scanning negatives – need advice

F
Posted By
friesian
Jan 25, 2007
Views
401
Replies
7
Status
Closed
I’ve been scanning all my old negatives to dave old family photos, and also to create a more complete portfolio for my photos. Many do not need to be printed larger than 4×6, but some do.

I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10. This is onscreen too, not my printer.

I have checked my scanner, and it has Optical Scan Resolution 3200 x 6400 dpi. I have read the archives, and I have found many posts that 4000dpi should be good, so this ought to be fairly decent.

My guess is that I am not getting the best out of my scanner. The driver I have gives me the option of choosing my output size and resolution, but it does not say what it is actually scanning at. How do I make sure I am getting the most out of it?

I have also seen some references to Digital Ice. I actually have that program but have never used it. It came with an old digital camera. Would this help me at all?

I know that a dedicated film scanner would be best. Unfortuinately, I already bought one and could not get it to work with any computer in my house (4), so I lost the money on that, and I cannot sell it, since I cannot prove that it works. (I bought it used from somebody else).

I have several thousand frames I would like to scan, so paying a professional place is not something I can do right now. Just too spendy. I will probably buy a new scanner in a few months, but I cannot afford to spend more than a $100 on one right now, and I keep finding ones that are no better than what I already have.

My scanner is a Canon CanoScan 4200F.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

LB
Larry Bud
Jan 25, 2007
I’ve been scanning all my old negatives to dave old family photos, and also to create a more complete portfolio for my photos. Many do not need to be printed larger than 4×6, but some do.

I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10. This is onscreen too, not my printer.

I have checked my scanner, and it has Optical Scan Resolution 3200 x 6400 dpi. I have read the archives, and I have found many posts that 4000dpi should be good, so this ought to be fairly decent.
My guess is that I am not getting the best out of my scanner. The driver I have gives me the option of choosing my output size and resolution, but it does not say what it is actually scanning at. How do I make sure I am getting the most out of it?

Short of telling you to read the manual, I’ve never seen a scanner driver which wouldn’t scan at the resolution chosen, unless that resolution is higher than the optical resolution.

I’m not sure by what you mean with " I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better
color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10. This is onscreen too, not my printer."

What do you mean "this is onscreen too"??? Inches don’t really mean anything when viewing an image on screen. Pixel size is the ONLY thing that matter, and to display an image that’s probably 4000×4000 on your screen, you’ll obviously have to resize it to make it fit.
F
friesian
Jan 25, 2007
On Jan 25, 5:43 am, "Larry Bud" wrote:

Short of telling you to read the manual, I’ve never seen a scanner driver which wouldn’t scan at the resolution chosen, unless that resolution is higher than the optical resolution.

It has me choose the final size. So, I can choose that I want a 300dpi image at 8×10. But tha doesn’t tell me what size the actual negative is being scanned at.

I’m not sure by what you mean with " I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better
color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10.

It’s not pixelated, but it’s grainy.

This is onscreen too, not my printer."

What do you mean "this is onscreen too"??? Inches don’t really mean anything when viewing an image on screen. Pixel size is the ONLY thing that matter, and to display an image that’s probably 4000×4000 on your screen, you’ll obviously have to resize it to make it fit.

If I show it on screen larger than about 5×7 it looks grainy there too. The files are large, 40-60 MB. They just don’t look good when printed out or displayed large.

If I scan the print and blow it up, it ldoesn’t have that look, but it depends on the print having been printed well. Sometimes the machine was fooled by the background, or they cropped a bit that I need. I would rather work from the negatives.
J
jaSPAMc
Jan 26, 2007
On 25 Jan 2007 14:15:23 -0800, ""
found these unused words floating about:

On Jan 25, 5:43 am, "Larry Bud" wrote:

Short of telling you to read the manual, I’ve never seen a scanner driver which wouldn’t scan at the resolution chosen, unless that resolution is higher than the optical resolution.

It has me choose the final size. So, I can choose that I want a 300dpi image at 8×10. But tha doesn’t tell me what size the actual negative is being scanned at.

300×8 by 300×10 = 2400 x 3000 pixels

I’m not sure by what you mean with " I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better
color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10.

It’s not pixelated, but it’s grainy.

Yep, get a grain reducer plug-in. That’s the film ‘noise’ you’re seeing.

This is onscreen too, not my printer."

What do you mean "this is onscreen too"??? Inches don’t really mean anything when viewing an image on screen. Pixel size is the ONLY thing that matter, and to display an image that’s probably 4000×4000 on your screen, you’ll obviously have to resize it to make it fit.

If I show it on screen larger than about 5×7 it looks grainy there too. The files are large, 40-60 MB. They just don’t look good when printed out or displayed large.

