Scanning film negatives

[virtuo]

Wasn't sure where to post this, feel free to move it but it's not really a photography question.

I've recently been given a box full of photos with the negatives cut in to strips in each pack.

Over the years some of the photos have either faded or disappeared, so I thought I'd scan in the negatives for a safe digital backup of each one, and reprinting where appropriate.

I bought a decent scanner a few years ago for another project (Epson V330) which has the ability to scan negatives and have Photoshop to hand to touch up/correct the scans (obviously I don't want to post-process all of them, but if I can sharpen up or fix exposure then I will).

I've done a few test scans with different settings, mainly at different resolutions and have a few questions relating to my process before I commit to a run. Any experience/input would be appreciated as always.


1. What resolution should I be scanning at? The scanner goes up to a high (I think) resolution, but obviously the file sizes increase with it. Is there a sweet spot for 35mm negatives, which I don' expect have a "resolution" in computer terms? I can pretty much guarantee all the pictures were taken on cheap or even disposable cameras.

2. I'd imagine my expected use would factor in, at a minimum I'd want to reproduce the mainly 6x4 prints for my home or supermarket printing service, but being able to blow up to large sizes (say up to A4-ish size) without losing clarity would be nice. Am I going to be able to pick up extra detail in the negatives if I go to really high resolution and display on screen?

3. Where I have the lab prints available, would I be better off scanning those than I would the negatives? Better off as in a better quality reproduction at the same 6x4 size? I noticed that any dust or specks on the negatives are hugely exaggerated when scanned in.

4. Lastly, the test scans I did looked quite grainy on screen, is that normal? I'm hoping it's not the hardware quality and that once printed back out the grain wouldn't be noticeable.


Thanks in advance!

[peterb]

The grain size is a function of film speed, so faster film will tend to be grainier.

You probably need to do some test scans to see if the higher resolution does improve the quality, the same goes for scanning the prints vs the negatives.

Personally, I scan at the highest resolution I can, on the grounds that you can always post process later, but it is a time consuming procedure.

[virtuo]

I did a couple of tests at 300, 600 and 1200 dpi. I noticed the lower DPIs didn't fill my monitor at 100%, but the very high 1200 (and possibly a 2400) remained reasonably sharp even at 100%.

I was concerned about disk space, but even at 2400dpi the images were coming out around 15-20Mb so would only be looking at 40-50 Gb to do them all - 2 blurays or 10 DVDs is acceptable.

I think I'll test some of the silly high resolutions tonight, but it's looking like 2400 should do. There was a "remove grain" feature in the scanning software that did quite a nice job, however if it's just a software filter it applies after scanning rather than something done in the driver/hardware then I think I'd rather process them myself on a per-image basis.

I'll also do a test print to see if the negatives come out anywhere near the lab prints and report back. Thanks for the reply!

[Saracen]

The resolution to scan at is a function of the size you want to "output" at, and the nature of the device doing the outputting.

For instance, the resolution required for screen use is pretty low, but for printing will depend on the spec of the printer, and the use to which the print will be put. This is a bit of a black art to put together but, for instance, if you want best results, you need a higher resolution print for a 6"x4" enprint than is usually needed for an A3 or A2 print because large prints are usually (but not always) viewed from some distance away, like hung on a wall, and the limitations of the human eye mean that that usage is more forgiving than something viewed held in your hand. That is, any imperfections of lower print resolution noticable from 18" are likely to be invisible to the naked eye at 6 feet or more.

Right, printers. I'm not going to go into all the reasons but some printers (like my dye-subs) have fixed resolution so I scan to target that if that's what I'll print on. But my guess is you're more likely using photo inkjet, in which case the exact resolution for the image is far less clear because it's mixed in with the "commercially secret" dithering algorithm manufacturers use to turn image pixels into ink droplet patterns. Suffice to say it's NOT the 2440dpi, or 2400dpi, or 1200 dpi manufacturers quote.

