best way to digitize film?

[jim bob]

At present, the best option I have to get digital products from my

film cameras is to request digitization when I take film in to get

developed at Costco. I request "max resolution" and it costs about

$4.00 to get a 24-frame roll of 35 mm film put on a CD-rom. The file

size per frame is on the order of 2.4 megabytes. Quality is very

good. There is additional cost, of course, for the development of

the film.

 

What other alternatives provide the best "bang for the buck"? (The

very best bang for the buck, I suspect, derives from using a decent

quality digital camera to begin with). However, I have years and

years of negatives, slides, and prints that I would like to digitize

selectively, while maintaining a reasonable standard of quality.

 

Is scanning slide and negatives the way to go? Recommeded equipment

and costs? I have found a wealth of information in this forum, and

believe it or not, I often act upon it. Most recently, I acquired an

SBOOI viewfinder for my screwmounts and love it.

[majid]

I got a Nikon Coolscan IVED (I believe the price has fallen in the $500-something range), for its low shadow noise. Minolta makes an excellent scanner for about $300, albeit without infrared dust detection , and introduced an interesting model, the Scan Elite 5400, recently.

[bill_carson]

Dear Jim: I am sure that we all have our ideas about "---the best way---" and I'll try to summarize my thoughts with brevity: I have something approaching 20,000 B&W negatives exposed over the past 63±

years and probably about 5,000 various color slides. I had a very complete darkroom where I could process and print anything from Minox to 5 X 7. I'm getting old and I had been spending lesss time in the darkroom so I had thrown sideglances toward digital and done quite a bit of reading on the subject. One day, I decided, to hell with it! I'm giving up on the B&W darkroom and exposing additional B&W negatives --- I had a big sale and sold just about everything. I sold my Nikon SLR stuff, what MF stuff I had and kept the Leica gear. I went out and bot an Epson 1270 and a Nikon 995. I spent almost as much money on PhotoShop and books to train me on this vital ingrediant of digital "photography." And from day one, I liked it. My results have been a lot less than spectacular, but they have been improving steadily. I now have a Epson 2200 and a Nikon D-1 and I think my stuff is as good as it ever was! used to be a regular producer of 16 X 20 prints and now I find myself limited to 13 X 19 but the stuff is OK. I love it! I'm even beginning to think about images that go a little beyond photography and into, WOW, ART! Well

sort of? A nything, I acknowledge that my present equipment and techniques will probably suffice, with some steady improvement, the rest of my days.

 

I'm pleased to have done what I did and be where I am today.

 

Regards, Bill

[hil3]

For 35mm negs and slides, a dedicated film scanner is the way to go. You'll get a host of recommendations from this forum.

 

What I use is a Nikon Coolscan IV ED, which scans at a 2900 ppi resolution and has Digital ICE (dust removal software). I get results that blow me away scanning slides and printing on an Epson Stylus Photo 780 printer on Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper, especially from color slides (lately mostly Provia 100F, but also years and years of Kodachrome 64). I personally see no reason to upgrade to a higher resolution scanner, but the Canon 4000 is about the same price and has FARE, Canon's version of ICE.

 

I am still developing my technique for color negs. I am also increasingly pleased with my results scanning Tri-x, printed to Epson Archival Matte paper using single black ink (what's standard with the printer).

 

Cost of this scanner is around $600. The Epson 780 was less than $100. Adobe Photoshop 6 or 7 is a must. You gotta do the hard time calibrating the monitor, scanner, and printer and comming up the Photoshop learning curve. Slide to 8x10 print processing time for me is about 20 minutes max from a good slide. Tri-x neg about 1 hour.

 

Can't help you with scanning prints, but others will. Witholding comments on digital cameras ;-)

[art_karr]

James:

 

This is just my experience and represents my prejudices and

other folks opinions are valid because of other prejudices. ;<)

Remember, this is just a collection of thoughts.

 

The problem is seldom the hardware for scanning [although it

can be], it is the software and how to use it. E.g., I find ICE useful

for color prints but absolutely useless for silver based B & W. A

2.4 meg scan is 10% of the file size you need to make a

reasonable print. Even my scanty framed Nikon 5000 digital

gives me files that are 15 to 25 megs. I print 35 mm and small

digital on an Epson 2200 [i won't talk about larger formats].

Works fine. You do need to look into alternate color management

systems and such stuff for adjusting your moniter and printer.

This can cost a bit. For B & W [and actually for color] there are

also alternate ink systems. Then you need to take a few weeks

with one negative and optimize your system. Optimization won't

be the same for all papers. To begin with choose one.

 

In my experience, digital sensors lack latitude. Don't try any

tought lighting situations. And spend time with PS 7.0. It takes a

lifetime and, lordy, PS 8.0 is coming out. By-the-by, get a lot of

memory. I use 1.5 gigs.

 

Art

[james_vornov1]

There are lots of ways to go here. Let me offer my own solution. I send my film to

Ofoto.com to be developed for $4.00 a roll. For the price I get online proofs that are

good enough to copy and (after some PS work) post on my website as small images. I

can then order 4x6s for friends and family of the keeper vacation and family shots.

The prints are the equal of the local minilabs and I only pay for prints I want in

physical form.

 

For images that I want to work with further digitally, I have PhotoCD scans made for

$1.50 each at a local shop (Regester Photo in Baltimore). Of course I have the

negatives for pro lab enlargements. I haven't been happy with the 1.5 megapixel jpgs

that I've gotten from local lab's CD services. PhotoCD gives me the information on the

negative at 6 MP, uncompressed with little dust in their lab environment.

 

Overall, I get to put my capital funds into cameras and lenses and get some of the

best of film and digital. I don't want to give up my Nikon SLR and Leica CL systems for

a digital point and shoot that's limited to 3 or 4 megapixels. I don't want to sink

$1600 into a Nikon D100 with its small sensor, etc.

[gerry_szarek]

Good quality can be had from a canon 10D see

 

www.normankoren.com for a detailed disertation of film vs digital also of scanning negatives and slides

 

Best bang for the buck is finding a local photo shop that has a "HIGH" quality scanner.

 

GS

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Best way = 12gauge, #8 shot at point blank range.

 

You're film will be nothing but bits at that point!

[jay_.]

<<best way to digitize film?>>

 

For me, it's paying someone else to do it. I've got 3 scanners and no desire to waste shooting time using them or learning Photoshop. I never cared for wet darkroom either. My involvement in the photographic process ends when the shutter closes.