robert_wilson11

January 3, 2009

Bill - Vaya con Dios. I have slides too - taken by my father back to the 1950s. I expect that will be a whole new adventure.

Scott - No I never did try converting it to B&W. I guess that would have been a lot better than nothing if I hadn't been able to restore the color so effectively with the Nikon Digital ROC.

January 3, 2009

After switching from film photography to digital and having gained some experience with the new medium, I decided to embark on a project to digitize my entire "pre-digital" archive consisting mostly of carefully stored color negative 35mm film. After some research, I selected the Nikon Coolscan V ED film scanner as the best choice given my budget and intended use.

Early in my study, I was fortunate to discover Wayne Fulton's web site at scantips.com. Shooting a camera is a lot like shooting a gun; pretty much anyone can do it. But like loading your own ammunition, you're not likely to produce very good results with digital imaging unless you learn something about the process first. The excellent tutorials at Wayne's site gave me enough knowledge to make a good start. Another good resource is the entire community of photographers of all skill levels who are eager to share their knowledge and experience with each other on forums like those at photo.net.

Before beginning in earnest, I tested two scanning programs: the reasonably priced VueScan and the Nikon Scan 4 software that came with my scanner. As it turns out, the choice between the two is a topic of passionate debate in the online community; but it's like Ford and Chevy. Don't take someone else's word for which one is best; drive them both and decide for yourself. I like Nikon Scan 4.

After studying the tutorials and photographers' forums and some considerable testing, I developed an effective procedure for my scanning project. My philosophy was to use only the basic features of the scanning software, capitalizing on the strengths of the Coolscan device itself, while reserving greater flexibility for more complex editing, if necessary, in Photoshop Elements after the image was scanned.

In the scanning software, I use Nikon's very effective Digital ICE and Digital GEM which, respectively, reduce the effect of dust and scratches and of film grain in the scanned image. Then after the image is previewed, I use the scanning software's LCH Editor to adjust the luminosity curve. At least a majority of the time, the auto contrast feature provides a very good solution for all three points and, if not, it's a simple matter to adjust either or both the white and black points and, rarely, the gray point as required. After the image is scanned I save it as a full resolution tif file to provide the greatest amount of raw material for subsequent editing.

In Photoshop, I start by checking the composition. Since my intent is to create an archive of the original image, I try to avoid recomposing at this point. In the worst cases, I will make horizons horizontal and perform modest crops. Other recomposing can be done later on depending on the subsequent intended use.

Next I make all the adjustments for color correction, lighting and exposure; things like saturation, hue, temperature and tint, brightness and contrast and all that stuff. Photoshop will let you make a lot of work out of it if you want but, again, at least the majority of the time, the one-button SmartFix in Quick Edit mode does a pretty good job. If necessary, the more detailed tools are available and, usually, a little bit with them goes a long way.

My third step is to hop through the image with the Navigator palette in Full Edit mode correcting flaws with the very powerful healing tools. And finally, and the experts all recommend this be done last, I punch the Auto Sharpen button in Quick Edit mode.

I save a new tif file to be my archive copy in case I ever want to edit the image again and a high resolution jpg file to be my viewable copy.

With this procedure I began scanning my film archive, beginning with the oldest negatives first and working my way forward through time. Now film scanning, at least with the Coolscan V, is not a speedy process. After I had produced eminently acceptable results by scanning my oldest sixteen or so rolls of 35mm color negative film, it occurred to me that it might be prudent to jump ahead and scan the few very most precious rolls in the archive before I went any further. Those precious images, of course, are our wedding and honeymoon pictures and my wife and I had agreed that their preservation alone would justify the cost of the scanner.

The wedding pictures were very nearly a disaster. From my harrowing experience with that single roll of film I learned what I believe is the single most important lesson anyone needs to learn about film scanning. But more on that in a moment. (Don't forget the wedding pictures, but) first let me describe the prime lesson about photography in general which I learned as I began scanning the honeymoon pictures.

For years before we were married, I had happily used a full size Canon EOS ELAN single lens reflex or SLR 35mm film camera for all my photography. In fact, I wore one out and bought another one to replace it. With its two lenses and related small paraphernalia, it fit in a very manageable protective bag I carried over my shoulder everywhere I thought I might feel like taking pictures. I learned to use it fairly effectively and, with its Canon engineering and high quality lenses, it took beautiful pictures. But, anticipating our wedding and honeymoon trip to Hawaii, I began to think about how much I wanted to have a camera with me all the time and how much I didn't want to have to lug a shoulder bag around with me.

So, with some misgivings and for about a hundred dollars, I purchased a Nikon compact 35mm film camera to use on the trip. I knew the camera didn't have the range or flexibility of my SLR but I rationalized that with Nikon's reputation for quality, especially in lenses, it should at least be expected to take good pictures. And so it did. Or so I thought.

