Digital BW, The Print

A friend has asked me how to scan a lot of older BW negatives he has 
recently obtained. This isn't a topic I know much about, but I do know there 
are several of you here on the list that could offer suggestions. Here's 
what my friend is asking about.

Regarding the negatives ... there are hundreds ...
they have been stored in little envelopes but have
been handled a lot so aren't particularly clean ...
the majority are approx 3 1/4 x 2 1/4 although some
are 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 ... for my purposes a contact sheet
would almost be okay, however, that process wouldn't
produce very good finished results so guessing I'd
need to have 5 x 7 prints made up, one each, probably
in groups as I can afford ... wouldn't mind sending
them off, but am probably more nervous about this ...
would be nice if it was within driving distance ... I
know that there are scanners that will do negatives ...
perhaps I need to look into one of these but not sure if
they are able to do these large format negatives or just
35mm, of which I have none.

We're in Indianapolis and will appreciate your suggestions. If I haven't 
provided enough info, let me know what else you need in order to offer 
constructive suggestions.

Thanks...

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design

'would be nice if it was within driving distance'
Tom, 
I could do them for you on a Epson 1640XL, ... it would be a nice 
drive too. I am in Grassington, North Yorkshire, UK.
John

Tom

I also have a collection of older B&W negatives. I have been 
scanning them using an Epson 4800 dpi scanner Model 4870. I have 
used scanners with lower dpi niumbers before. Even at 2000 dpi you 
will get pretty good resolution.

Whichever you use, be prepared for BIG file sizes. If you use the 
maximum resolutions at the higher dpi numbers, you could easily see 
file sizes as high as 100 meg. But, for 5x7 prints you really don't 
need to go that high. 

The Epson 4870 scanner is the one I use and recommend and it's cost 
is under $500.00. You could also use an Epson 3200 scanner. They can 
be picked up for around $300.

If you want to see more on either scanner, a Google search will 
return multiple reviews on each scanner

PV

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas 
Keesling" <tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> A friend has asked me how to scan a lot of older BW negatives he 
has 
> recently obtained. This isn't a topic I know much about, but I do 
know there 
> are several of you here on the list that could offer suggestions. 
Here's 
> what my friend is asking about.
> 
> Regarding the negatives ... there are hundreds ...
> they have been stored in little envelopes but have
> been handled a lot so aren't particularly clean ...
> the majority are approx 3 1/4 x 2 1/4 although some
> are 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 ... for my purposes a contact sheet
> would almost be okay, however, that process wouldn't
> produce very good finished results so guessing I'd
> need to have 5 x 7 prints made up, one each, probably
> in groups as I can afford ... wouldn't mind sending
> them off, but am probably more nervous about this ...
> would be nice if it was within driving distance ... I
> know that there are scanners that will do negatives ...
> perhaps I need to look into one of these but not sure if
> they are able to do these large format negatives or just
> 35mm, of which I have none.
> 
> We're in Indianapolis and will appreciate your suggestions. If I 
haven't 
> provided enough info, let me know what else you need in order to 
offer 

> constructive suggestions.
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> Tom Keesling
> Intelligent Design

I have a epson 3200 for sale with Silverfast Ai and IT8 target for 
$250 in case anyone is interested. Contact me offline at 
stevebrink@...
Thanks
sb

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "paulvtt" 
<paulv@w...> wrote:
> 
> Tom
> 
> I also have a collection of older B&W negatives. I have been 
> scanning them using an Epson 4800 dpi scanner Model 4870. I have 
> used scanners with lower dpi niumbers before. Even at 2000 dpi you 
> will get pretty good resolution.
> 
> Whichever you use, be prepared for BIG file sizes. If you use the 
> maximum resolutions at the higher dpi numbers, you could easily see 
> file sizes as high as 100 meg. But, for 5x7 prints you really don't 
> need to go that high. 
> 
> The Epson 4870 scanner is the one I use and recommend and it's cost 
> is under $500.00. You could also use an Epson 3200 scanner. They 
can 

