Digital BW, The Print

> > Looks like some of the shine is wearing off, but still a tad  pricey.  I'd
> > have to think about it a bit (Maybe while the price comes down a  bit
> > further.  I'd like to stay under $1,000.  And I'd like to be able to scan
> > some BW negatives (3" x 4") of my and my brother's and sister's weddings of
> > about 50 yrs ago, but I can't justify a huge expenditure for about 150
> > negatives.
> >
> James,
>
> 3x4 is tough in a true film scanner. You would have to go up to the
> $4,000+ range with a glass film carrier. Say a Polaroid 45u at $4,200.
>
> What is the final print size you want for these 150 negatives? If you
> are planing prints in the 8x10 range or even 11x14, a flatbed scanner
> might do the job for you.

We have had amazingly good results using a Microtek Scanmaker x12usl with a transparency adapter.  It has the
advantage of being a 48 bit scanner.  The whole deal was under $400, and might now be under $300.

It scans at a true 1200 dpi, which means a 3"x4" negative can be output @ 300 dpi at 12" x 16".

We get our best results in scanning b&w negs in '(color) transparency mode' in 48 bit.  Then in Photoshop we
go Image>Mode>8 bit,  then Image>Mode>grayscale, then Image>Mode>RGB then Image>Invert, and voila...a nice,
totally neutral b&w image.  We then do our, size, tonal adjustments, sharpen, and then finally spot and then
print.  To very good results.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I tried to find a group that is focused on film scanning, but 
couldn't find one; hope this isn't too far off topic for this group.

Over the past two year, I have been scanning 35mm negative film (both 
color and B&W) using a Canon 2710 film scanner. I notice that I spend 
a tremendous amount of time retouching film scratches on over half of 
the images that I have scanned. These are very fine scratches on the 
film base, that would typically not be visible in an enlargement made 
in an enlarger, but which are very visible when scanned and enlarged 
in Photoshop.

My question is: is there something inherent in film scanners that 
magnifies film scratches? I have seen the dust and scratch removal 
software (e.g. Nikon's Ice software) touted in scanner 
advertisements, but assumed these would be necessary only for old, 
mis-handled, damaged film. Is this scratch magnification an attribute 
of film scanning that we just don't talk about in public, or is it 
just me?

Comments?

Thanks, Ben Tyndall.

I used to spend a lot of time panning around my images at 100% magnification
and manually spotting out every little speck of dust that I could find. Then
I finally realized that half of that stuff doesn't even show up on the final
print. Now I print a proof first, and I only bother spotting the stuff that
I can actually see on the print.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: tynmansystems@... [mailto:tynmansystems@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 3:33 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Film scanning and scratches


I notice that I spend
a tremendous amount of time retouching film scratches on over half of
the images that I have scanned. These are very fine scratches on the
film base, that would typically not be visible in an enlargement made
in an enlarger, but which are very visible when scanned and enlarged
in Photoshop.