Film Negative to digital
Nov 9, 2015 13:43:59 #
Some of us film aficionados actually appreciate the way technology like scanners and software (and ipads and iphones etc) help us sort and work with our photos. Printing is certainly one way to view results from negatives - I have the contact sheets and prints to prove that - but not the only way or even the best, necessarily, depending on what you're up to.
Nov 9, 2015 13:46:57 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
dhowland wrote:
Some of us film aficionados actually appreciate the way technology like scanners and software (and ipads and iphones etc) help us sort and work with our photos. Printing is certainly one way to view results from negatives - I have the contact sheets and prints to prove that - but not the only way or even the best, necessarily, depending on what you're up to.
the true quality of any image resides in the final print. there is no better way to assess worth (artistic or financial). nobody is buying scans and scans are not shown in any gallery of which i am aware.
Nov 9, 2015 13:58:07 #
You must be unaware of the advantages of scanning negatives, which render excellent-resolution files using certain settings. Many prints are made through this process actually and are indeed in galleries and even museums. Certainly you're not advocating that all negatives are best viewed as gallery-quality prints? Perhaps I misunderstand you.
Nov 9, 2015 14:06:52 #
The method you tried using your computer screen as a light box will work, much better result will come from increasing spacing between monitor and film so that the 'dots' will be far out of focus (your depth of field is very shallow at this distance). Other replies will give you better methods/better results, but your method will work.
Nov 9, 2015 15:16:12 #
wj cody wrote:
after all these comments, no one has figured out that the best way is film to PRINT! hedgehoggers don't seem to mind the continuous flow of dollars for the next big thing, but complain about the insignificant cost of film and paper. evidently, no one really cares about their digital results, if it's not worth printing!
Well, the original question was about transferring film negatives to digital. I think most of the replies pertained to that.
Actually, there is quite a market for digital images on the web. Many of us make a good living with photography without making paper prints.
Nov 24, 2015 07:28:05 #
So I tried various ways to get the negetive into digital, but found it to be way too much work. Between trying to find an even light source that did not contaminate the negative, getting the correct lens setup and then the Photoshop editing...
I called my local photo store, Ball Photo and Supply. They can do it for stupid cheap. I'll post thier results when I get them back.
It was an intersting learning experience. One that could benefit me in the future.
By the way, all of the apps I tried for my iPad worked as expected, but they still left the pattern of screen dots on the negative when digitalized. Maybe if I could find a way to separate the negative from the screen that issue would go away. Then however, I would have to spend time in my wood, or metal shop to create a rig.
My conclusion, unless one wants to spend a lot of free time make jury rigs, let the pros do it.
olc
I called my local photo store, Ball Photo and Supply. They can do it for stupid cheap. I'll post thier results when I get them back.
It was an intersting learning experience. One that could benefit me in the future.
By the way, all of the apps I tried for my iPad worked as expected, but they still left the pattern of screen dots on the negative when digitalized. Maybe if I could find a way to separate the negative from the screen that issue would go away. Then however, I would have to spend time in my wood, or metal shop to create a rig.
My conclusion, unless one wants to spend a lot of free time make jury rigs, let the pros do it.
olc
Nov 24, 2015 08:14:52 #
Nov 24, 2015 13:19:53 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
mallen1330 wrote:
Well, the original question was about transferring film negatives to digital. I think most of the replies pertained to that.
Actually, there is quite a market for digital images on the web. Many of us make a good living with photography without making paper prints.
Actually, there is quite a market for digital images on the web. Many of us make a good living with photography without making paper prints.
i could not agree more. there is a huge market for digital images on the web and in the print media. this is why there is such a loss of artistry in print magazines since the '60s and '70s.
Nov 24, 2015 14:22:20 #
wj cody wrote:
i could not agree more. there is a huge market for digital images on the web and in the print media. this is why there is such a loss of artistry in print magazines since the '60s and '70s.
Are you saying that the "...loss of artistry..." is BECAUSE of digital photography?
While I prefer vinyl to MP3's, and 35mm films in theaters vs digital. In most cases I cannot tell the difference.
A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film is estimated to contain the equivalent of between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. My Canon t3i captures 18 million.
In either case, film or digital, they are much higher resolution than the printed pages of a magazine -- 300 dpi at best -- 3000 dots by 2400 dots for a 10" X 8" photo, or 7.2 MP
Artistry is an attribute of the artist -- not the tool. I find that great art can be obtained with $40 point & shoot cameras and also with $2,000 film or digital cameras.
Nov 24, 2015 14:50:44 #
Nov 25, 2015 09:05:27 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
mallen1330 wrote:
Are you saying that the "...loss of artistry.... (show quote)
that is exactly what i'm saying. first of all digital prints are inferior to film prints. secondly, the "ease" of digital electronic chips has cause a loss of craft. as the more the device does for you, the less you have to do for yourself. it is an inevitable situation.
Nov 25, 2015 09:19:04 #
I think what you mean is that the ease of digital means there may be more people photographing. That doesn't mean that the artistry of talented photographers is inferior to those of the film-dominant era.
Whether digital prints are inferior is debatable, too. There are families with boxes full of old faded prints from film that prove that! Not to mention the terrible prints from 110 film, fuzzy and blown out. Even at the high end (I don't know where or how you print your photographs) it's debatable. In any case, there's always been a difference between how people take and print snapshots and how artist photographers see and shoot ... and there's always been overlap and there's always been an in-between.
There will always be Luddites too ... including those who decades ago said that photography isn't an art form at all.
Whether digital prints are inferior is debatable, too. There are families with boxes full of old faded prints from film that prove that! Not to mention the terrible prints from 110 film, fuzzy and blown out. Even at the high end (I don't know where or how you print your photographs) it's debatable. In any case, there's always been a difference between how people take and print snapshots and how artist photographers see and shoot ... and there's always been overlap and there's always been an in-between.
There will always be Luddites too ... including those who decades ago said that photography isn't an art form at all.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.