PDA

View Full Version : cheapest way to scan negatives?



marshallarts
23-Jan-2010, 12:51
Not sure where the most appropriate place is for me to ask this. I've recently bought an old Graflex 4x5 and for cost reasons want to develop at home and scan the negatives. All I have is a Canon Pixma MP620 printer with flatbed scanner. I'm not about to go out and purchase an expensive film scanner. I realize this printer isn't ideal for making prints. I live in NYC and will send files to Adorama for quality prints. But for proofing and messing around I would like to save money simply scanning the prints vs making proofs -- maybe as I learn how to develop I'll try out making simple proofs but for now I need to learn before I can run.

Is it possible to scan negatives in this way? Does the light source need to come from the other side of the scanner? I've been trying to find the appropriate way to scan negatives on flatbeds but haven't found what I'm looking for.

What is the cheapest solution for getting negatives on the computer

Bill Burk
23-Jan-2010, 14:12
If you have a digital camera with a macro lens, put the film on a lightbox and shoot it.

Gem Singer
23-Jan-2010, 14:22
Do you have a cell phone with a built-in camera?

Place the negatives on a light box, or a piece of frosted glass with the light coming from behind, and photograph them with your cell phone.

Transfer the images to your computer and print with your printer.

You said "the cheapest way", not the "best" way.

Bite the bullet and purchase a flatbed photo scanner. To save money, look for a used Epson 4990.

jnantz
23-Jan-2010, 14:46
if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.

marshallarts
23-Jan-2010, 15:26
If you have a digital camera with a macro lens, put the film on a lightbox and shoot it.
Not a bad idea.


....photograph them with your cell phone....
look for a used Epson 4990.
I think Bill was a little more helpful in suggesting a digital camera (I own a 21MP 5DmkII) instead of a crappy ~2MP cell phone camera, unless you're emphasizing the impracticality of this method or feel this offers an interesting aesthetic. I guess I did say "cheapest method"--shoe in mouth. The Epson is a good suggestion, I see it's been replaced by the V700. Does taking photos of a negative with a digital camera offer comparable results to scanning with this Epson?


if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.
I've heard this method doesn't work but have no idea. The flatbed ceiling is white anyhow, wouldn't need a white sheet of paper. But I thought the idea was to prevent reflections from the underside of the film.

I honestly don't know what the difference is between these scanning methods. Should the light always come from the top? Why? Are modern flatbed scanners able to turn off the underlight to be used with a light source from the top?

I used to have a real old HP scanner that came with a transparancy lightbox type unit to put over negatives. It ended up breaking awhile back and never even used that feature. Is this the sort of device I need or could I make do with a typical flatbed scanner?

Thebes
23-Jan-2010, 20:34
Would you consider a CHEAP film scanner? I just picked up an Epson 4490, PITA to use because I have to arrange my neg on some small nylon washers I use for spacers, scan a 3" swath of it, then move it, scan again, and stitch it. I also place something in the top left to trick the scanner into scanning transparencies without a holder. My setup cost a bit over a hundred bucks, while it is not nice it works and I get plenty of resolution... just the workflow is slow and occasionally results in cussing. I'm stitching in photoshop cs3, but I imagine there is some way of doing it with the Gimp (free and goodstuff if you are poor).

A 4990 would be a lot better. I'm suggesting this as a good alternative to a lightbox and macro lens, not as an alternative to an Epson 700 or 4990 which I presume are out of your price range.

No, a dslr photo of your negative is nowhere close to the information you will get from a scanner.

venchka
23-Jan-2010, 20:42
The Epson V-700/V-750M twins are newer than the Epson 4990. The "improvement" is hard to see. If a complete, low mileage, cheap 4990 drops in your lap take it.

Jon Shiu
23-Jan-2010, 21:09
Other older (cheaper) Epson scanners with good film scanning capabilities are the 4870 model and the 3200.

Jon

Frank Petronio
23-Jan-2010, 21:21
The Epson 4990 sells refurbed or used for around $200 and it will scan 8x10 or you can do quick and dirty four 4x5s laid on the platen (no holder). It's more or less the same guts as the current 700-series.