Personally, my rule of thumb was to go for either 300ppi or 360ppi for output on Canon/HP, or Epson, respectively. The 360 because it's a factor of the 2440 Epson quote for most machines, and 300 as a factor of most Canon/HP machines. I am NOT claiming that as a scientifically verifiable calculation, but rather, merely what I was advised while talking to a technical manager during a visit to one of those company's Japansse HQs, some years back. I then did quite a bit of testing on my own, and the rule of thumb held up - I didn't get any significantly improved results by going higher.

So, that's the background. Here's the practical bit.

35mm film is essential 36mm by 24mm, so call it 1.5" by 1". That's the source. if you scan at 360dpi (with Epson in mind) you'll wind up with a IMAGE FILE, of 540x360 pixels. Such image files are independent of output device resolution.

But if your image file is 540x360 pixels and you set the print driver resolution to 360 dpi, you will wind up with EITHER

1) A 360dpi print, of size 1.5" x 1", or

2) A larger print, but corresponding low resolution, e.g. 6"x4" but at 90dpi, or

3) The print driver might interpolate low resolution data to give you 360dpi at 6x4, but the large amount if interpolation will produce a nasty image quality.


So .... when deciding scan resolution, you want

1) the output device res, normally 300 or 360 for inkjets

2) The RATIO between the size of the source and the size of the print. In your case, you have a 1.5x1 inch original you want to print at 4x enlargement to get 6x4 inch print, so use 4x the resolution of the output device to set the acanner resolution.

That is, you need to try to preserve 360dpi when you print, and you're printing at 4x the size of your negative, so you need 4x the 360dpi, or 1440dpi at the scan stage.


That brings me to a problem. Well, two actually. One is that your scanner sensor will have a fixed resolution which is unlikely to be in multiple of 360. Though it might be of 300. So, if you try to scan at a resolution EITHER larger than the scanner sensor's resolution, it can only do so by intetpolation upwards. And if you try to scan at a resolution that's not directly divisible into the scanner's resolution, some interpolation will be going on. Try to stick to multiple or factors of your scanner resolution unless you can scan at 1:1.

Second, all the above gives an approach to optimum scan resolution PROVIDED you know the usage, and size, of the output. If you are CERTAIN you want 6x4, only 6x4, and at no point in the future, larger than 6x4, then fine. But if you're scanning for "archive" purposes, and MIGHT want larger in future, you might be better of scanning at maximum resolution for storage, then cutting down res for printing at 6x4. Or, doing two scans, one at max for archiving, and one at 6x4 to print now.

A couple of things. Before scanning clean negatives as much as possible but CAREFULLY. My preference is a manual blower brush to blow loose dust off. I don't trust air cans, as I think they're too harsh but of you do use one be SURE it is just compressed air with no propellant or chemical component. For stubborn dust, very gentle brushing with a VERY soft brush, done carefully.

Second, to scan negatives you need a colour reversal process, AND to compensate for the native orange-coloured substrate. Different film types have slightly different colour substrate, so if you want accurate colour, you may well need to tweak it. You can get scanner software designed to match and be calibrated to named scanners, with scanner profiles for named film types. If not, you may want to spend some time testing and tweaking. It all depends how fussy you are about "quality", which is a very subjective target.

[virtuo]

Thanks Saracen, that's a brilliant reply.

With regards to the final output, I can't guarantee they will ONLY be used for 6x4 prints, I'm sure the odd one will be picked out to print larger at some point. I like your suggestion of doing a maximum resolution archive scan and then a "standard" one with it.

Printer-wise, I likely won't be doing any of that myself. I have an HP inkjet photo printer as you suspect which will do 600dpi photos if I remember correctly, and can get access to a Canon something-or-other dye sublimation printer. For the quantities involved, I will likely just take a disc load to the supermarket and have them reel them off for me, great for holiday snaps and the quality is quite good. Not sure what their process and native resolution is.

The colour accuracy isn't a huge priority, I was more concerned with the sharpness/detail. Most of the shots are a good 25-30 years old. I've got the tools I need to adjust and improve the colours on a case-by-case basis.

