Scanning negatives

[arlindo_barlera]

<p>I am yet a digital adept, so that I know almost nothing on this matter, despite I use a single digital camera for internet purposes. But I have frequently heard, or read some references at scanned negatives. Then my question is very single: are there any advantage in the final result with this procedure, compared with a digital taken shot. After scanning are the next steps identical? I have a lot of cameras in different negative sizes and perhaps could use this resource.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's a very complicated subject.<br>

I've done a "yuge" amount of scanning of a large archive of slides and negatives shot over many years when there was no digital. There are lots of ways of doing the scans. The best are to use dedicated film scanners, although some flatbed scanners will do passable scans for internet-type use.<br>

But in general, modern digital images match or exceed the quality possible with even the best film scans. The reasons to shoot film and scan it is that you love the old cameras or maybe even love darkroom work.<br>

The Classic Manual Camera forum is where a lot of old and new film users hang out. But I repeat, it is done for the fun of it, although a few old geezers will still (erroneously) claim that "nothing beats film". Some people still ride horses too.</p>

<p>For "internet purposes" the ease of a totally digital work flow will "trump" the alternatives.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>If you can scan them yourself and become good at adjusting things to get the best scan, then it will let you shoot happily with whatever camera suits your fancy and still be able to get smallish prints (11x14 and under) or share them on the web. The bigger the negative, the better they scan. 35mm on a flatbed is not great, but 120 is decent. If you give the negatives to a lab, then it depends entirely on how good their operator is. And most aren't. <br>

After scanning, you'll first learn how to clone or heal out all the dust. No matter how careful you are, if you aren't wet mounting (which has its own quirks), you'll have dust - every particle in the house will be trying to get to the scanner as soon as you touch it. I think I have a tougher time with color balance with scanned negs than with digital shots, though.</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>Unfortunately the "good" brands of dedicated film scanners are no longer produced. The lesser brands have gotten better, as have the Epson flatbed scanners, to help fill the gap.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Then my question is very single: are there any advantage in the final result with this procedure, compared with a digital taken shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No chimping. You have to wait to see the results.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Another answer to the question Alan quoted is that the main advantage is you have digitized a film-based image, which allows you to manipulate it to your heart's content and also allows you to move it around on the web -- instead of handing out duplicate prints to friends and family.</p>

<p>Now if you're asking whether a film-based image will show any sort of improved image quality compared to a digital image, well, in this day and age, the short answer is "no." In most cases, a 35mm negative can't compete with the resolution of a modern digital camera. But resolution isn't everything. Many people still prefer film for what they perceive of as a certain "warmth" that digital doesn't have. I can understand this. Digital images often have a rather clinical, often sterile, look to them that film images don't have.</p>

<p>In answer to your next question, "After scanning are the next steps identical?" the short answer is "yes." Once an image has been scanned, it is in the digital realm, so anything you can do to a digital image can be done to a scanned film image. Well, this is almost true. Many cameras can capture images in the camera's "raw" mode. Being able to post process an image in a camera's raw mode often provides distinct advantages. You won't have this same advantage when scanning a film image using a scanner.</p>

<p>Lastly, and this can be a very tricky subject, is how you will go about scanning your negatives (and/or slides). As Bethe mentions, a good flatbed scanner will provide decent scans of 120 format negatives, but just passable scans for 35mm. A dedicated scanner for 35mm is better. But not just any dedicated scanner. There's lots of crappy dedicated scanners out there. The best ones, that are still in production, are the Plustek series, like the 8200i, for example. But they are slow. Other options are dedicated scanners that are out of production, like the Nikon Coolscans. But the best Coolscans go for a lot of money. There's another option that's been gaining traction in recent years, and this is what I do. Namely duplicating your slides and negatives with your DSLR (or mirrorless). This requires typically a macro lens and various extensions and perhaps a slide or negative holder, etc. And converting a negative in the software you'll use can sometimes be tricky. But if you can get this down, the advantages definitely outweigh any disadvantages. You get hi-res duplicates quickly and for whatever the cost of the duplicating gear will run.</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

There are some films (now mostly diseased) which create certain looks that are difficult to replicate (Kodak color and high

speed B&W Infrared) but these days, not much. Kodak HIE (Black and white IR)'s dreamy look was die to the lack of an

anti-halation layer.

 

Anyway, I have a good 35mm scanner but I haven't used it in a while.

[arlindo_barlera]

<p><em>Very useful answers. Thank you for yours clear and objective contribuitions. Before I go any further, let me rectify the beginning of my initial post: “I am <strong>not</strong> yet an adept of digital…” (see my profile).</em><br>

<em>Then, as I work mostly with B/W and I own a dozen of old but reliable old cameras in nice conditions – Contax IIa, Rollei SLX, Linhof 6x9, Graflex 4x5, Koni Omega 200 etc, plus a couple of lenses, from 15mm up to 180mm and a good enlarger that hold all the negative sizes (Omega D4) I believe the the best I could do is to remain with film photography, even because I do make photos frequently. Also, to chage to digital I’d must improve my scarce practice with computer works. At the end, I’ change an analogic paraphernalia for a digital one, with no much (or none) improvement of the final result.</em><br>

<em>Regrding the “warm” analogic photography I realy prefer this kind of photos. By the way, I read anywhere that the german lenses usually offer warmer images than the Japanese.</em><br>

<strong><em>Note to Alan Klein:</em></strong><em> Sure I have to wait in order to see the final result, since there is no way to see anything before it’s done. I suppose you did not understand that I asked on the result just in theory and possibilities. All of us know that even a experienced photographer sometimes have a disastrous result. Even so, thank you for your advertise. </em></p>

[arlindo_barlera]

<p>P.S - to my last post: I did not understand the meaning for "chimping" wrote by Alan Klein. Nor found this word in my Englis dictionaries - Webster, Heritage, Collins.</p>

[AlanKlein]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimping

[arlindo_barlera]

<p>Thank you very much Alan for your nice cooperation.</p>