Scanning Photo Negatives

[shirk]

Looking for some insight on scanning old negatives to digital. I would like to preserve all my old pics by scanning the negatives. I figure this will provide a better quality picture than scanning the photos that were printed at the local photomat.

From quick google search it appears that this can be a massive time consuming process to get teh highest quality. But I think this is in referance to pro quality stuff. After editing the crap pictures out I estimate I have 200 ones that make the cut. How long would it take to scan 200 pics to a quality that could be blown up to say 8.5x11?

Next question would be equipment. Is it possible to rent a slide/negative scanner? Do quality photo shops offer this as a service? Not sure I would want to buy one as once I get all these loaded I have no use for it.

If you have any comments or ideas or experiences on scanning negatives lets hear them.

[bklyn]

You can rent film scanners but availability might depend on your location. Lots of labs offer this as a service, and in NY there is enough competition to keep prices reasonable, but 200 - all on different strips may cost you a pretty penny.

I do a bunch of film and slide scanning at home - it takes some time, even with experience and good a workflow.

Do you really want 200 or more 8x10s?

It might be easier to buy one, scan all your stuff and re-sell it on eBay. Or just get the photos you want printed at a lab.

[Core Shot]

If you ever scan a photo print, 300dpi is the best you can get. If you scan larger than that, you get a larger file but no better quality.
Even at 300dpi, scans of photos are not that great.

Definitely scan the negatives.

There are two types of film scanners.
Most cheap setups are regular flatbed scanners with a film holder and backlight. These are a pain to setup for each scan.
The better ones allow you to feed negative strips in like dollar bills in a vending machine. Much faster, I would think, but not sure since I haven't used that type.

What does it cost to hire it out?
Is there a reputable place to do that mail-order?

I would love to get the old shoeboxes of negatives from my ma's house and get the family pics scanned for online consumption.

Everyone should scan the best of their family photos so they can be shared with brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, and every succeeding generations for years to come.

[shirk]

Do you really want 200 or more 8x10s?

It might be easier to buy one, scan all your stuff and re-sell it on eBay. Or just get the photos you want printed at a lab.

Not all 200 would need to be scanned at a high quality. Maybe 50 at a high quality that would allow them to be enlarged at a later time.

The buy scanner use scanner and dump scanner on ebay idea might work best. The pictures would be missmatched on many different negative strips.

What features to look for in a scanner?

[Snow Dog]

If you ever scan a photo print, 300dpi is the best you can get. If you scan larger than that, you get a larger file but no better quality.
Even at 300dpi, scans of photos are not that great.

NEWSFLASH -- it's 2005 and even cheap scanners offer 3200 dpi optical resolution.

[Core Shot]

NEWSFLASH -- it's 2005 and even cheap scanners offer 3200 dpi optical resolution.

NEWSFLASH - Snow Dog has limited reading comprehension!

What I said was that if you are scanning a photo print, do not bother scanning at more than 300dpi. All you get is a larger file, not a better image if you scan at a higher resolution.
What that means is that the typical photo only has about 300dpi of information at maximum.

If you are scanning a negative or slide film, by all means scan at 3200dpi.

[Snow Dog]

NEWSFLASH - Snow Dog has limited reading comprehension!

What I said was that if you are scanning a photo print, do not bother scanning at more than 300dpi. All you get is a larger file, not a better image if you scan at a higher resolution.
What that means is that the typical photo only has about 300dpi of information at maximum.

If you are scanning a negative or slide film, by all means scan at 3200dpi.

Huh? What?

If you're scanning pictures from Playboy then I'd agree. But a photograph can be a lot higher than 300dpi -- the limiting factor is usually the camera optics.

Ok -- the other limiting factor is the printer so if you're duplicating then 300dpi is fine. If you're enlarging and/or cropping then more dpi is better.

[Core Shot]

FYI I didn't just make this shit up. I read it a few years ago when I got a scanner.

A quick google reveals the following in support of my statement.

http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html
---------------
When we get right down to it, scanning color prints can rarely yield more detail when scanned at more than 300 dpi. I am carefully saying color prints, to exclude film and B&W prints. In particular, I'm speaking of typical 6x4 inch (4X size) 35 mm color prints from the regular photofinisher. Yes, the original negatives have fantastic resolution, a full order of magnitude better than the print copies. The prints, well, they are a lesser copy of that film original.

Prints do vary, some are simply sharper than others. The camera lens is quite good, although an inexpensive camera that can't be focused is not the best performer. If the camera were on a steady tripod, it could deliver sharper images than the shaky results when we handhold them. Faster shutter speeds help. These factors influence the sharpness of the original image on film, and not all images are equal. Then, print size enlargement specifically hurts. Enlarging a film image by a factor of 4 or 8 reduces resolution by a factor of 4 or 8. But mainly, the printing paper itself is far from the equal of the film, it is designed for a different purpose, which does not include additional size enlargement. Good film might resolve detail at 3000 dpi, but color print paper doesn't come close.

There are exceptions to this 300 dpi comment. When scanning 35 mm color photo prints of B&W resolution test targets taken with a good lens on a tripod, 600 dpi scans can sometimes show slightly more resolving power than 300 dpi scans. The results are not nearly double 300 dpi, but perhaps the absolute number is near 400 dpi from good sharp prints. Professional printing from large sheet film is a similar mild exception (much less enlargement). But we typically don't do either, and when comparing scans of real 35 mm color photos of real subjects, it is generally difficult to detect much practical benefit when scanning above 300 dpi (and frankly, sometimes above 200 dpi for unsharp snapshots from inexpensive cameras).

[mtbakerskier]

1st off it is almost impossible to get a good scan off of a print, and even if you do get a decent scan, you are limited by the resolution of the print its self.

Most prints that where printed onto true photo paper with the good old chemical process really only have a resolution of 380 ~ 400 DPI. Larger prints such as 8x12 have a true resloution of 260~300 dpi.

So if you waxt to have a good 8x12 made from your scans, scan the negative at 8x300,12*300 = 2400x3600 scan.

Then take the file to a lab and have them make the prints ussing a "wet" process I.E. paper and chemistry not paper and ink. It will give you much better picture quality and will be a hell of a lot cheaper than doing it at home with paper and ink.

BTW I have a dedicated slide and negative scanner that I would be willing to sell cheap. However it will only work with Windows ME and older operating systems.

[bklyn]

I have a dedicated film scanner - take a look at the nikon coolscan line. I have the 5000 but the 4000 is retailing at around 550 and has decent features. I didn't check ebay, but you might want to consider it.

[wanghoeby]

Looking to digitize lots and lots of old family trip photos. Without having the photos at the moment, I'd estimate it at 10 years x 2 Rolls Per Trip x 24 Pictures each = 500 negatives. It would be nice to have them at the same size of my 4 MP camera pics.

Does anyone know off hand what it costs at a local drug store to have pictures turned into digital photos? Quality issues here?

Will I be able to get that kind of resolution with a flatbed scanner? Something like this seems like a decent deal. I've been meaning to get a scanner so I wouldn't mind the extra cost of a nicer one if it would save me cash by scanning negatives.

Opinions?