Duplicating 35mm stuff: If I send my old film stuff to convert to digital it will cost me more than 100 grand. I have the usual snapshots, some really excellent work and a lot of...

RobertP

If I send my old film stuff to convert to digital it will cost me more than 100 grand. I have the usual snapshots, some really excellent work and a lot of medical lectures. I would like to learn how the resulting megapixel is affected depending on which “stuff” I am duplicating, which camera/lens combo I need to use (I don’t wish to overkill), iPhone vs scanning. I would like a good result. What is the maximum best result possible when you duplicate. Each “stuff), slides vs negatives, vs developed photos. There has to be a limit as to overkill. I don’t want to spend my time and not get a good or excellent result. Thanx a lot.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6bqp8mto6kpckmn/Camera%20Scanning.pdf?dl=0

The linked PDF is my take on it. I’m in the middle of digitizing all my film (slides and negatives). The white paper explains how I’m doing it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This post (Scanning your old film negatives) discusses the technical set-up for using an Epson v600 to scan negatives to about 10MP JPEGs:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-689142-1.html

Equus Loc: Puget Sound

I used the Epson to scan old photos, slides, different size negatives. The included software was excellent and the scanner did an excellent job.

Nantahalan Loc: Savannah originally; western NC now

Many thanks for sharing your experience and research in such a well-written and illustrated document.

therwol Loc: USA

RobertP wrote:

If I send my old film stuff to convert to digital it will cost me more than 100 grand.

100 Grand? How much 35mm do you need to convert to digital? I did about 7000 negatives and slides. I had a photo rig set up and was binge scanning on an Epson V800 at the same time. It took months to get through it. If you have as many negatives/slides as it sounds, then the Epson V600 won't cut it. 12 negatives at a time. Not only that, read this article. If you're discriminating, the results may not be as good as other options, the photo option or a better scanner. At least my Epson V800 will scan up to 18 negatives or 12 slides at a time. The current V850 is the same.

https://www.learnfilm.photography/epson-v550-v600-review-heres-why-im-selling-this-scanner/

RLSprouse Loc: Encinitas CA (near Sandy Eggo)

Before you plunge in, I suggest spending some time exploring the information on Peter Krogh's site, DAM Useful Publishing, and especially check out his excellent book "Digitizing Your Photos with Your Camera and Lightroom".

ELNikkor

I use my D40 for a lot of my old stuff that only needs digitizing, family & personal history, never going to be used for prints or blow-ups. I want small files (1mp and smaller), large pixels, decent quality. Bowens Illumitran, El Nikkor 50 2.8 for slides, 18-55 on a copy stand for prints.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ELNikkor wrote:

I use my D40 for a lot of my old stuff that only needs digitizing, family & personal history, never going to be used for prints or blow-ups. I want small files (1mp and smaller), large pixels, decent quality. Bowens Illumitran, El Nikkor 50 2.8 for slides, 18-55 on a copy stand for prints.

The Illumitran IIIc is one of my favorite devices from the 1980s. I used it with my El Nikkor 50 2.8 and Bogen 60mm f/4 lenses. I still have the lenses.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

therwol wrote:

100 Grand? How much 35mm do you need to convert ... (show quote)

That guy went through nearly the same evolution I did. I switched to camera scanning for the same reasons.

Here's a senior portrait made on 35mm Tri-X in 1975, scanned with the methods and rig outlined in the PDF I linked back on page 1 of this thread. View in Download to see the detail. This image is neither downsampled nor interpolated.

>

Eleanor, 1975
Eleanor, 1975...

(Download)

Quixdraw Loc: x

I have vast quantities of slides, negatives and photos. Mine and generations of family stuff that has come to me, as the last photographer standing. I have made several attempts at digging into the work and have made a very small dent. This is work I find tough, I suppose you would say in terms of maintaining interest and discipline. Not discussing the technical aspects, I have used different camera rigs and a scanner as well with good results, but the practical ones directed at getting the job done. Get set up, everything tested and working. If you are fortunate to have the space, stay set up. Determine a practical goal either in terms of numbers of images processed, or a period of time. EG: with a camera, 100 images, or with your scanner 90 minutes. Do it every day, possibly at the same time so it is part of your schedule. Easy to say, hard to do - part of my Winter Photo action plan. hopefully I'll make better progress than the last times!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

For comparison, I dug out a Tri-X shot of my wife I took in about '72. (We are still married!) When I shot it I had a full darkroom and made a print that I've always thought to be one of my best processing jobs. I found the negative and (slowly!) scanned it on an Epson v550. With a little help from Lightroom Classic and a Canon Pro-100 printer, the "new" ink juet print is better that the darkroom version. Technology is amazing.

You can't see the print, but you might like to see what an Epson flatbed scanner can do compared to Bill Burkholder's method.

(Download)

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

burkphoto wrote:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6bqp8mto6kpckmn/Camera%20Scanning.pdf?dl=0

The linked PDF is my take on it. I’m in the middle of digitizing all my film (slides and negatives). The white paper explains how I’m doing it.

Very interesting setup!

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

bsprague wrote:

For comparison, I dug out a Tri-X shot of my wife ... (show quote)

I had the same experience.
Scanned a Tri-X neg I shot at about the same time as you.
I thought I was a very good printer, but the scan I did on an Epson V700 and inkjet printer was way better than anything I ever got from the darkroom.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

GoofyNewfie wrote:

I had the same experience.
Scanned a Tri-X neg I shot at about the same time as you.
I though I was a very good printer, but the scan I did on an Epson V700 and inkjet printer was way better than anything I ever got from the darkroom.

We had a lot of fun building our "perfect" mid seventies darkroom. We had a busy young family. Once built, it was hard to find time to hide in there long enough to make a print. The dream of being the next great B&W photographer never came true!

Lightroom works so much better! And there are no chemicals!