> be picked up for around $300.
> 
> If you want to see more on either scanner, a Google search will 
> return multiple reviews on each scanner
> 
> PV
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas 
> Keesling" <tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> > A friend has asked me how to scan a lot of older BW negatives he 
> has 
> > recently obtained. This isn't a topic I know much about, but I do 
> know there 
> > are several of you here on the list that could offer suggestions. 
> Here's 
> > what my friend is asking about.
> > 
> > Regarding the negatives ... there are hundreds ...
> > they have been stored in little envelopes but have
> > been handled a lot so aren't particularly clean ...
> > the majority are approx 3 1/4 x 2 1/4 although some
> > are 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 ... for my purposes a contact sheet
> > would almost be okay, however, that process wouldn't
> > produce very good finished results so guessing I'd
> > need to have 5 x 7 prints made up, one each, probably
> > in groups as I can afford ... wouldn't mind sending
> > them off, but am probably more nervous about this ...
> > would be nice if it was within driving distance ... I
> > know that there are scanners that will do negatives ...
> > perhaps I need to look into one of these but not sure if
> > they are able to do these large format negatives or just
> > 35mm, of which I have none.
> > 
> > We're in Indianapolis and will appreciate your suggestions. If I 
> haven't 
> > provided enough info, let me know what else you need in order to 
> offer 
> > constructive suggestions.
> > 
> > Thanks...
> > 
> > Tom Keesling
> > Intelligent Design

John wrote:

I could do them for you on a Epson 1640XL, ... it would be a nice
drive too. I am in Grassington, North Yorkshire, UK.


Hey, thanks, John. I'll let my friend know. I'm sure he'll want to come 
right over. Are you going to be there for the next couple of hours?

Tom

> Hey, thanks, John. I'll let my friend know. I'm sure he'll want to 
come 
> right over. Are you going to be there for the next couple of hours?
> 
> Tom

Tom

The kettle is on... a real English cup of tea piping hot!

John

Paul wrote:

> The Epson 4870 scanner is the one I use and recommend

Coincidentally, Paul, that's the scanner I just purchased last week! There's 
currently a $50 rebate for the photo version. I seldom scan negatives and 
haven't tried scanning a negative yet. In fact, I've barely had time to 
break it in. If my friend decides to scan the negs himself, I can let him 
experiment with my new scanner.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Tom

I'm in a similar situation having to sort through thousands of old 
BW negs from medium format through 5x7 negs. There were very few 
contact sheets and prints and one of the biggest problems was just 
viewing the images to sort them according to content and quality.

The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light table 
and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set up a 
batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The results 
were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for the 
initial sorting they were more than adequate.

You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think the 
camera saved a lot of time.

Fascinating idea. I do low quality scans of my negs and slides, 35mm and 6x4.5, using a film scanner to get the same outcome. Since I happen to own a small light tablet and a D100.........
 
Don


Scott Rowed <scott_rowd@...> wrote:


I'm in a similar situation having to sort through thousands of old 
BW negs from medium format through 5x7 negs. There were very few 
contact sheets and prints and one of the biggest problems was just 
viewing the images to sort them according to content and quality.

The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light table 
and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set up a 
batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The results 
were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for the 
initial sorting they were more than adequate.

You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think the 
camera saved a lot of time.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Don,

I've used a Nikon Slide Copier on my D100. Another possibility!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Marcotte" <dmarcot@...>



Fascinating idea. I do low quality scans of my negs and slides, 35mm and 
6x4.5, using a film scanner to get the same outcome. Since I happen to own a 
small light tablet and a D100.........

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Rowed" 
 
> The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light table 
> and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set up a 
> batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The results 
> were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for the 
> initial sorting they were more than adequate.
> 
> You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think the 
> camera saved a lot of time.

A 6MP camera will give you roughly 3000x2000 pixels.  And since the 
the color CCD's in a camera use a bayer-pattern, the actual 
luminosity resolution is even lower than that.

On the other hand, a 4000 DPI scan of even a SMALL MF negative, e.g., 
6 x 4.5 cm, will yield 9600 x 7200 pixels.  And obviously it's even 
worse for 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 4x5in.   So you are throwing away a TON of 
detail, assuming the original negs were reasonably sharp.  You are 
probably also thowing away a ton of dynamic range compared to a film 
scanner.

MF holds LOTS of detail and lots of tonal-range subtlety.   That's 
the whole reason for using MF in the first place!  What you're doing 
is taking all your Hasselblads or Mamiya RB67's or whatever and 
replacing the film backs on them with a little APS camera.

Err unless I am mistaken the point of the earlier post was to describe a
fast and efficient means of sorting through a massive pile of negs in order
to determine which should be worked on.....