Monitors don’t have inch sizes … that’s probably your software fooling you and attempting to show what the print -=might=- look like. Thought you’ll have to pan, always make decisions at 100%.

Since you’re in a PS group, we -=assume=- you use PS … watch the viewing size in the -=percentage=- window.

If I scan the print and blow it up, it ldoesn’t have that look, but it depends on the print having been printed well. Sometimes the machine was fooled by the background, or they cropped a bit that I need. I would rather work from the negatives.
K
KatWoman
Jan 26, 2007
wrote in message
I’ve been scanning all my old negatives to dave old family photos, and also to create a more complete portfolio for my photos. Many do not need to be printed larger than 4×6, but some do.

I have not been happy with my scans from the negatives. I do get better color and detail, but they don’t look as nice when printed at 8×10. This is onscreen too, not my printer.

I have checked my scanner, and it has Optical Scan Resolution 3200 x 6400 dpi. I have read the archives, and I have found many posts that 4000dpi should be good, so this ought to be fairly decent.
My guess is that I am not getting the best out of my scanner. The driver I have gives me the option of choosing my output size and resolution, but it does not say what it is actually scanning at. How do I make sure I am getting the most out of it?

I have also seen some references to Digital Ice. I actually have that program but have never used it. It came with an old digital camera. Would this help me at all?

I know that a dedicated film scanner would be best. Unfortuinately, I already bought one and could not get it to work with any computer in my house (4), so I lost the money on that, and I cannot sell it, since I cannot prove that it works. (I bought it used from somebody else).
I have several thousand frames I would like to scan, so paying a professional place is not something I can do right now. Just too spendy. I will probably buy a new scanner in a few months, but I cannot afford to spend more than a $100 on one right now, and I keep finding ones that are no better than what I already have.
My scanner is a Canon CanoScan 4200F.

I have a Canoscan FS 4000
you did not say if the negs are color or bw
if they are bw
do the scan in color
and then convert back to bw in PS
I had crappy results with the grey scale scans
I also scan at the highest setting
you can always work on a copy or (quelle horruer) throw out some data later if figure it takes so long may as well get all the info you can get

sadly digital ice does not work on BW which I never knew till I got it it has poorly designed software
very difficult to control the curves
or any of the variables
and extremely slow
which each change it seems to scan it again
just for a preview
I had big ambition to digitize the millions of slides here too but……….

also some film is very grainy to begin with

and
if the negs are old color most likely you have to get rid of the orange shift
which can better explained by Mike Russell than me
F
friesian
Jan 26, 2007
On Jan 25, 5:19 pm, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

..Monitors don’t have inch sizes … that’s probably your software fooling you
and attempting to show what the print -=might=- look like. Thought you’ll have to pan, always make decisions at 100%.

Since you’re in a PS group, we -=assume=- you use PS … watch the viewing size in the -=percentage=- window.

Photoshop CS2

Interesting. I have been choosing print size since I wanted to see how it would look at that size. But that is much smaller than 100%. It looks absolutely horrid at 100%.

Thanks.
F
friesian
Jan 26, 2007
On Jan 25, 5:51 pm, "KatWoman"

..I have a Canoscan FS 4000
you did not say if the negs are color or bw

They are color. I will give them another try with higher resolution and try he Digital Ice.

also some film is very grainy to begin with

Good point. I used a lot of 800 speed film, so that is probably part of the problem.

I’m going to do some more experimenting. The family photos and fun stuff are fine. But I do want to save my animal photography at a higher quality level.
J
jaSPAMc
Jan 26, 2007
On 25 Jan 2007 17:57:44 -0800, ""
found these unused words floating about:

On Jan 25, 5:19 pm, Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

.Monitors don’t have inch sizes … that’s probably your software fooling you
and attempting to show what the print -=might=- look like. Thought you’ll have to pan, always make decisions at 100%.

Since you’re in a PS group, we -=assume=- you use PS … watch the viewing size in the -=percentage=- window.

Photoshop CS2

Interesting. I have been choosing print size since I wanted to see how it would look at that size. But that is much smaller than 100%. It looks absolutely horrid at 100%.

Thanks.

Doesn’t mater what it ‘looks like’ at 100% – that the true indication of what you have in the file.

If it’s bad, it’s bad. You have to work with the maximum you can scan in and then find tools to smooth (median) and remove noise, etc.

On the other reply – you mention you used 800 ASA – extremely grainy as a film – so it won’t be ‘improved’ by the scanning process -=before=- you apply any digital manipulations.

Digital Ice perhaps being the exception. I don’t use it, so ???

You might also try noise ninja on a NON Digital Iced scan and then on one with – I’m not sure whether DI would remove the information NN needs to analyze.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections