woodsliv Loc: Tehachapi,CA

does anyone know if there is a way to process old B&W negatives on a computer?

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Get a scanner that has lighted lid and negative holders. Most can do 35mm or 120/220 negatives. If they are plates or large format sheet negatives, they can be scanned on the bed without the holders. I have an Epson (I'm not home so I forget the model) But such scanners are not hard to find. Once scanned, the negs can be inversed and post processed like any other Digital image.

woodsliv Loc: Tehachapi,CA

cool thanks, i will work on that

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

No prob, I know this has come up on UHH, So a search on it here should get you advice on specific models. Some folks "farm out" this work, But since I still shoot some film, I do my own scanning. Good luck with your negatives!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yup. Epson makes scanners to handle a variety of formats. I've used one since 2002 or so.
--Bob

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I used to have a dream darkroom in the '70s. I spent years planning it and built it from scratch. It was a wonderful place.

In that darkroom I processed an elegant print of my wife using all the knowledge and skill I had. I still have that 40 year old print.

For the sake of curiosity I got out the carefully filed negative, scanned it on an Epson Perfection 500, adjusted slightly it in Lightroom and printed in on a relatively cheap Canon Pro-100.

To my shock, surprise and delight the new, ink jet printed version is about twice the quality of the old tray processed version.

Building that old darkroom was a major investment. The new scanner and printer consumed only a few hundred dollars.

Not only is there a way to process old B&W negatives, there is an exceedingly wonderful and cheap way to do it!

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

I'm ready to convert 40 years of negs/slides after hours of research
I think I'm going for the epson V600

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Good choice. The V600 won't be fast, but will do a terrific job. You'll enjoy it.

woodsliv Loc: Tehachapi,CA

The negatives I have are from the 40's up some in pretty bad shape, some stuck together. When my dad passed I found them in the attic. The have been exposed to low and high extremes. Some are cut up, he would cut out parts of the negative he didn't want.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I've never had to do it, but I've read that negatives can be soaked in water and then hung to dry. That may get the stuck ones apart. Certainly they were wet once when developed.

The V600 comes with software that fixes things like scratches. It does a good job. Of course, there is always "touch up" in Photoshop.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

You can absolutely soak negatives to get them apart no guarantee that there won't be damage due to sticking or from improperly soaking or drying but at least they will be separated
Good luck

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, that's correct. Soaking briefly in distilled water should solve the problem and allow them to be gently, carefully separated. Just be sure to let them soak long enough that the come apart easily... don't force it. AND, avoid touching the image areas. ALSO I highly recommend you follow up with a wetting agent to reduce chance of water spots forming on the film. Some wetting agents that come to mind are Edwal and Kodak Photo-Flo (I imagine there are others).

After rinsing briefly in wetting agent, carefully hang up the strips of film to dry in a dust free environment. Be sure to weight each strip of film to keep it from curling (if you can find them.... spring-loaded wooden clothes pins work fine... as do some other types of clips).

Handle with care and store in sleeves to prevent scratches, damage and in a reasonably cool, dry environment to prevent sticking and fungus. (Some old types of film substrate are also very flammable.)

Actually most types of B&W film don't scan particularly well...

Traditional B&W film is made up of a clear substrate coated with an emulsion containing silver halide crystals. As a result, light passing through the film is either fully transmitted through the clear sections or blocked by the silver halide crystals.... so scanning it using transmissive lighting typically makes for very contrasty images that lose a lot of detail in highlights and shadows. Some high-end scanners and more advanced software (such as Silverfast) can overcome this to some extent. But the very best way to scan traditional B&W film is to first make a standard print via enlargement, and then scan that on a flat bed scanner using reflective lighting (rather than ransmitting light through the film).

Color negative film and slide (transparency) film scan much better using transmissive milluniation, because they both use dyes in the emulsion rather than silver halide crystal formations. The dyes allow light to pass through. In fact, "chromogenic" B&W film works the same way, using dyes (and is developed using the same C41 process used for much color neg film). But this is an uncommon type of B&W film, and as far as I know is only still being made by Ilford. I seriously doubt that those old negs are chromogenic B&W.... they're much more likely to be silver halide.