> From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:37:33 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How Best to Scan older BW Negatives
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Rowed"
>  
>> The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light table
>> and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set up a
>> batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The results
>> were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for the
>> initial sorting they were more than adequate.
>> 
>> You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think the
>> camera saved a lot of time.
> 
> A 6MP camera will give you roughly 3000x2000 pixels.  And since the
> the color CCD's in a camera use a bayer-pattern, the actual
> luminosity resolution is even lower than that.
> 
> On the other hand, a 4000 DPI scan of even a SMALL MF negative, e.g.,
> 6 x 4.5 cm, will yield 9600 x 7200 pixels.  And obviously it's even
> worse for 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 4x5in.   So you are throwing away a TON of
> detail, assuming the original negs were reasonably sharp.  You are
> probably also thowing away a ton of dynamic range compared to a film
> scanner.
> 
> MF holds LOTS of detail and lots of tonal-range subtlety.   That's
> the whole reason for using MF in the first place!  What you're doing
> is taking all your Hasselblads or Mamiya RB67's or whatever and
> replacing the film backs on them with a little APS camera.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Err unless I am mistaken the point of the earlier post was to 
describe a
> fast and efficient means of sorting through a massive pile of negs 
in order
> to determine which should be worked on.....

You might infer that, but he doesn't actually say that.

Here's the original post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/502
32

Another great suggestion. Just out of curiosity, how well does a Nikon slide copier do in slide to slide film copying? Since I would use the copier on a D100 for indexing in a computerized database, the size of the image isn't important. However, WB would be. Which WB do you use?
 
One thing I've always wanted to is the reverse of what you suggest. I'd like to be able to put a D100 image onto a slide without paying a king's ransom. My only home-based solution is to print it and photograph it. I don't have a good copy stand so that is really problematic.
 
Don

Bob Frost <bob@...> wrote:
Don,

I've used a Nikon Slide Copier on my D100. Another possibility!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Marcotte" <dmarcot@...>



Fascinating idea. I do low quality scans of my negs and slides, 35mm and 
6x4.5, using a film scanner to get the same outcome. Since I happen to own a 
small light tablet and a D100.........




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Yes but the topic moved on from then.  I quote from the post to which you
replied:

 <<I'm in a similar situation having to sort through thousands of old
 BW negs from medium format through 5x7 negs. There were very few
 contact sheets and prints and one of the biggest problems was just
 viewing the images to sort them according to content and quality.>>

But hey I am not going to argue about it anymore.  ;-)

> From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:42:31 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How Best to Scan older BW Negatives
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> Err unless I am mistaken the point of the earlier post was to
> describe a
>> fast and efficient means of sorting through a massive pile of negs
> in order
>> to determine which should be worked on.....
> 
> You might infer that, but he doesn't actually say that.
> 
> Here's the original post:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/502
> 32
> 
>

Steve,

Yes, you're right. The point of my post was just to simplify the 
sorting task and definitely not to print from. I recognize that this 
might not have been a side topic from the original post, but for me 
at least, it was a critical part of the workflow since I might only 
want prints from 2 or 3 out of 100. And with those 2 or 3, yes 
definitely scan with the best scanner available.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Err unless I am mistaken the point of the earlier post was to 
describe a
> fast and efficient means of sorting through a massive pile of negs 
in order
> to determine which should be worked on.....
> 
> 
> > From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:37:33 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How Best to Scan older BW Negatives
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott 
Rowed"
> >  
> >> The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light 
table
> >> and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set 
up a
> >> batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The 
results
> >> were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for 
the
> >> initial sorting they were more than adequate.
> >> 
> >> You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think 
the
> >> camera saved a lot of time.
> > 
> > A 6MP camera will give you roughly 3000x2000 pixels.  And since 
the
> > the color CCD's in a camera use a bayer-pattern, the actual
> > luminosity resolution is even lower than that.
> > 
> > On the other hand, a 4000 DPI scan of even a SMALL MF negative, 
e.g.,
> > 6 x 4.5 cm, will yield 9600 x 7200 pixels.  And obviously it's 
even
> > worse for 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 4x5in.   So you are throwing away a 
TON of
> > detail, assuming the original negs were reasonably sharp.  You 
are
> > probably also thowing away a ton of dynamic range compared to a 
film
> > scanner.
> > 
> > MF holds LOTS of detail and lots of tonal-range subtlety.   
That's
> > the whole reason for using MF in the first place!  What you're 
doing

> > is taking all your Hasselblads or Mamiya RB67's or whatever and
> > replacing the film backs on them with a little APS camera.
> >

Don,

The WB (on auto) is better than my Nikon or Minolta films scanners.

Yes, I'd love a cheap film recorder. Why doesn't someone produce one?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Marcotte" <dmarcot@...>



Another great suggestion. Just out of curiosity, how well does a Nikon slide 
copier do in slide to slide film copying? Since I would use the copier on a 
D100 for indexing in a computerized database, the size of the image isn't 
important. However, WB would be. Which WB do you use?

One thing I've always wanted to is the reverse of what you suggest. I'd like 
to be able to put a D100 image onto a slide without paying a king's ransom. 
My only home-based solution is to print it and photograph it. I don't have a 
good copy stand so that is really problematic.