If you go back in time with an older Epson, Microtek, or even an Agfa flatbed, besides basic functionality and compatibility (SCSI interfaces, older operating systems...) look for at least a 4x5 transparency area, ie the lightbox built into the top lid. 8x10 will always be better.

twiztedtony
24-Jan-2010, 00:09
if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.

This looks like the cheepest way here!
I usually use 5x7 but
i lke 8x11 because then u can use that foto and edit it without the worry of
distortion..

Bill Burk
24-Jan-2010, 01:22
I only meant for you to shoot the neg on a lightbox for your quick and dirty proofs. The flatbed without backlight won't work. But these recommended scanners sound like what you really will need if you aren't going to do wet darkroom work. If you are going to do wet darkroom work you could make 8x10 prints and scan them on the reflection flatbed.

marshallarts
24-Jan-2010, 12:25
This looks like the cheepest way here!
I usually use 5x7 but
i lke 8x11 because then u can use that foto and edit it without the worry of
distortion..
But, as I asked earlier, what is the point of using a white sheet of paper on top when in fact scanners have a white ceiling?! And why would there be a difference between using 5x7 or 8x11?--there's definitely something I'm missing here that is not being explained. What are you talking about?

As for using a transparency holder with light, is all I need is this device to put over the negative? In that case I may be able to find one like I had for my old HP ScanJet 5370C which included a transparency lightbox thing up to 5x5. Or would this not work with my scanner for some reason (i.e. because it needs to tell your scanner not to light it from under but only use the light above?)

Am I correct? I just need some help understanding this. And why would two people suggest a white piece of paper when in fact the ceiling is white? What's the point?

Jon Shiu
24-Jan-2010, 16:21
Hi, you are correct in that you don't need the paper if your lid is white inside. I have tried that method and it doesn't work too well. Also putting a lid light source on a scanner not designed for it doesn't work very well.

In my opinion, taking a digital camera picture of the negative on top of a lightbox or improvised light source such as translucent plexiglass would work fine for proofing. Then you can invert the image in photoshop to view it.

Jon

Gem Singer
24-Jan-2010, 17:03
The difference is between a photo copier and photo scanner.

The light in a copier is reflected back onto the scanning head. The light in a scanner is transmitted through the negative or transparency onto the scanning head.

You need a photo scanner, such as the Epson 4990, in order to properly scan negatives and transparencies into the digital realm.

marshallarts
24-Jan-2010, 17:47
The difference is between a photo copier and photo scanner.

The light in a copier is reflected back onto the scanning head. The light in a scanner is transmitted through the negative or transparency onto the scanning head.

You need a photo scanner, such as the Epson 4990, in order to properly scan negatives and transparencies into the digital realm.
Thank you for clearing that for my Gem Singer.

Maybe I should rethink my question. My intent was to ease my learning curve not making my own contact prints, and to save money with those chemicals and paper. Throwing an enlarger in the mix doubles that, not to mention I live in a TINY NYC apartment with my fiance, my bathroom is smaller than most closets. Can't imagine an enlarger is an option.

If I were to make contact prints, would they be more impressive than anything I could possibly make by scanning with the Epson 4990? Maybe I should consider learning to do contact prints. If I want enlargements I could scan the contacts.

If you had the option of scanning a negative with an Epson 4990 or making a contact print, which do you feel offers best image quality? Which would you choose?

Gem Singer
24-Jan-2010, 18:16
The quality of a wet contact print and a dry digital print, made from a negative that has been scanned with a high quality photo scanner and edited it in Photoshop, is rapidly equalizing due to tech advancements.

However, scanning and Photoshop skills require a steep learning curve in order to master them.

A high quality flat bed scanner, inkjet printer, paper, and ink requires a much larger dollar investment than a simple set up for contact printing (think Edward Weston).

However, enlarging a print on a photo copier will not give you the same quality as a wet print that was made with an optical enlarger.

marshallarts
24-Jan-2010, 18:58
The quality of a wet contact print and a dry digital print, made from a negative that has been scanned with a high quality photo scanner and edited it in Photoshop, is rapidly equalizing due to tech advancements.

However, scanning and Photoshop skills require a steep learning curve in order to master them.

A high quality flat bed scanner, inkjet printer, paper, and ink requires a much larger dollar investment than a simple set up for contact printing (think Edward Weston).