[excalibur2]

Well I would scan at the lowest dpi ( for many negs and quickness) just to see what the shots are like and then rescan the winners at least 2400 dpi...if you scan the winners at 3200dpi this will help to prevent pixel breakup which would give you a nicer print or screen image, also the higher scan will allow cropping (again for less pixel breakup).
Unfortunately all Epson home flatbed scanners only give up to a maximum detail equivalent of about 2.4mp digital camera (a neg can have up to 21mp detail)....if you want a better scan then you would have to send the neg to a lab.
Some people use their digi camera in a set up to photograph their negs and convert in software.

[Saracen]

On sharpness, I've not used the V330 so don't know the capability, personally. I do have a couple of Epson scanners, including an A3 one (big so and so, too) but I have used the V750, and am a fan of that. I use older Minolta and Nikon film scanners, though, not flatbeds, for film.

I completely endorse Peter's point about film grain. Typically, the faster the ISO the grainier the filmer, and high-res modern scanners can pick that up.

Getting the output image "sharp" is even more of a black art than sekecting resolution, though. I don't know what software you use but if Photoshop, you can mask film grain to a point with a delicate applicstion of something like Gaussian blur, and my LAST stage of prepping an image will be "sharpening". For that, I only use the confusingly named "unsharp mask". The black art is in the settings, because it's largely a response to the given image. There is a tendency for people to apply a sledgehammer when they'd be better advised to just crack the nut, not smash it to paste.

Conversely, one thing to remember is that printing (or at least, most printers) slightly softens an image, so personally if I know an image will be printed, I oversharpen the image just a little, to allow for a little softening when you print.

This sort-of brings me back to one aspect of scanning. I've done what you're doing, and I scanned once at max res for archiving, and saved that as a sort of rae, unprocessed "native" scan. A reference point, if you like. The next saved file would be after any basic prep that would be likely to be common for any use, like dust/scratch removal. Then I might have several more saved files, either scanned for specific output devices, or processed with a specific use in mind.

A critical point, if you do this, is to work to a system and ORGANISE. Think about a directory structure, or perhaps better yet, a directory and an image database like Lightroom or Portfolio. And think about naming conventions. If you don't, you can wind up with a swirling morass of confusing files, never quite sure several years down the line, what is what.

[virtuo]

I've done a lot of touch-up/repair work in Photoshop over the years - it was my job for a few of them (mostly WW1 era restorations - fascinating and rewarding)!

I originally bought the scanner to scan casino chips for a project (as it had good ratings, was fairly cheap and the CCD sensor picked up some of the hyper neon colours particularly well where others just wouldn't cope). The specs say it has an optical res of 4800dpi, not sure where that would equate to in MP.

I'm open to suggestions on a more suitable device to take on this stack of negatives, particularly if I'm going to find extra detail in the images that the v330 will not. A dedicated film scanner could be an option.

Note that the cameras used were very cheap/disposable in most cases, which may factor in.

I've been thinking about a storage solution and have opted to write my own web front/back end for it - family can log in and search/view/enhance/print - I could implement your suggestion of showing the various stages of touch-ups.

I'm going to group photos by "pack" initially, but will have a tagging system over the NoSQL DB so they can be shifted around in to virtual albums by theme or category.

Upside of this is I can distribute some of the admin/sorting work to people with an interest in the photos and write some code to export them to disk as required, even hook it up to a photo printing provider with an API.

I did try lightroom back when it first came out and wasn't imnpressed, it was slow and clunky - but I might have a look at the CC 2015 version before writing it off.

[Saracen]

The V330 might well be suitable. I've just not used it. The V750 was certainly impressive. I came VERY close to buying one, about as close as you can get without doing it. But I'm out of touch with current equipment, having reached the point where I'm not doing anything like as much scanning, and also, as I haven't reviewed scanners for quite a while, am not seeing most new models come over my desk for review. My guess is that quality won't have improved much (having pretty much reached the point where the limiting factor is the film, not the scanner) but price (and maybe build quality) may have suffered a bit.

As for databases, I've dabbled in Lightroom and know people that rate it for what it is, but I've been using Extensis Portfolio for far too long to feel inclined to redo everything. I might not start there now, but I was using that years before LR existed.

