eiger]

<p>He only posted the first item then didn't pipe in at all. He probably figured out what he wanted to do and didn't bother to come back. Scared? I don't think it had anything to do with a fear response. No one has accused him of anything. I don't think fear is warranted in this situation. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>What a useful thread. I will print this out and keep it. Even though you could clearly not be left in a room together,many valid points were made.<br>

Thanks all (and a big up to Lenny).</p>

[donbright]

<p>I'll second that, a thanks to Lenny for pointing out the reality of issues pertaining to a variety of Photographic functions, and purposes, verses homogenizing all Photography into one channel, one mode, one look.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>"I am just starting in photography and want something to make pictures"</p>

<p>Bizarre PNet response:<br>

"You need a Leica M or S2 and <em>nothing else will do</em>. You could manage (just) with a Nikon D4 or Canon D1X but you would be selling yourself short. I would recommend an H-series Hasselblad but I have detected some plastic in their construction and Victor himself didn't design it so it is naturally inferior".</p>

<p>Some of you guys are crazy!</p>

[lowell_sloane]

<p>Even with all the in-fighting I found the responses very interesting. I too am attempting to learn what options may fit my scanning needs. This thread has helped.</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>I think this thread needs a little "light relief".<br>

Head right over to http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com for a discussion that may,or may not be,photography related,but contains recognizable elements.</p>

[harper_westwood]

Scanning prints from pro labs has always worked great for me.

[jimmy_buzaid]

<p>@Marc Bergman <br>

Thanks! Sorry I have not gotten back to this thread. I'm not sure what quality scans Costco offers, but I know the one near me will develop and scan the film. This seems the cheapest as I am on a budget (no I will not forge out $1000 for a film scanner).</p>

[jimmy_buzaid]

<p>@ Michael Howard <br>

The V500 scanner seems worth it for only $100. I do need an actual scanner and that seems worth the money. For now Costco scans are fine. Thanks!</p>

[wblynch]

Costco standard scans used to be 2000x3000 pixels. Just be sure to ask for 2000x3000 "or higher" from the person

when you drop off your film..

 

I also write it in the special instructions box on the envelope.

 

I also always buy the prints (on glossy paper with white boarders) because they are cheap and I don't want to give Costco any reason or excuse to stop offering film development.

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Jimmy,</p>

<p>Thanks for returning and providing us with more information. Using Bill Lynch's specifications for the Costco scans a 2000 x 3000 scan can provide one with a file that can produce a nice 8" x 10" print.</p>

<p>This would most likely be better quality than scanning a 4" x 6" print.</p>

<p>Have you got a photo editing program at home? This would allow you to prepare the image and resize it for sharing or printing. You could edit the image files at home and upload them on the Internet to the store for printing or one of the other services they offer.</p>

<p>Another thing to do is ask questions of the people at the Costco photo counter. Try to get an idea of their knowledge and dedication. They are going to be handling your film. Costco pays good wages so the staff should try to do their best even with lower costs scans.</p>

<p> </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Folks, there is another way to go to get "best scans" that could render very high quality images and could be quite cheap, depending on the DSLR you own. Yes, DSLR.<br>

<br />I used to scan my 35mm slides and negatives with my Epson 4990 scanner, which does okay. But now I use my DSLR. I bought a "digital" slide duplicator off eBay and gutted it, so that all I had left was a tube with a flange on the end. The one I bought looked something like this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-Slide-Film-Copier-Duplicator-Specialty-Photographic-for-all-slr-cameras-/320886064189?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item4ab64cc43d</p>

<p>Then I bought an old slide duplicator that has a removable slide stage, which I then mounted to the "digital" duplicator's flange. I also found and bought a roll-film stage that mounts the same way, which I use for my negs and unmounted slides. Some "digital" duplicators have better slide and roll film stages than mine did, and don't require having to obtain separate stages.</p>

<p>This duplicator tube of mine has 52mm threads on the end. It originally came with a glass corrective element so that it could be mounted to the front of a lens and achieve correct focus, but I didn't want the glass element. So I unscrewed it and set it aside. Then I mounted the dupe tube directly to my 55mm Micro Nikkor, and to the rear of the 55mm Micro, I mounted about 25mm worth of extension tubes. With my APS-C EOS, this gives me almost exactly a 1:1 image size. With an FF camera, a bellows with slide copier is the ideal way to go. When I'm shooting the dupes, I just set up a flash off-camera, set the flash to about 1/16 power, then point the dupe rig at the flash from about 1 foot away and 'pop'. Move closer or farther away to adjust exposure. I set my Micro Nikkor to f/8, which is that lens's sweet spot, and use Live View to confirm focus.</p>

<p>If you have a 22 to 24 mp camera, the resolution you can achieve with your dupes is about the same as you get with a Nikon Coolscan -- that is, right at 4000 ppi. A EOS 5D II will render almost exactly 4000 ppi.</p>

<p>Most negatives I can reverse easily in either Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, and achieve accurate color. The exception is Kodak's Ektar. There's something strange about its orange mask. Way too much residual cyan after reversing the image, and I've been unable to get rid of it all.</p>

<p>One really big advantage to this approach is speed. I can easily capture a dozen images in the time it takes for my 4990 to scan one. Post processing of the negs is fast, even faster with the slides. Image quality is great. Minimal contrast build-up, if any.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Just my 2c - there are diff scanners on the market both new and used and there is using a macro lens with an adaptor with a dSLR camera. </p>

<p>For me I don't want to dwell that much money into it for this hobby of mine, what I would do is get a flatbed scanner and scan that, I find that flatbeds gives me better images inclucing WB color and sharpness than what my labs give me at least from the "Photo CD" order which is probably not their high end scanning option or going to even a more expensive lab and doing specialist scanning. Then, if you have a few special shots send them to a real pro place. </p>

<p>I have scanned 35mm film on my Epson V700 and my Nikon Coolscan. For 1024x768 web use or projector use for our camera club there was no difference side/side in the detail. To my eyes. Once you get to 6x4 inches at 240 dpi and look at it at a 100% on the screen you do see some difference at least on the screen side/side. But there have been people who have submitted prints when they were scanned on a flatbed. </p>

[jimmy_buzaid]

<p>Costco scans seem cheap, and judging based on what others have said about them they seem very nice. I'll be sure to ask some questions. This seems perfect.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

Michael, the DSLR is an OK option when just looking at resolution. Unfortunately, unlike a scanner, the DSLR uses

Bayer interpolated color.