How to digitise 35mm negatives

[mattpope]

I'm interested to look into digitising my 35mm film negatives. I've always been put off by the cost and time associated with the hardware plus I've just not had the time. What are the current "best" options? Storage is now cheap enough, hopefully the hardware and software is more affordable and gives the right results.....

It seems like the kind of gear that you buy, use and then sell on. Any ideas much appreciated. What has everyone else done with their negatives and slides?

Cheers.

Matt

[Rebaseonu]

Doing it well by yourself is a lot of work, I mean A LOT. There are many variables, like what quality do you expect, what size/resolution etc. If you want to have full control over the process and know how to tweak images then you can do it yourself.
It is also possible to scan all your stuff in lab, the same small digital/film minilabs that are everywhere can basically also scan your film in bulk, without making prints. From there you'll get auto-adjusted images (even film scratches and dust is removed), similar to prints from film.
I scan with my own Nikon Coolscan V film scanner, but it is slow process.

[Rebaseonu]

Although too cheap ($150) to be good, there is interesting new device available:

Wolverine F2D Film Scanner

The concept is very interesting but I doubt it will deliver good results. But perhaps for mainstream customers the quality of scanned images is acceptable. I have not had a chance to see any scans from it.

[AliBaba]

To get decent quality you have to use a dedicated film-scanner.
As Rebaseonu says it’s a lot of work, I have scanned 2000+ negatives and dias and it took quite some time.

If you use a good scanner and learn the basics you can get great results. I have prints in 50*75 cm and they look great!

One tip is to learn the basics before you start volume-scanning.

If you choose to do it in a shop check quality and picture-size.

BTW: I used Minolta Elite 5400

[Linzi]

Hi, can I ask which should be used if scanning is to be done followed my sending digital images to editor? Negative film or positive? I want to buy a used, quality film SLR camera for the first few jobs. Linzi.

[AliBaba]

With a quality scanner (high dynamic range) you can get best results with negative film, but sadly negative film is more difficult to scan so in the end the quality depends on the operator.

I have used mostly positive film so maybe that’s the reason why I struggle with negative film.

Some types of film are more difficult then other, personally I like Fuji Sensia or Fuji Velvia 50, both are positive film.

[Linzi]

Thanks, it's down to me now to get good shots for the scanner. Linzi.

[teflon]

Originally Posted by Linzi

Hi, can I ask which should be used if scanning is to be done followed my sending digital images to editor? Negative film or positive? I want to buy a used, quality film SLR camera for the first few jobs. Linzi.

You can get a professional spec slr for about £50 on ebay - most of them amateur used.

Film is best chosen for the subject, not the actual scanner. Just use something you know.

Good luck.

[backofbeyond]

Originally Posted by Linzi

Hi, can I ask which should be used if scanning is to be done followed my sending digital images to editor? Negative film or positive? I want to buy a used, quality film SLR camera for the first few jobs. Linzi.

If you're really going to go down this route don't even think about using neg film. Slide film is hard enough to digitise to acceptable standards but you'll tear your hair out trying to do the same with neg film.
Most of the diy film scanners don't really have a good enough d max for contrasty film like Velvia. They're ok for personal use but I've had pre press guys telling editors that images are not good enough for publication in the past. If you only have a few to do you'd be better off farming it out to a bureau to scan on a drum scanner.

For the cost of a good film SLR and a reasonable scanner you could probably buy a good secondhand digital SLR - Nikon D200 for example and bypass all of these problems.

[AliBaba]

A few years ago I used a company which had a drum-scanner. The result was very good but it was expensive.
If you have a quality scanner and do your tweaking right the result is as good as most dSLRs.

Velvia is difficult to scan and it’s easy to loose details in the dark areas, especially if the exposure is not 100%.
It might be an idea to test your setup before you leave.

Now I use a dSLR and I would not say that all the “problems” are gone. You don’t have to scan anymore but the tweaking is still there. You also have to pay for backup-solutions, memory-cards++ and the camera itself is more fragile.
It’s also more expensive to get a decent wide angle (for most cameras).

[backofbeyond]

I may be coming at this from a different perspective as this kind of stuff has been my day job for the last 20+ years and usually it's anything for an easy life / time is money etc.

Very few of the magazines / P.R. agencies etc I've worked for would accept images shot on neg film unless they were really desperate for that image and even then the printed results were frequently poor.

If the image was shot on tranny film they would want the original to scan themselves as a lot of pre press companies ran a closed system that was internally consistent but could produce off colours etc if the scan came in from outside. If you insisted on sending your own scan data they would want you to take financial responsibility for the press run in case the results were unacceptable - something, fairly obviously, you would never do.