However, enlarging a print on a photo copier will not give you the same quality as a wet print that was made with an optical enlarger.
Making an enlargement on my own may be out of the question, but I could always take the original negative into a shop here in NYC should I take an exceptional photo and want it enlarged.

I know Photoshop fairly well already (being I shoot digital normally, I'm new to 4x5 film). As for a high quality scan, my question is making a contact print versus the highest possible scan an Epson 4990 could do (not a HQ drum scan).

Are you considering an Epson 4990 scan high quality? Or would it's capabilities be inferior in IQ/resolution to a contact print?

Sorry to run in circles, here. I know there are many variables, but we need to keep in mind the limited resources I began the topic about.

Tim Meisburger
24-Jan-2010, 20:42
I have shot negatives on a light table (or against a light blue sky on a window). This works if you just want to see the image, or post it on a website, and if you set it up carefully you can achieve digital camera quality. Also, I often use my cell phone to pre-view negatives as they hang to dry. In the custom options I set the phone to "negative", then view the negative, which of course yields a positive. Not very useful, but satisfies curiosity.

4x5 contacts can look rather nice, and are easy as heck to make even in a closet. All you need is a four watt light, three small trays, chemicals and paper. A safelight is also very helpful, but not necessary. When I was in Indonesia recently I set up in a closet under the stairs, made a safelight from a red christmas bulb and a red plastic sandwich box, and cranked out 4x5 contacts for my relatives. It is easiest to have 4x5 paper, as you can adjust time for each shot, but you can lay four on an 8x10 if the exposure is similar, or for proofing.

Gem Singer
24-Jan-2010, 21:09
Your original question was "what is the cheapest way to get negatives into a computer".

I stand by my answer, an inexpensive flatbed photo scanner, such as a used Epson 4990. However, cheapest isn't necessarily the best way to obtain high quality results.

I did not say that a scanned negative was as good as, or better than, a contact print. That is a subjective judgement on the part of the individual.

If you have Photoshop skills, using an Epson 4990 to scan negatives can produce very high quality results. Of course the skill level of the person who scans the negative and prints it digitally has a great deal of influence on the final result.

If you decide to contact print your 4x5 negatives, the resulting 4x5 prints can be very high in quality. However, making enlargements of those prints with a photo copier can be very disappointing.

That's the best answer I can offer.

marshallarts
25-Jan-2010, 05:55
Thank you both for your suggestions. I know a lot goes into this and the answer isn't always straight forward. I appreciate you taking the time to give me your feedback.

Frank Petronio
25-Jan-2010, 08:13
Scanning a 4x5 contact print on any scanner will not be as good as scanning your film on a decent prosumer flatbed like the Epson 4990 or 700/750.

The reason you'd want to make a 4x5 contact is because they have a special quality unto themselves. Also scale plays an important role, shooting for a small 4x5 print may change your thoughts on composition and tone compared to having a big 16x20 print as your final art.

If I were in a cramped apartment I would probably want to shoot 4x5, either Portra 400NC C41 color neg or Tri-X B&W, and have it processed at a pro lab. Then I'd scan it on a Epson 4990 and make a good inkjet, sending out for larger prints if needed.

If I did contact prints and film developing in a minimalist kitchen sink operation, then that would be additional. But I wouldn't bother -- 4x5 contact prints are sweet but nothing I want to pursue in depth, and breathing photo chemistry in your apartment is no fun.

Robert Hughes
25-Jan-2010, 09:23
... breathing photo chemistry in your apartment is no fun.
Sounds like the advice of someone who has lived downwind from Kodak.

csant
25-Jan-2010, 10:08
I use the V500, which is the cheap brother of the V700. Can take up to two 6x6cm (medium format), which means that for a 4x5" sheet you'll have to scan twice and stitch, and for 5x7 scan four times and stitch. But now I am scanning my 8x10 contact prints and don't need the transparency anymore. Something I have always been wondering about, but never got around trying: to scan film, you need a light source above, and one below. You could put a lightbox around the scanner and leave the lid open, but uniform light will be your challenge. I have been wondering, but still haven't tried using a mirror to cover the scanner - should give you reflected uniform light from above, too… Has anybody tried this already?