The 5 X 7 prints I had made by a photo finisher for our honeymoon album are beautiful and the album is a precious keepsake for us. And I have to admit that a camera is a lot like a carry gun. You can argue all day about which gun you'd rather have in a gun fight but, in the end, it doesn't really matter very much which gun you choose if it's so much trouble to carry that you won't have it with you when the gun fight starts. That compact camera was easy to carry so I carried it everywhere and took lots of precious pictures and captured lots of precious memories.

But all during the trip I kept seeing other folks with their SLRs and I kept kinda wishing I'd brought mine and then when I finally got around to scanning the negatives from the little Nikon with a high resolution scanner I knew why.

The reason that folks spend $500 to $1,000, $3,000 or $4,000 or more for better cameras is because they take better pictures!

I never had any larger than 5 X 7 prints made of any of the pictures taken with that $100 camera and, now that the scanning process has revealed the relatively poor quality of the images, I never will. You can't expect the lens on a $100 camera to produce the resolution necessary for the kind of beautiful 20 X 30 poster prints that I had made of so many of the pictures from my EOS ELAN.

So, Photography Lesson Number One? If you want good pictures, use a good camera. I'll learn to modify my style to make it more manageable, but from now on whenever I think I might be taking important pictures and, after all that could be anytime I have a camera, I think I'll probably tote my digital SLR and at least two lenses.

Have you forgotten the wedding pictures? Here's what happened.

After fifteen or sixteen rolls, I was feeling pretty good about the whole scanning thing when I started on the wedding pictures. I was horrified to see that all of the scanned images from that one roll looked like prints that you forgot were in your jeans when you ran them through the laundry and everything I tried in Photoshop to fix them came out looking like a scene from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I worked at least a few weeks, off and on, on those thirty-six frames, researching, learning and trying different things in Photoshop all to no avail. Eventually discouragement set in and I decided to let the problem sleep for a while and see if a solution wouldn't try to sneak up on it.

Then after about ten months, I had a need to scan a few of the thousands of other frames remaining in the archive and that inspired my interest in finding a solution to the wedding picture problem. That one roll of film was the only one with which I'd had any real problem at all and it was different from all the others in just three ways: the pictures were taken by a photographer other than myself (and a professional at that), it was FUJI film rather than Kodak Gold and it had been developed by a different photo finisher than I normally used.

Since the prints obtained when the film was developed were fine and the negatives looked OK, I thought it must be something unique about the FUJI film that my Nikon scanner just didn't like. So I started a thread at photo.net asking about any problems in scanning FUJI film with a Nikon scanner. The responses were very interesting but few seemed to hold much promise in my particular situation other than one suggestion to contact FUJI. Except I didn't call FUJI. I called Nikon.

A very knowledgeable fellow at Nikon technical support told me he couldn't diagnose the exact problem without seeing the film, but he recommended I try making some bold changes in the settings of the Nikon Scan 4 software and suggested a few likely areas to start. His confidence that a solution would easily be found gave me the encouragement I needed to get started again.

The first few changes he suggested improved the images slightly but didn't solve the problem. Then I tried a feature called Digital ROC which, according to the Nikon documentation, "Processes images digitally to restore colors lost through fading." Bingo! Combined with modest, auto adjustments on the combined RGB curve, the Digital ROC produced scanned images that were as rich and vibrant as the original prints.

At first I couldn't understand how relatively recently developed film could be so badly faded when I already had successfully scanned much older film without incident. It couldn't be the FUJI brand or they would have been run out of the film business long ago. Then I remembered one of the many responses to my post at photo.net. An apparently very experienced photographer had described occasional instances when improper processing of film by a photo finisher had caused the film to deteriorate prematurely. And I'm convinced that's exactly what happened to me.

So, Film Scanning Lesson Number One? If you want to start archiving your old film negatives because you're a little afraid something bad might happen to them, don't procrastinate; something bad could be happening to them right now and the longer you wait the worse it might get!

December 9, 2008

Thanks to everyone for the help. This morning I finished successfully scanning and editing the single problem roll of FUJI film. Most of my final images approximate the beautiful original prints to a large extent; some are actually more pleasing and all are eminently acceptable.

The approach I took was to effect bold changes in the scan settings of the Nikon Scan 4 software and then to polish the scanned images in Photoshop Elements. In addition to the customary Luminosity Curve, Digital ICE and Digital GEM, the scanner settings upon which I relied most heavily were Digital ROC, Color Balance Brightness and Color Balance Contrast. I also made very limited use of Digital DEE and some occasional modification of the individual Red, Green and Blue curves.

My best guess is that the film had faded considerably over the four or five years since it was processed. Since I have successfully scanned many rolls of older film stored in the same physical archive, I suspect that my single roll of FUJI NPH 400 was, indeed, improperly processed by the photo finisher.

