Film shots made digital? How? (Page 3): I've not used Walmart for that, but have used another local service for development and scanning of the negatives to CD. If you have more than...

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

woodsmitty wrote:

I have decided to reserect my Canon T70 system with it's two zoom lenses, 28-80mm and 70-300mm plus my 2x extender. I would like to compare photos taken with my digital cameras to ones taken on film. Here's the big question. Should I just have prints made and scan them in myself or should I let the developer
(Walmart) put them on a CD for me? I'd like to be able to share them with other members on the site and get their feed back.

I've not used Walmart for that, but have used another local service for development and scanning of the negatives to CD. If you have more than one service available, you might want to try several, asking for their best-quality scans, and see which does the best job. Scanning negatives is very time-consuming, fussy, and tedious to get it right. I have a slide and negative scanner, but prefer getting the CDs of scans made when the film is developed, then do a few scans myself of those negatives for which special attention is wanted. Also, the commercial scanners seem to do a better job of preventing dust spots to correct than if I scan it myself. Either way, scan from the negatives -- way too much quality is lost if you scan from the prints.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

FilmFanatic wrote:

If you do that the film photos will probably look awful, minilab scanners are set up to crank the contrast and saturation through the roof. The problem here is that your two choices both involve the same scanning - does not matter if they print or make a cd, it starts out with a scan as almost all minilabs now are digital. So that leaves another option - scan them yourself, which means you need a scanner.

My sister, who is not a camera fanatic (just a snapshooter) has let Walmart and Walgreens process her film pics and produce a cd at the same time. I have checked those cd's versus scanning the negatives myself with a film scanner and cannot find any real difference with the scans. Walmart, Walgreens, etc use standard film scanners for creating the cds and should be able to produce cds that are just as good as any other lab unless you just want to spend more money.

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

mtbearded1 wrote:

In my experience, having Walmart (or Rite-Aid, Costco, whoever) put the images on a CD is a waste of time and money--except for archival purposes. The scan is usually at a very low resolution and trying to work the with images off the CD has, again in my experience, been very unsatisfactory. On the other hand, taking a clean 5x7 print, scanning it myself at high resolution, then working with that in Photoshop has given me some lovely images to enlarge and print.

I think that you make a mistake in putting Costco in the same class as Wal Mart or Rite Aid, etc. Also, nearly every lab that still develops film scans the negatives to digital to print. Are you one of those people who says that if you use Costco for processing you can't be serious about photography? I am a professional(semi-retired), and I get a good share of my printing done there. I have a good relationship with the lab manager, and he knows what I like. This isn't to say that he(they) don't do a good job for everyone-just that it's a good idea to have an understanding with the people that you have do work for you.

ricofoto Loc: Adelaide, Australia

woodsmitty wrote:

Regarding the whole scanning negs issue, I think I'll try a negitive photographed with a digital camera with the neg on a light table.

Regarding your suggestion of photographing the negatives on a light box. I have done this with large negatives i.e. quarter plate etc. and it works fine. Basicly it is what I suggested, using a camera and bellows. Have half a dozen test negs done in all the ways suggested on here and decide what gives the best results. Good luck with that and post your conclusions, as i am sure other hogs will be interested......Rico

Laura C Loc: Maryland

Hi,
My personal opinion, I would put them on a cd. that way you could download them to your computer and access them faster and they would be backed up by a hard copy. If money isn't an issue (too much), then do both. That way you can see what works best for you and so you don't lose picture quality from the scanner. :) Without knowing which would work best, because I am new and still learning to convert from film to digital. This would be my guess. I hope this helps. :D

twowindsbear

woodsmitty wrote:

I have decided to reserect my Canon T70 system with it's two zoom lenses, 28-80mm and 70-300mm plus my 2x extender. I would like to compare photos taken with my digital cameras to ones taken on film. Here's the big question. Should I just have prints made and scan them in myself or should I let the developer
(Walmart) put them on a CD for me? I'd like to be able to share them with other members on the site and get their feed back.

Since you say "I'd like to be able to share them with other members on the site and get their feed back. . . " Here's my suggestion so you'll be comparing apples to apples & oranges to oranges.

Carefully shoot each scene with all your different cameras, film & digital. Have your film developed at your choice of photo lab. Choose a film print for comparison. Then, choose a digital image of the same scene. Put the memory card containing that image into your printer and make a STRAIGHT print from that file. Do absolutely NO post processing of any sort. Then, scan both prints to post for feed back.

IF you choose a photolab that performs some image processing then you could do similar PP on the file.

molsonice Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I am going to have the same delema in January 2013. I am taking my film camera to Costa Rica and I am planning on having the film developed and put on a CD. So what I think you are saying, the processor is going to make the negatives and scan them to the CD. Should I also have prints made at the same time or will I be able to save the prints on my hard drive and then select the pictures I want to make prints of my trip? I have read alot about the unexpected rain showers in the rain forests in Costa Rica and I reall don't want my DSLR to become a parer weight. Looking for advise :lol: :lol: :lol:

twowindsbear

molsonice wrote:

I am going to have the same delema in January 2013... (show quote)

Get a rain proof/resistant cover for your camera. good luck!

mtbearded1 Loc: U.S.A. : Montana : Missoula

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have used Costco for lots of my printing, including the first photo book I put together. I feel their oversized enlargements are among the best available. I was talking strictly of having a photo CD made, and in my experience, even Costco scans the photos/negatives at a low resolution. You mileage may vary, but that has been my experience, and I've had CDs made at all three of the businesses I mentioned by name.

flashgordonbrown wrote:

quote=mtbearded1 In my experience, having Walmart... (show quote)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

MT Shooter is on sabbatical with his daughter this summer. Otherwise, I'm sure that he would have suggested the Epson V500 scanner to scan your film negatives into digital. It is cost effective at $134. Having read reviews, however, I might suggest that you spend the extra bucks and get the Epson Perfection V700 Scanner which goes for over $500. I'm attaching a link to a review for the V700. I think the first few paragraphs say a lot.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V700/V700.HTM

molsonice Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

molsonice wrote:

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

I have boxes and boxes of photos and negatives from my film days that I'm anxious to scan into digital. Now that my son has moved out my "man cave" can be cleared out from the clutter that piled up while it was used as the better half's storage room. Now that she has her own craft room, I'll be able to dig in and uncover all those photos and negatives and digitize them. The best photos I ever took are in there because they're pics of family and my parents. I've got a few that I'll take straight to Color Photo for enlargement.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

if i did scan it would be from kodak slides.but i still have a le belle projector and a good screen.i enjoy digging them out and loading them in trays sitting back and remembering when and where i took them.

ASR666 Loc: Singapore

ricofoto wrote:

quote=woodsmitty I have decided to reserect my Ca... (show quote)

Yup done that for color slides - using an 18-55 kit lens and a clip on my tripod to hold the slide and a table lamp. Results were better than scanning since there was some fungus damage. The basic challenges for me were to get the focal plane right and to control the lighting.

dickhrm Loc: Spingfield, IL

A few days ago there was a suggestion to project one's slides on a white surface, take digital pix of them, then download to one's computer. This was noted as a much faster way vs. using a slide scanner. I cannot readily find the posting, altho I thought it was in this stream.

Anyway, I experimented with this today with some slides that I had scanned previously with a home slide scanner for comparison purposes. I did not get good results. The colors were very watered down compared to the scanned ones, even after I had Photoshopped them.

I'd apprieciate any comments anyone might have. Also I'd like to know which daily forum this suggestion was in so I can refresh the technique. I could be doing something wrong. Thanks.