converting old negatives to digital

tomm42 wrote:

> $8 a roll, that is $.22 a shot, that's cheap, figure 4-8minutes not
> including editing for each image if you do it yourself. Check the
> resolution the store is using, final file size is the key TIF files
> should be 18mb or higher, jpegs, because on the compression, are
> harder to average but say 2-3mb. If the files are 2-300K jpegs, that is
> low resolution and don't bother. The nice thing about having an outside
> lab do it for you is you don't have to do every roll now. You can also
> edit out strips that have images you don't think are worth keeping. You
> get 75-100 rolls done for the price of a scanner (providing they are
> giving you usable high res scans).
> Doing the scanning yourself, you have to learn how to scan, not rocket
> science but attention to detail is essential. Two scanners to consider
> Epson V700, a flatbed but does decent work on 35mm film or a NIkon
> LS5000 (plus stack holder) excellent for 35mm scans.

The base 5000ED (it's not actually an "LS-5000", though I tend to think
of it that way also, leftover from the LS-2000" includes support for
handling negative strips up to 6 frames.

The "stack holder", if you mean the SF-210, is for handling mounted
slides (could be negatives, except nobody mounts their negatives in
slide mounts). It's a nice option if you have lots of mounted slides,
but it does cost 50% of the price of the 5000ED (the 5000ED is about
$1k, the SF-210 is about $500).

I believe there is also a long-strip film adapter that will handle
entire rolls. I don't have it, though, so I don't know either what it
costs or how well it works.

As you say, scanning yourself is a SLOW process, and extremely
painstaking. There's a big learning curve (and if you're not careful,
and get too productive right up front, you'll find yourself going back
and rescanning the first half of the job because you've learned so much
by the end). It's kinda fun, and gives you more control and better
results than I've ever seen from lab scans or photo CDs.
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:42:14 +0000, mdb wrote:

> Like a lot of photographers, I've gone pretty much all digital but I used to
> bulk load b&w film and have hundreds of old film strips around. I'd like to
> convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
> checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
> roll. Ouch! Is there a less expensive service around? Or perhaps I should
> buy a scanner and do it myself. Can anyone recommend a scanner for this
> purpose. I would want a scanner that did a full strip at once, not requiring
> me to choose frames. It might make sense to buy a scanner, do the conversion
> and then decide to either keep the scanner or resell it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michael

How expensive is your time? A normal flatbet scanner will take a strip of
about 6-8 negatives at a time. Epson has several at their online store. I
recently purchased a Perfection 4490 - it does a very nice job, but it
takes a lot of time.
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

I converted 35mm negatives to digital by taking my negatives to a shop that
will transfer negatives to a photo cd.
I believe that I got about 150 to 175 negatives on a photo cd.
She put the negatives in a strip reader ,burned the cd and was done in 20
minutes.
Price was about $2.99 or $3.99 a cd and I believe that I could gotten more
images on those cd's.
This was a big time saver.
The images loaded very nicely into Photoshop elements 4.0.
I believe that Wolf camera,Walgreen's or Wal-Mart can do that for you.
I know Walgreen's can do it because I have a friend that works there.

"mdb" <milo_dhuey RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WTMth.10345$uL6.5091@trnddc03...
> Like a lot of photographers, I've gone pretty much all digital but I used
> to bulk load b&w film and have hundreds of old film strips around. I'd
> like to convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital
> files. I checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for
> $8 per roll. Ouch! Is there a less expensive service around? Or perhaps I
> should buy a scanner and do it myself. Can anyone recommend a scanner for
> this purpose. I would want a scanner that did a full strip at once, not
> requiring me to choose frames. It might make sense to buy a scanner, do
> the conversion and then decide to either keep the scanner or resell it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michael
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

"ray" <ray DeleteThis @zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.24.21.38.58.444083@zianet.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:42:14 +0000, mdb wrote:
>
>> Like a lot of photographers, I've gone pretty much all digital but I used
>> to
>> bulk load b&w film and have hundreds of old film strips around. I'd like
>> to
>> convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
>> checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
>> roll. Ouch! Is there a less expensive service around? Or perhaps I should
>> buy a scanner and do it myself. Can anyone recommend a scanner for this
>> purpose. I would want a scanner that did a full strip at once, not
>> requiring
>> me to choose frames. It might make sense to buy a scanner, do the
>> conversion
>> and then decide to either keep the scanner or resell it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Michael
>
> How expensive is your time? A normal flatbet scanner will take a strip of
> about 6-8 negatives at a time. Epson has several at their online store. I
> recently purchased a Perfection 4490 - it does a very nice job, but it
> takes a lot of time.
>
Resolution must be considered also. The lower the resolution, the faster and
cheaper the scans, and the less space they will use up on the CD, or other
storage. But, the downside is that you won't be able to blow them up and/or
crop them with Photoshop to get a more interesting image, or get rid of
extraneous stuff that you don't want on the original image. If you think you
will want to crop and/or otherwise change your images, then I believe you
would be better off purchasing a decent film scanner and doing it
yourself....This will give you the ability to scan some images at low
resolution, and others that you want to change at a resolution that is
higher........
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

