Saving negs digitally

[flatfour]

I have just started to save my B&W and colour negs digitally but can't decide what size to make the files. It's tempting to make them as large as possible but a.) it takes a long time and b.) is it necessary?

What size do you think each file should be ?

I'm not going to destroy the negs but it's handy to have a jpeg ready to print.

[Michael Hiles]

I scan and save with a setting of 1200 dpi. It is good enough for any screen application like this site, and provides enough for an adequate 6x9 inch print. This seems like a good balance between speed of scan, use of disk space and quality.

While I rarely have big-ish digital prints made, when I do, I rescan the negative for maximum resolution etc. and go at it with photoshop as I would in a darkroom. But this is rare enough that the time to rescan in insignificant.

Most of my stuff is B&W and when I want a framed "fine" print, I go to my enlarger and silver paper. Still the best for my purposes. I like digital colour prints, partly because I - so far - need so few that firing up a cibachrome session is just too much.

Probably more than you wanted to read.

[alw]

I´m in the same position presently. I´ve read somewhere, that the maximum resolution of a 35mm neg is around 4800dpi. Of course I´m not going to use that, but it´s good to know.

[vieri]

This is my workflow (98% B/W negatives here):

- load them in Coolscan and choose the ones which will be scanned;
- scan only the selected ones at max res. (4000 dpi, if memory serves), 8x, 16 bit;
- save as TIFF (about 130 MB!);
- open in PS;
- perform: unsharp mask; eventual cloning of dust; levels; etc;
- crop out the scanner's edge;
- resize to 12 MP (old Nikon D2x, new D300 - D3 size);
- final PP if needed;
- save for the web;

I do keep the .psd PS file, and upload the web-sized jpg on my server.

The reasoning is that I like to have all the pixels I can get for editing; once I am done, I can resize for archiving (noise improves as well with resizing). Hope this helps!

[mindlessdocumentation]

My way: First of all, edit well in advance. If you're not excited enough about an image to take time in your scanning is it really worth it? Bring a book to keep you entertained.

Then scan your selected images in the highest possible quality available to you (Nikon users click off Ice, Unsharp mask, and turn on the CCD super fine scan) and save them as TIFF files.

Take these files and back them up without altering them. These are your "master scan" files. When you want to use one of them make a copy of the original in a separate folder as your "work" file.

Rest easy in the knowledge that you have a high resolution backup of your film and that you will never need to scan the image again as you can just go to the master copy and resize it.

[rob_x2004]

Originally Posted by vieri

8x

Any discernable difference from 4x ?

[vieri]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Any discernable difference from 4x ?

Actually, I am not sure if I really see it or I see it because I want to see it but, if you can spare a minute for it, it can't hurt, can it?

[osscat]

What is wrong about scanning to a specific print size and resolution?

Say - destination size 12x9 with resolution of either 240 or 300.

Surely that would produce a reasonable print would it not?

Osscat

[alw]

Originally Posted by osscat

What is wrong about scanning to a specific print size and resolution?

Say - destination size 12x9 with resolution of either 240 or 300.

Surely that would produce a reasonable print would it not?

Osscat

That´s what I would like to know too. Does scanning huge files and then downsizing produce better images?

[phc]

I'd say it depends on what you're going to use the scans for. A pretty low res image is fine if you just want a digital catalogue, but if you want them all instantly available to print that's a different matter entirely. I scan at the lowest res I need for the specific use, knowing that if I need a higher res scan I've got the neg on the shelf.

To be honest, if you want all your work stored digitally, why not just shoot digital in the first place?

Cheers, P.

[haris]

Originally Posted by alw

That´s what I would like to know too. Does scanning huge files and then downsizing produce better images?

Yes.

And it helps against moire too.

[haris]

Originally Posted by phc

...

To be honest, if you want all your work stored digitally, why not just shoot digital in the first place?

Cheers, P.

Having in mind today's (available to people, who knows what thechology is here now under "top secret" mode) techonogy, for (serious) digital imagers and institutions, and (some of) they already use it, best achiving process is to convert digital files and save them on microfilms. Equipment exsists which convert digital files to code which is then projected and captured on microfilm, as well as equipment which "reads" image (code) from microfilm and convert it to digital file.

So, if one wants to preserve images for long time, film is still No1 choice.

[phc]

Originally Posted by haris

So, if one wants to preserve images for long time, film is still No1 choice.

Nicely put! I had no idea such technology existed but I can see the attraction of it. From my point of view, I like being able to pull a file off the shelf, take out a strip of negs, and hold the image, physically, in my hand. Of course I use digital technology extensively - and love it - but I like the physical aspect of my choice of media.

How's life in Sarajevo? I haven't been there for a few years now, since my project to document the mine clearance workers fell through.

Cheers, P.

[haris]

Originally Posted by phc

Nicely put! I had no idea such technology existed but I can see the attraction of it. From my point of view, I like being able to pull a file off the shelf, take out a strip of negs, and hold the image, physically, in my hand. Of course I use digital technology extensively - and love it - but I like the physical aspect of my choice of media.

How's life in Sarajevo? I haven't been there for a few years now, since my project to document the mine clearance workers fell through.

Cheers, P.

Thanks.

Life here is bad, but don't worry, it gradually going to worse.

[haris]

Originally Posted by phc

Nicely put! I had no idea such technology existed but I can see the attraction of it. From my point of view, I like being able to pull a file off the shelf, take out a strip of negs, and hold the image, physically, in my hand. Of course I use digital technology extensively - and love it - but I like the physical aspect of my choice of media...
Cheers, P.

Well, in example I wrote about, you won't see much, never mind you will have physical medium (microfim) in hands. Code is not image you can recognize as such, it is image of dots and lines (as far as I know, could be wrong), so only reading machine can interpret that and conver it to image file. Microfilm is used only as it is proven technology, as people know that microfilm images can last decades if not centuries, and no one really knows how long CD, DVD, HDD, flash, etc... data can last. And we already have experience of lots of CDs and DVDs data (music, movies, images, files, etc...) lost which were recorded only few months to few years ago.

[Photoskeptic]

I scan @ 4000 dpi.
Open the image in PS and change to 360 or 300 dpi depending on what I think the usage will be. Re-size the photo size to 12" or 14" on the big end also depending on usage. This produces a usable file which is not too large.
BTW, these are TIF files. If you use JPEGS the file size will be much, much smaller. If you are scanning years of negs you might want to increase the capacity of your computer or add another hard drive

[Rolo]

I always scan to the maximum resolution for the 'base' file - 4000 ppi and 16 bit in my case, save as TIFF and back-up.

Then, as time allows, clean up the file to remove dust, post process, crop to suit and then resize for the maximum print/screen size ever needed and convert to 8 bit.

Resize and make jPeg copies for web use as necessary. Retain TIFF files and back-ups, but delete jPegs when applications are exhausted on the basis they can always be reproduced.

I should also save backups to DVD and store off-site, but I don't, but I do save long term back-ups to an independent drive.

I have about 50,000 film & digi images stored this way and manage assignments in job folders with structured folder names via Bridge. The critical actions are deleting all files and film negs that have zero value for the future and not storing multiple copies in RAW/TIFF/jPeg & colour/B&W of those that have. These enable me to reduce the original files to 1/3 of shoot.

Might not be the best way of handling this, but it's working better than most I come across.

Rolo