And yeah, the camera used may be a limiting factor. You can't (obviously) create more detail than the source image has, and while cheaper cameras have got better in recent years, lens resolution is still a limit. But the older and cheaper the camera(s) the less gain there'll be from high-end scanners ... especially with small negatives. From what I remember of the V330, while it's no V750, it's still pretty competent. Personally, I'd give it a good go before wanting to splash out. Though, I'm also out of touch on price/spec of film scanners too.

[excalibur2]

The V330 might well be suitable. I've just not used it. The V750 was certainly impressive. I came VERY close to buying one, about as close as you can get without doing it. But I'm out of touch with current equipment, having reached the point where I'm not doing anything like as much scanning, and also, as I haven't reviewed scanners for quite a while, am not seeing most new models come over my desk for review. My guess is that quality won't have improved much (having pretty much reached the point where the limiting factor is the film, not the scanner) but price (and maybe build quality) may have suffered a bit.

As for databases, I've dabbled in Lightroom and know people that rate it for what it is, but I've been using Extensis Portfolio for far too long to feel inclined to redo everything. I might not start there now, but I was using that years before LR existed.

And yeah, the camera used may be a limiting factor. You can't (obviously) create more detail than the source image has, and while cheaper cameras have got better in recent years, lens resolution is still a limit. But the older and cheaper the camera(s) the less gain there'll be from high-end scanners ... especially with small negatives. From what I remember of the V330, while it's no V750, it's still pretty competent. Personally, I'd give it a good go before wanting to splash out. Though, I'm also out of touch on price/spec of film scanners too.

That's not right as already posted a neg film can have up to the equivalent of 21mp of detail (maybe more for special B\W film)...a drum scanner can get very near but expensive and not worth it unless a top winning shot. But then all is wasted if using a joe public printer for a print.

[Saracen]

That's not right as already posted a neg film can have up to the equivalent of 21mp of detail (maybe more for special B\W film)...a drum scanner can get very near but expensive and not worth it unless a top winning shot. But then all is wasted if using a joe public printer for a print.

I don't agree, and for several reasons. Firstly, that 21MP is a contentious figure. Other estimates put it lower, some significantly so. Second, theoretical maximums are one thing, but real-world results are another. To hit those maximums, you need a high end film, on a tripod-mounted camera, with a lens at least good enough that the film is the limit not the lens. You also need an image composed in such a way as to not trigger any diffraction issues with the lens.

Then, the "resolution" of 35mm film varies hugely depending on the film. To get maximum film resolution, one of the limiting factors is film grain, and my tests were done mainly with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia, which for a transparency film has one of the finest, and therefore least , limiting, film grains available.

Personally, the killer argument is the purpose to which the output of the scan is going to be used. That is, the medium, the size and the level of scrutiny it's going to get.

For instance, the 'quality' expected of an enprint in someone's holiday snaps is going to be less demanding than the average wedding album print, which is going to be less demanding than a fine art print for an international level competition. I'd set a maximum of about 10x8 for a fine art standard print, and a good film scanner, properly used, can get that from 35mm.

But for large prints that are sharp to a close eye inspection, my standard would require at least medium format film and a drum scanner.

Notice that cut-off. In terms of producing fine art prints, up to 10x8, something like my LS5000 cuts it. Above that, it doesn't, but then, nor does the amount of detail a 35mm piece of film holds. For large prints, at fine art quality, 35mm film just isn't big enough, IMHO, but due to the resolution limit of the film, not the scanner.

As for flatbeds, comparisons I've seen show the V750 I mentioned gets very close to as good a detail from 35mm film as a Lintotype drum scanner. The 750 gives 6400dpi scanning resolution, a 4.0 dmax, 48-bit image files throughout, and you can, and for optimum results, probably should wet-mount the film on the scanner flatbed.

Do that, and as I said, you have "pretty much" reached the point where the film is the limit, not the scanner. Note, "pretty much".

What I was trying to impart, without spelling it out, was that even if you optimise the enture chain, that is, tripod-mount, high-end lens, no lighting aberrations, etc, AND are going for fine-art prints, then a good scanner will give you results good enough for fine art printing, up to about 10x8, and the differences at that point between such scanners and a drum scan are very hard to see, and not likely to make any difference to the use you put the final output too. And that, after all, is the point, the final output.