"if" <nomail.TakeThisOut@nospam.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns98C2D0411B90DA3D9@212.23.3.119...
> "mdb" <milo_dhuey.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to
> > convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
> > checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
> > roll.
>
> That sounds suspiciously cheap, IME for that cost you only get 1500x1000
> pixel scans which are ok for small prints but in no way capture the full
> image quality. I'm paying 3 times that amount to get decent scans
> (3000x2000). However if your films are from a long time ago, eg 25 years,
> then there may be no point scanning it more than 1500x1000 since films
were
> much more grainy in those days.

Like Panatomic X?

Kodachrome 25?

I don't think so.

Joe
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

I had the same problem, except mine was worst. My negatives were all
chopped up into strip. Nowadays, when you make prints from a film
photos (at walmarts, etc), they offer you to get a digital files in a
CD for additional couple of bucks. But, they DO NOT take film strips
for a cheap price. They have to do it one by one with the film strip.
The last one I asked, they will charge about $2-3 per photos!.... if
you have over 100 negatives. If you have negative film strips like I
do,it will cost a fortune to do it by commercial lab.
Then someone suggested to get Canon 35mm film scanner. (Canon FS 4000
US). See at http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/scanner.htm
I believe it costs about $600-800. Nikon also made the scanner special
for 35 mm film. I don't know about B/W film though. It is a box the
size of a shoe box or slightly larger. The problem with doing it
yourself is that you are now dealing with the colour adjustment,
software and other stuff to play around with. In addition, your
negatives must be free of specs and super clean, as tiny dust will be
amplified as they are scanned (because your negative is small).
I never bought the unit, and decided to scan the post card size photos
instead in a regular colour scanner. It still is a slow process.
If your film in a roll, then those commercial photo place can do it
very quickly.

On Jan 24, 2:28 pm, if <nom....RemoveThis@nospam.org.invalid> wrote:
> "mdb" <milo_dh....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to
> > convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
> > checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
> > roll.That sounds suspiciously cheap, IME for that cost you only get 1500x1000
> pixel scans which are ok for small prints but in no way capture the full
> image quality. I'm paying 3 times that amount to get decent scans
> (3000x2000). However if your films are from a long time ago, eg 25 years,
> then there may be no point scanning it more than 1500x1000 since films were
> much more grainy in those days.
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

"mdb" <milo_dhuey.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WTMth.10345$uL6.5091@trnddc03...
> Like a lot of photographers, I've gone pretty much all digital but I used
> to bulk load b&w film and have hundreds of old film strips around. I'd
> like to convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital
> files. I checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for
> $8 per roll. Ouch! Is there a less expensive service around? Or perhaps I
> should buy a scanner and do it myself. Can anyone recommend a scanner for
> this purpose. I would want a scanner that did a full strip at once, not
> requiring me to choose frames. It might make sense to buy a scanner, do
> the conversion and then decide to either keep the scanner or resell it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michael
>
>

PrimeFilm PF3650Pro3

Takes films up to 40 frames each. Has digital ICE3, ROC and GEM.

http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Image-Electronics-PF3650PRO-PrimeFilm/dp...000C20X
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:45:18 GMT, "Charles Eaves"
<charles.eaves.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I converted 35mm negatives to digital by taking my negatives to a shop that
>will transfer negatives to a photo cd.
>I believe that I got about 150 to 175 negatives on a photo cd.

You do realize that drastically reduced the resolution of those
images. Of course if you have no need for the original resolution that
is fine.

For me, scanned 35s are 68 to 130 megs each. That means I could only
get about 10 or 12 of the lower resolution and about 5 of the high
resolution on one CD.

>She put the negatives in a strip reader ,burned the cd and was done in 20
>minutes.
>Price was about $2.99 or $3.99 a cd and I believe that I could gotten more
>images on those cd's.
>This was a big time saver.
>The images loaded very nicely into Photoshop elements 4.0.
>I believe that Wolf camera,Walgreen's or Wal-Mart can do that for you.
>I know Walgreen's can do it because I have a friend that works there.
>
>"mdb" <milo_dhuey.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:WTMth.10345$uL6.5091@trnddc03...
>> Like a lot of photographers, I've gone pretty much all digital but I used
>> to bulk load b&w film and have hundreds of old film strips around. I'd
>> like to convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital
>> files. I checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for
>> $8 per roll. Ouch! Is there a less expensive service around? Or perhaps I

That is the cheapest I've seen it. Going rates are on the order of 50
cents to a buck or more an image.

