Scanning old photos (Page 2): I'm way ahead of you. And I have a better disposition. Here's your one true statement: >>With a V600 scan negatives at 3200 dpi.<< I give credit where...

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Apaflo wrote:

If it loses you, don't ignore it. It is precisely correct, and should be studied/researched until it is understood.

I'm way ahead of you. And I have a better disposition. Here's your one true statement:

>>With a V600 scan negatives at 3200 dpi.<< [35mm negatives anyway]

I give credit where credit is due. You should try it yourself.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Kissel vonKeister wrote:

I'm way ahead of you. And I have a better disposition. Here's your one true statement:

>>With a V600 scan negatives at 3200 dpi.<< [35mm negatives anyway]

I give credit where credit is due. You should try it yourself.

So why say it loses you? What I wrote is precisely correct.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Kissel vonKeister wrote:

... There's no need to scan prints at 600 dpi unless you want to make enlarged prints, ...

If the scan will be printed at 300 PPI it should be scanned at two times that in DPI. That is to print at the same size as the original.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Apaflo wrote:

So why say it loses you? What I wrote is precisely correct.

Ask the guy who made the original comment. Your print scanning resolution was way off, and your neg scanning resolution was all that was precisely correct.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Kissel vonKeister wrote:

Ask the guy who made the original comment. Your print scanning resolution was way off, and your neg scanning resolution was all that was precisely correct.

Sorry, that just is not the case. If you want to capture 300 dpi detail accurately it has to be sampled at twice that rate.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

burkphoto wrote:

Your prints are likely to scan better than negativ... (show quote)

My experience has been completely different. Any time I have scanned both a print and a negative, the scan of the negative has been better. I'm guessing part of the issue is quality of the original print, since my prints were all made by professionals who operated under industrial conditions.

added: much of the issue / difference is that subtle detail was lost by whomever / whatever made the print sixty years ago.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

hipoint wrote:

I purchased an Epson V600 to digitize photos taken in the 1970s and 1980s. I have both the negatives and prints. I plan to save at 600 dpi and using TIFF.
Question: Which picture format (negative/print) will give me the best results and why.

I prefer scanning negatives. But there are times for some reason they do not scan properly and I then do the print. I use the Epson V750.

hipoint Loc: The Northshore, Gulf South

That is exactly what I needed to know....thanks

Burkphoto wrote: Your prints are likely to scan better than negatives, unless you have very large black-and-white negatives. Old color negatives will have faded dye layers. They usually fade much faster than the layers in color paper,

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rehess wrote:

My experience has been completely different. Any time I have scanned both a print and a negative, the scan of the negative has been better. I'm guessing part of the issue is quality of the original print, since my prints were all made by professionals who operated under industrial conditions.

added: much of the issue / difference is that subtle detail was lost by whomever / whatever made the print sixty years ago.

My comments were specifically referenced to color negs. I actually photograph B&W negs with great results. I used to copy thousands of slides in the 1980s, so I have lots of experience with that method. It's faster, and better, than scanning.

But photographing OR scanning very old color negs? It sucks. Ektachrome slides made 15-20 years ago are in that same class of issues. On the other hand, Kodachrome copies and scans very well.

But color negs? Pro films like Vericolor and Portra were rated for 18 months shelf life after processing before noticeable changes began. School portrait labs retained negs for 12-18 months, then disposed of them securely.

Amateur color films vary widely in dye permanence, but after 20 years, there's not much left. Which layer fades first depends on brand and emulsion and age. If you have color prints, they probably faded less.

The best

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

hipoint wrote:

That is exactly what I needed to know....thanks

Burkphoto wrote: Your prints are likely to scan better than negatives, unless you have very large black-and-white negatives. Old color negatives will have faded dye layers. They usually fade much faster than the layers in color paper,

My V750 does a great job salvaging old faded negatives and slides. Some come close to being as originally taken.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Architect1776 wrote:

My V750 does a great job salvaging old faded negatives and slides. Some come close to being as originally taken.

The V750 is a much better scanner for this purpose than the V600 that the OP is using.

Even so the V750 when scanning at 6400 dpi only produces about 2300 dpi of actual resolution. The V600 gets just over 1500 dpi maximum resolution.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Apaflo wrote:

The V750 is a much better scanner for this purpose than the V600 that the OP is using.

Even so the V750 when scanning at 6400 dpi only produces about 2300 dpi of actual resolution. The V600 gets just over 1500 dpi maximum resolution.

Here is a scan of a nearly 60 year old slide that was virtually clear. The V750 did an amazing job as I could not tell what the slide even was. I used Elements to darken it a bit.
I made the file smaller but am just showing the color restoration from clear to this.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Architect1776 wrote:

Here is a scan of a nearly 60 year old slide that was virtually clear. The V750 did an amazing job as I could not tell what the slide even was. I used Elements to darken it a bit.
I made the file smaller but am just showing the color restoration from clear to this.

Does the level of sharpness (or lack of it) match the original slide? I can't tell much from your post, as there's no download option.

My experience with the Epson scanners is that Digital ICE does a very fine job with color restoration, but the scans require a lot sharpening in post production, and they're still not sharp. You should be able to see sharply-defined individual film grains if you blow them up far enough.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

burkphoto wrote:

Does the level of sharpness (or lack of it) match the original slide? I can't tell much from your post, as there's no download option.

My experience with the Epson scanners is that Digital ICE does a very fine job with color restoration, but the scans require a lot sharpening in post production, and they're still not sharp. You should be able to see sharply-defined individual film grains if you blow them up far enough.

I have no idea about sharpness seeing as the slide was nearly clear. The only point being made was color restoration and absolutely nothing else including sharpness, grain or anything else.