December 6, 2008

Since posting the question, I talked to Nikon technical support. I realized that the other unique thing about this one roll is that it was shot by another photographer. He may have pushed the film or done something else that I wouldn't have done on the film I exposed that scanned OK. Nikon suggested I was probably correct that a simple adjustment in the Nikon Scan software would compensate for the difference. They suggested lowering the brightness curve as a first try. I haven't had a chance to try it yet but I feel very encouraged by what he said.

December 6, 2008

I purchased a Nikon CoolScan V ED to archive my personal library of 35mm film images. I use Nikon Scan 4 to scan the color negative film and Photoshop Elements 6 to polish up the scanned digital images. So far I've scanned about 600 frames of mostly Kodak Gold 200 and, after climbing the first learning curve, I've been delighted with the results.

But I have one roll of color negative film I haven't been able to do much with and it's critical. My wedding pictures were taken by a professional photographer who then presented me with the film. The edge of the film is marked "FUJI NPH400". When we returned from our honeymoon, I had the film printed by a professional photo finishing shop and the prints are gorgeous. The colors are rich and dramatic and every frame is perfectly exposed. But no matter what I try I can't get good digital images with the scanner and software. The pics are washed out or too dark and the colors are way off.

Since it's a different film, I thought there should be some simple change in the scanner software to compensate but the only choice is "Neg (Color)". I suppose I could get really expert with Photoshop and eventually (laboriously) edit the images one by one back to what they should be but I keep thinking I must be overlooking something really simple.

Any suggestions will be deeply appreciated.

November 9, 2008

Yakim,

Thanks - that it explains it.

Robert

November 8, 2008

Yakim,

Thanks for your help. I'm afraid I'm a little confused. You say you had the 28/1.8 and didn't like it but both of the posts you referenced seem to me to be favorable. Did I miss something?

Robert

November 7, 2008

Alan,

Thanks so much. I really wanted NOT to use the sticky film protector things on my new camera and I guess I needed a little reassurance.

November 7, 2008

Thanks everyone. By the way, I fooled with the XSi kit a little today and I love it already. I have a shoot planned early next week for a sugar mill ruins at a wooded site where the light's fascinating and I can hardly wait.

November 7, 2008

Thanks again to all. Absent any compelling new information, I'll probably go with the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM.

November 7, 2008

Thanks all for the help. Since I already was leaning toward the 28mm f/1.8, I feel a little more confident that I'm leaning in the right direction.

So one more question: Does anyone who actually owns the 28 1.8 have anything bad to say about it?

November 7, 2008

I have some years of experience with 35mm film SLR photography on an EOS ELAN followed by more years of

experience with digital P & S photography on a PowerShot S60. I guess I would consider myself an amateur with

enough experience to realize he will always have more to learn.

I finally made the leap to a digital SLR with my new EOS Rebel XSi. For a starting / general purpose / walk around

lens, I bought the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS "kit" lens. (I bought the actual kit packaged by Canon.) I also

still have the Canon EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 and EF 100-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 Ultrasonic Zoom Lenses I use with my

ELAN.

Now with the XSi in hand, I want to satisfy a many years old, persistent longing for a fast prime lens to be used

primarily for no flash work in low light situations but also as an occasional walk around lens. I think my choice

should be among Canon's EF 35mm f/2, the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.

All three are within my reach but the reach for the f/1.4L is painful enough to merit very careful consideration and I'm

not sure it would have that much more utility for my intended use. I'm leaning toward the 28mm f/1.8 because I think

I might be a little disappointed with the 35mm f/2. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Robert Wilson

November 7, 2008

Henry,

Thanks; that's what I needed. I've used the film protectors on other cameras but I don't really like them. As long as the LCD cover on my XSi can be replaced if necessary, I'd rather do without the protector.

Robert Wilson

November 7, 2008

I found some discussion about LCD film protectors for other EOS models but nothing specific to the XSi. Should I

use a "sticky" film protector on the LCD? (When not actually in use, my XSi will spend most of its time in a Canon

EH19-L Semi-hard Case.) Any suggestions are appreciated.

January 21, 2008

My recollection is that there are enough to fill at least a medium size suitcase or two. I'm also concerned about loss and am considering a 2nd-day shipper like UPS or Fed-Ex instead for that reason

January 21, 2008

Sign In

robert_wilson11

Posts

Joined

Last visited

Content Type

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by robert_wilson11

What I've learned from my film scanning project

What I've learned from my film scanning project

CoolScan V ED won't scan FUJI NPH400

CoolScan V ED won't scan FUJI NPH400

CoolScan V ED won't scan FUJI NPH400

XSi fast prime lens

XSi fast prime lens

XSi LCD Protection

XSi fast prime lens

XSi fast prime lens

XSi fast prime lens

XSi fast prime lens

XSi LCD Protection

XSi LCD Protection

how to transport old slides

how to transport old slides

Explore

Forums

Learn

Job Opportunities