Professional scanned negatives

[ckchen72]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I venture out into the digital realm I first wanted to say thanks for all the wonderfful posts and threads. I am loving my new M8! I am however wondering what to do with my favorite tri-x negatives. I was wondering where and how people recommeded getting there negatives scanned and stored. How big of a file are you looking at, traditional vs drum roll scanners. Your thoughts are much appreciated!

 

Calvin

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[DTD]

If you have more than a few, it's probably more economical to buy your own neg scanner and do it yourself.

 

Keep negatives, back up on CD-R (buy a good brand) and keep on a hard drive. Keep all three in different places.

[hrosell]

Hi Calvin!

I am still awaiting my M8 but I have several thousands of B&W negs which until about two years ago I used to print at my wet lab (LPL 7452 VCCE 4x5" enlarger). Now I am printing with an Epson 4000 and Cone's K7 black pigment inks. I started scanning negs four years ago with my Nikon SuperCoolscan 8000 ED, originally with Nikon's propietary software but by mid last year I switched to SilverFast scannig software for this model. The SilverFast thing is a bit more complicate (and extensive in the options it offers) to use, but the results are better. Negative scanning definitely has a learning curve but within a reasonablle time you will become proficient enough to enjoy it. I know there are better scanners like Imacon for instance but they are much more expensive, but with the kind of the Nikon I am talking about (or present equivalent scanners) you might be satisfied at a cost around 5 times less than the top end ones. The improvement in image detail can be outstanding though! The drum types are the best but they are not affordable unless you are a pro and can get a return for its use.

FYG I mostly concentrate in fine art B&W printing for exhibitions and sales and the combination of Leica cameras + lenses + Nikon Coolscan + SilverFast + Photoshop CS2 and some plug-ins + Epson large format printers proved to be certainly satisfying for my requirements.

Regarding file sizes, well... that is another topic. It will depend on whether you scan at 8 or 16 (14) bits, but most particularly on your final workflow and the sizes at which you intend to print. In any case, prepare yourself (and this is more valid yet for the digital M8) for large amounts of RAM, hard disk space, and redundant archival systems like external hard drives, CDs, etc.

Regards,

 

Horacio

[ckchen72]

I have just a few negatives that I really want scanned for digital use and storage. Any recommendations on a place, and should it defintitely be drum scanned? Print sizes about 16x20.

 

Thanks!

Calvin

[ChrisC]

I have just a few negatives that I really want scanned for digital use and storage. Any recommendations on a place, and should it definitely be drum scanned? Print sizes about 16x20.

 

I am glad you refined your question as the original post could have solicited several volumes as an answer. I have had appalling drum scans, have used Imacon scanners, and eventually bought my own Nikon 9000 scanner.

 

There is a learning curve to scanning, so operator skill and care is of primary importance to the quality of the final scan file. The Nikon 9000 scanner has design stupidity issues with their film holders, but with adaptation and application, produce excellent results which [in the case of my own scans] are preferable to the scans I previously did with a 'higher end' i.e. over priced Imacon scanner.

 

The Nikon 9000 uses Digital Ice to clean up dust and scratches on colour film, but it doesn't work with B/W, the Imacons do not [unless there is an update I am not aware of] have Digital Ice for colour so all scans are likely to require clean up time. Digital Ice is effective. Good drum scans can be relatively free of 'file cleaning' issues.

 

For 20x16 print size, I would suggest that a drum scan is not necessary, though a good drum scan will give the best scan a well made Imacon scan should serve your needs. I would recommend scanning for a 16 bit file if you are doing post production work, and if outputting to an Epson printer have the scan written at 360 dpi, with the negative scanned at the scanner's highest scanning resolution. If you are not wise to the voodoo world of Colour Spaces, ensure that the scan file is written in a colour space no smaller than Adobe 98. If purchasing an Imacon scan [i.e. without Digital Ice or similar cleaning] insist on no dust retouching by the operator, do a subtler retouch yourself. Ensure you insist on an 'open' histogram with NO file clipping, under no circumstances let the scanner operator throw file information away; they can be heavy handed with histograms! INSIST on NO sharpening of the file, though the chances are your instruction will be ignored. A good scan can appear rather flat, it's the job of file mastering to bring it to life.

 

The larger the intended print output size, the better the scan needs to be of course. In the case of my own scans, I scan at the scanners maximum resolution and output [i.e no scaling in the scanning software], and after precise cropping of the scan I downsize to my chosen archive size of 240 Mb [that's 16 bit, 360 dpi]. My Nikon scans of 6x9 negatives, both colour and B/W, with finished files, are capable of being printed 40 inches wide when using an adjusted print output of 180 dpi. I archive the original file, the second stage of the 'worked' file, and a final, finished file, this is heavy on electronic storage. I keep the Photoshop layers of my 'Working' file and my 'Final' file intact until I am satisfied with the image, only then do I flatten all layers.

 

Whew .....there's more, lots more; but I hope this helps.

 

....................Chris

 

PS I hate scanning with a passion.

[joern]

If you realy want only a few negatives be scanned then i would choose a prof drum scanner service.

 

Scanning of negatives is a complex and time consuming procedure.

For sure nothing to do by the way.

 

So save time and nervs and let it be done by a pro. If you tell them your output file size than it wouldn´t cost a fortune. I guess that for about 15-20 Dollars you will get a great file wich is it worth to print / manipulate. And don´t forget to say you want 16bit files.

 

It is just a thought.

 

jørn

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Chris,

 

The Imacon ia fantastic scanner - I own a 646 and have been very happy with it. The Nikon is good too, but can be very slooooow compared to the Imacon. And the Imacon keeps the negs flat which I hear can be a real problem with the Nikon. Of course, like you said, it all comes down to operating the software (ie knowing your curves and levels and settings). If the poster can rent an Imacon for a day, a good way to go is to scan the negs in 3F, their proprietary raw format, and then work on them at home with the flexcolor software installed. That way you can play with levels, curves, colors, etc when outputting a tiff in your own time without corrupting the scan. Make sure somebody can walk you through the process first or try and read the software manual.

 

Drum scans can't be beat of course, but it is imperative you give the scanning operator a match to go by. They're expensive and so you want to be on the same page (I won't go into any horror stories here).

[ChrisC]

The Imacon is a fantastic scanner....... The Nikon is good too, but can be very slooooow compared to the Imacon..... the Imacon keeps the negs flat which I hear can be a real problem with the Nikon.....Drum scans can't be beat of course.........

 

Charles - The last Imacon I used extensively was the 848, and yes the saving grace of the Imacons is the film transport which ensures edge to edge in-focus scans, however they do have in-built hidden sharpening which needs to be set to [if my wretched memory serves me correctly] -60 sharpening to be off.

 

The Nikon 9000 is an extremely good scanner which needs drastic modification of the film trays to get edge to edge sharpness. As this place is where M8 users need to be, the Yahoo Nikon 8000/9000 User Group is the equivalent place for users of these scanners; it is there I learnt the modifications I made to my Nikon trays. My Nikon scans are preferable to my 848 scans.

 

At their best, drum scans can be fantastic, and if you give a transparency to be scanned [the OP has negatives]. However the worst scans I have had were drum scans from the two best scanning houses in the city where I live, hence the words of caution in my post. As in all things, 'customer beware'.

 

............................... Chris