[excalibur2]

I don't agree, and for several reasons. Firstly, that 21MP is a contentious figure. Other estimates put it lower, some significantly so. Second, theoretical maximums are one thing, but real-world results are another. To hit those maximums, you need a high end film, on a tripod-mounted camera, with a lens at least good enough that the film is the limit not the lens. You also need an image composed in such a way as to not trigger any diffraction issues with the lens.

Then, the "resolution" of 35mm film varies hugely depending on the film. To get maximum film resolution, one of the limiting factors is film grain, and my tests were done mainly with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia, which for a transparency film has one of the finest, and therefore least , limiting, film grains available.

Personally, the killer argument is the purpose to which the output of the scan is going to be used. That is, the medium, the size and the level of scrutiny it's going to get.

For instance, the 'quality' expected of an enprint in someone's holiday snaps is going to be less demanding than the average wedding album print, which is going to be less demanding than a fine art print for an international level competition. I'd set a maximum of about 10x8 for a fine art standard print, and a good film scanner, properly used, can get that from 35mm.

But for large prints that are sharp to a close eye inspection, my standard would require at least medium format film and a drum scanner.

Notice that cut-off. In terms of producing fine art prints, up to 10x8, something like my LS5000 cuts it. Above that, it doesn't, but then, nor does the amount of detail a 35mm piece of film holds. For large prints, at fine art quality, 35mm film just isn't big enough, IMHO, but due to the resolution limit of the film, not the scanner.

As for flatbeds, comparisons I've seen show the V750 I mentioned gets very close to as good a detail from 35mm film as a Lintotype drum scanner. The 750 gives 6400dpi scanning resolution, a 4.0 dmax, 48-bit image files throughout, and you can, and for optimum results, probably should wet-mount the film on the scanner flatbed.

Do that, and as I said, you have "pretty much" reached the point where the film is the limit, not the scanner. Note, "pretty much".

What I was trying to impart, without spelling it out, was that even if you optimise the enture chain, that is, tripod-mount, high-end lens, no lighting aberrations, etc, AND are going for fine-art prints, then a good scanner will give you results good enough for fine art printing, up to about 10x8, and the differences at that point between such scanners and a drum scan are very hard to see, and not likely to make any difference to the use you put the final output too. And that, after all, is the point, the final output.

Oh well Saracen I can't convince you...but will add that a Epson flatbed V750 (which I have) will give a true dpi scan of about 2400dpi the rest is a software fiddle...a V550 would give about a true dpi of about 1800 dpi...a super market low scan at 1800 X 1200 dpi will give the same detail using a Fuji frontier as the V750, but scanning at a higher dpi with the V750 will give you a better looking picture because of less pixel breakup although the detail doesn't improve.... and to compare a V750 to a drum scanner is laughable.
And all this info is on the net and the guys who are in the scanning business replied to one of my questions about home scanning:-

Flatbeds have two significant issues when it comes to producing high quality scans from film.

1.The glass platen. As with photographing through a window, glass softens the clarity of the negative and can produce a colour cast.
2. The motion of the scan head. A moving scan head creates increased vibration which has a negative impact on the resolving power of the scanner.

A Frontier minilab or Flextight scanner does not suffer from these issues.

Due to these factors, it is likely that a 'low' scan from a Frontier (1800 x 1200px) could be sharper and more accurately resolved than a much larger scan from a flatbed.

me\ Anyway the V750 still gives a very good picture and would be perfectly acceptable to millions even though it cannot get the maximum detail out of neg film like a drum scanner can...so who knows what is on film when probably only using a microscope could give an answer, then there is the limiting factor of the computer screen or print.....so it would seem one solution would be to use slide film and project onto a screen.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its not only about the resolution - you have practical issues like grain aliasing and things like scratch and dust removal.

The other issue is that negatives are much harder to scan than slides. One of the main issues is the physical base on what the light sensitive chemical sit on - newer negative films were developed with some understanding that it might be scanned especially since many of the minilabs now do that.