>> should buy a scanner and do it myself. Can anyone recommend a scanner for
>> this purpose. I would want a scanner that did a full strip at once, not
>> requiring me to choose frames. It might make sense to buy a scanner, do

the Nikon LS5000ED has an optional adapter that will take full rolls.
It comes with a strip holder that will do either 5 or 6 frames per
strip. It's the type where you just stick the end of the strip in and
it scans the whole thing. I don't use it on B&W so I don't know how
well it'd do on those.

Having passed the 30,000 image mark (both slides and negatives) I can
say it is a lot of work, takes a lot of DVDs, a good filing system
along with a good naming system. Magnetic media as well as the R/W
CDs and DVDs are short term storage only. Actually the R/W disks
aren't know for reliability there either. As to the good CDs and DVDs
no one knows for sure how long they'll last, outlandish claims based
on accelerated age testing and guess work aside. That means stored
images should be tested for integrity on a regular basis.

>> the conversion and then decide to either keep the scanner or resell it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

In article <45b7bc8b_1 DeleteThis @newsfeed.slurp.net>,
"Joseph Rooney" <ikerooneyat DeleteThis @pcmagic.net> wrote:

> "if" <nomail DeleteThis @nospam.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns98C2D0411B90DA3D9@212.23.3.119...
> > "mdb" <milo_dhuey DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like to
> > > convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
> > > checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
> > > roll.
> >
> > That sounds suspiciously cheap, IME for that cost you only get 1500x1000
> > pixel scans which are ok for small prints but in no way capture the full
> > image quality. I'm paying 3 times that amount to get decent scans
> > (3000x2000). However if your films are from a long time ago, eg 25 years,
> > then there may be no point scanning it more than 1500x1000 since films
> were
> > much more grainy in those days.
>
> Like Panatomic X?
>
> Kodachrome 25?
>
> I don't think so.

Also the equipment should be considered. My father used a lot of folding
cameras, while the 2x2 contact prints were acceptable as soon as I
enlarged these prints to double their size, the limitations od the
camera and lens became very apparent. People don't use tripods, don't
focus accurately (especially with P&S) and generally try to get a
picture despite the circumstances.

I think going with a flatbed (if you have one) is a good idea to get the
bulk into digital, then if there are sufficient numbers to warrant
buying a film scanner...
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

> > if your films are from a long time ago, eg 25 years,
> > [they will be old and grainy, if not turned to dust]

Gaaarghhh...

25 years ago was 1982. Last week or there abouts. Things
really haven't changed much since then: we had a Bush as
VP even - goofy then, goofy now.

Though in 1970 WWII was only 25 years previous. And boy
1970 was different from WWII... By 1970 it was already
post 60's. The Beatles had already broken up (almost).

WWII was as long ago in 1970 as 1982 is now.

In the 1970's my folks still talked about the
war as if it were only last week. I didn't
understand it then, I still can't imagine it now.

> Like Panatomic X?

I think we had TechPan by the ancient year of 82.
Panatomic X was history.

1982 - when films were old and grainy. Let's try
1905 when films were old and grainy.

Heck, by 1927 Adams took 'Monolith, Half Dome'
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/adams/adams_monolith.jpg
.... grainy ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:57:42 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see.DeleteThis@sig.com>
wrote:

> Let's try
>1905 when films were old and grainy.
>
>Heck, by 1927 Adams took 'Monolith, Half Dome'
>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/adams/adams_monolith.jpg
>... grainy ...

FYI, that shot was taken on an 8x10 negative, with a 5-second
exposure at f/22.

His shot of Moonrise - Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941 was taken with an
8x10 camera, 1 second at f/32 on ASA 64 film.

Source:

<www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/beckman/artclasses/AnselAdams.doc>

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital 

> "mdb" <milo_dhuey RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to
>> convert those old uncut 35 mm 36 exposure films into digital files. I
>> checked with my local camera shop and they said they'd do it for $8 per
>> roll.
>
> That sounds suspiciously cheap, IME for that cost you only get 1500x1000
> pixel scans which are ok for small prints but in no way capture the full
> image quality. I'm paying 3 times that amount to get decent scans
> (3000x2000). However if your films are from a long time ago, eg 25 years,
> then there may be no point scanning it more than 1500x1000 since films were
> much more grainy in those days.


I don't think that is true, I have Kodachromes much older than that and they
aren't at all grainy.
 >> Stay informed about: converting old negatives to digital