Since digital cameras have become widespread everybody is now used to receiving RGB digital files but they have to be in the right colour space etc. I've not shot 35 mm film of any sort for 7 or 8 yrs now so I've no recent experience but I do wonder if editors / pre press are still used to dealing with transparencies in the way they used to be. I'm sure there are some specialist publications that are but a lot of general, backs to the wall financially magazines may not want the added expense of paying for a scan but would be unhappy when a supplied tranny scan reproduces badly.

Tweaking digital camera files is a LOT (about x10) quicker than scanning / correcting tranny film and imho unless you're using medium format film (and then scanning costs go through the roof) the quality from dSLRs is much better than from scanned 35mm slides - even drum scanned ones. For me the break even point was around 5 - 6m pixels equaling scanned 35mm quality.

Bottom line is, I suppose, don't make a rod for your own back. If you're starting from scratch doing what what is normal industry practice makes life a lot easier.

[AliBaba]

Thanks, nice to see how a professional thinks.
I have done some comments based on my experience making a few articles the last 7 years.

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

Very few of the magazines / P.R. agencies etc I've worked for would accept images shot on neg film unless they were really desperate for that image and even then the printed results were frequently poor.

In my experience this was valid when you delivered the film directly to the magazine, and I think it had technical reasons.
Nowadays you give them a file and it’s the quality of the picture that counts. It doesn’t matter if you have used positive film, negative film or a digital camera.
But it is easier to get a good scan on positive film.

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

If the image was shot on tranny film they would want the original to scan themselves as a lot of pre press companies ran a closed system that was internally consistent but could produce off colours etc if the scan came in from outside. If you insisted on sending your own scan data they would want you to take financial responsibility for the press run in case the results were unacceptable - something, fairly obviously, you would never do.

Since 2003 (when the Mag I write for wanted files instead of positive film) they wanted me to provide the scan.
But I’m sure it can be different and I think it’s vise to talk to the customers before you go on a trip. Show them some pictures and ask if that’s how they like it.

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

Since digital cameras have become widespread everybody is now used to receiving RGB digital files but they have to be in the right colour space etc. I've not shot 35 mm film of any sort for 7 or 8 yrs now so I've no recent experience but I do wonder if editors / pre press are still used to dealing with transparencies in the way they used to be. I'm sure there are some specialist publications that are but a lot of general, backs to the wall financially magazines may not want the added expense of paying for a scan but would be unhappy when a supplied tranny scan reproduces badly.

I don’t think most of them are used to deal with film anymore, but you hand them the file so that’s not a problem.

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

Tweaking digital camera files is a LOT (about x10) quicker than scanning / correcting tranny film and imho unless you're using medium format film (and then scanning costs go through the roof) the quality from dSLRs is much better than from scanned 35mm slides - even drum scanned ones. For me the break even point was around 5 - 6m pixels equaling scanned 35mm quality.

Yes the analog workflow is slow and painful. For someone who works with this on daily basis it’s far to slow. For someone that publishes 20 pictures a year it doesn’t matter that much.

As you know the breaking point is hard to define. I have made picture in 50*75 cm based on Velvia 50 and I have not managed to get the same quality from my 10MPIX dSLR. But the dSLR is much better then Sensia 200.

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

Bottom line is, I suppose, don't make a rod for your own back. If you're starting from scratch doing what what is normal industry practice makes life a lot easier.

Yes I agree, if you can fork out the cash.

My point is that both analog and digital cameras are up to the job, digital has a higher entry-level price and analog requires more work.

[Linzi]

Hi, my needs just now are very specific. I have a tight deadline to meet, little cash to play with and must produce publishable quality. I'm going for a used Canon EOS film, pro quality colour ASA 400 and need to produce the goods. Later, after a breather, I'll look into it more closely. My main concern is why do banks make it so difficult to rob them these days when you need cash fast? How selfish can you get? Linzi.

[teflon]

Originally Posted by backofbeyond

... I've no recent experience but I do wonder if editors / pre press are still used to dealing with transparencies in the way they used to be...

Used to be medium format for cover/centre page and digi for the rest. Just handed the jpegs over at the end of the day and sent the processed film later, but that was a couple of years ago. Was actually given a drum scanner. Only a small one, but still £40000 when it was new - just not today.

This thread's taken a turn. Poor Matt.:confused1:

[teflon]

Originally Posted by Linzi

Hi, my needs just now are very specific. I have a tight deadline to meet, little cash to play with and must produce publishable quality. I'm going for a used Canon EOS film, pro quality colour ASA 400 and need to produce the goods. Later, after a breather, I'll look into it more closely. My main concern is why do banks make it so difficult to rob them these days when you need cash fast? How selfish can you get? Linzi.

Good luck Linzi. Break a leg an' all that.