Having said that even thouigh I have used an Epson V700 scanner the last one I actually used for film was my old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II which is still sitting in a box somewhere at home,and it has been at least 10 years since I scanned a film negative.

[Saracen]

Oh well Saracen I can't convince you...but will add that a Epson flatbed V750 (which I have) will give a true dpi scan of about 2400dpi the rest is a software fiddle...a V550 would give about a true dpi of about 1800 dpi...a super market low scan at 1800 X 1200 dpi will give the same detail using a Fuji frontier as the V750, but scanning at a higher dpi with the V750 will give you a better looking picture because of less pixel breakup although the detail doesn't improve.... and to compare a V750 to a drum scanner is laughable.
And all this info is on the net and the guys who are in the scanning business replied to one of my questions about home scanning:-

Flatbeds have two significant issues when it comes to producing high quality scans from film.

1.The glass platen. As with photographing through a window, glass softens the clarity of the negative and can produce a colour cast.
2. The motion of the scan head. A moving scan head creates increased vibration which has a negative impact on the resolving power of the scanner.

A Frontier minilab or Flextight scanner does not suffer from these issues.

Due to these factors, it is likely that a 'low' scan from a Frontier (1800 x 1200px) could be sharper and more accurately resolved than a much larger scan from a flatbed.

me\ Anyway the V750 still gives a very good picture and would be perfectly acceptable to millions even though it cannot get the maximum detail out of neg film like a drum scanner can...so who knows what is on film when probably only using a microscope could give an answer, then there is the limiting factor of the computer screen or print.....so it would seem one solution would be to use slide film and project onto a screen.

No, you can't convince me, any more than I expect to convince you, in no small part because I stuck with the dedicated film scanner route, and an academic argument about V750 is of no interest to me or, no doubt, virtuo.

That said, the V750 has an optical resolution of 6400dpi in film mode. I presume by "true" resolution you mean the effective resolution of a resultant scan, the degree to which it would be able to match the results from a drum scanner?

The problem with that is that you then have a multitude of variables in the mix. They'd include how the film was mounted, how well it was mounted, what software was used, what settings were used, any issues with the film itself (like curl) which in the absence of wet-mounting will vary, height adjustment of holders if not wet-mounted and even manufacturing variances from scsnner to scanner.

The V750 is a match for a drum scanner for the purposes to which most people will put it. If you're a professional preparing a cover spread for Vogue or a 10ft wide print for a corporate HQ boardroom, you're probably not going to be using a V750, but then, I doubt you're using 35mm film anyway. More likely a Hasselblad with digital back or, yeah, medium format film and a drum scanner.

It's the same argument as a BMW M3 being no more functional than a VW Polo if you're using it to queue non-stop through traffic to get to the supermarket, despite the M3's power, performance, handling and comfort advantages. In fact, for that, I'll pick the Polo every time.

[excalibur2]

Its not only about the resolution - you have practical issues like grain aliasing and things like scratch and dust removal.

The other issue is that negatives are much harder to scan than slides. One of the main issues is the physical base on what the light sensitive chemical sit on - newer negative films were developed with some understanding that it might be scanned especially since many of the minilabs now do that.

Having said that even thouigh I have used an Epson V700 scanner the last one I actually used for film was my old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II which is still sitting in a box somewhere at home,and it has been at least 10 years since I scanned a film negative.

Well if you alter a film shot so much in Photoshop, forget film and use a digi camera....it's bad enough scanning to give a digi tiff or JPG (compared to the old way in the darkroom) i.e. a digi representation of what's on the film.
Anyway the problem is with 35mm negs and home flatbeds and it is nice to know that the same Epson flatbeds are good at MF and LF negs but you can get problems ensuring the neg stays flat.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well if you alter a film shot so much in Photoshop, forget film and use a digi camera....it's bad enough scanning to give a digi tiff or JPG (compared to the old way in the darkroom) i.e. a digi representation of what's on the film.
Anyway the problem is with 35mm negs and home flatbeds and it is nice to know that the same Epson flatbeds are good at MF and LF negs but you can get problems ensuring the neg stays flat.

This was over a decade ago when 50 ISO films were easily available and dSLRs were stupidly priced.