Depending upon how large you want to print, a dedicated film scanner might do a better job than a flatbed. Because they scan one image at a time, it's slower to use a film scanner like a Plustek or Pacific Images (Nikon, Minolta and others in the past, but they no longer make them... or Imacon/Hasselblad at the super high end). But some film scanners can do sequential scans automatically and this type of scanner typically has higher "true" optical resolution than many flat beds.... currently 7200 dpi to 10000 dpi (ignore interpolated resolution claims you might see with either type of scanner). They also usually have a higher "D-max" or wider dynamic range than is possible with most flatbeds. 3.6 to 4.9 D-Max is common or possible with a film scanner, while the best flatbeds typically offer 3.2 or 3.4 and top out at 3.6. Only a few expensive ones go higher. Look for 48-bit in both types of scanner (B&W scans will be done at 16-bit, though.)

But, flatbeds can do a pretty good job, too, so long as you aren't trying to make too large a print (or only want to share digitally).... and they can "batch scan" a whole film strip at one time (you can later "separate" the individual images digitally, if you wish). If you have various sizes of film - 35mm, medium format, large format - a flatbed may be able to handle them.... while a dedicated film scanner cannot. And, of course, flat bed scanners can handle prints and other documents, where dedicated film scanners cannot.

Epson V600 is an older model flatbed with pretty good specifications and very . It's able to do 48-bit, has optical resolution up to 6400 dpi and a D-Max of 3.4. It comes with Digital ICE (which I've used and found good) and ArcSoft Photostudio (which I haven't used...know nothing about).

Much more expensive the Epson V850 ($900+) and V800 ($750) flatbed scanneras are also 48-bit, have optical resolution up to 6400 and excellent D-Max 4.0... and comes with Digital ICE and Silverfast. The V850 also has X-Rite calibration suite.

Compare to PlusTek 8200i 35mm film scanner for $260... which is 48-bit, 7200 dpi, has a D-Max 3.6, and includes Silverfast software.

Pacific Image XE 35mm film scanner costs $300... also is 48-bit, has 10000 dpi resolution and a D-Max 3.8, and includes Silverfast.

Be prepared for BIG files. My old Nikon 4000 film scanner produces 130MB 16-bit TIFFs from slides.

One reason I keep the old Nikon is that it can batch scan up to 40 mounted slides with a feeder accessory... this isn't possible with most scanners, regardless of type. Braun makes one that costs $1800.

A lot of film scanners can feed unmounted film strips to batch scan as many images as are on them (up to 40, typically... but that would be an uncut roll of 35mm film, which is uncommon).

Just for comparison, a top of the line Imacon/Hasselblad Flextite X5 film scanner costs around $25,000 (which is a lot less than some "drum" scanners), has 8000 dpi, 4.9 D-Max, can handle 35mm through 4x5 sheet film and everything in between, can batch scan slides and strips of negs, and is very fast at up to 300MB per minute.

You might find this comparison interesting.... https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Same experience here.
I used an Epson V700 to scan a 35mm Tri-X neg I shot in 1973.
I never got a better darkroom print from it than I recently did from the scanner.
Though I do miss the magic of the darkroom, the hassle isn’t worth it for me.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I have had the opposite experience digitizing old B&W negs. I got a medium range (close to $500) Plustek Optic-film 8200i scanner. With well exposed negs, I was able to get pretty good prints, but not quite the subtlety of tone or sharpness I got from my old darkroom prints of the same negs. With negs which were somewhat over- or under-exposed, but which I had pulled very good prints from in the darkroom, I couldn't get very good digital prints at all. I was a professional darkroom printer back then, and had done exhibition prints. Other people who saw the prints thought the digital ones were as good as the darkroom ones, but I could tell the difference.

Photocraig

Bob,
This s the heartwarming message I've been looking for. Sure bits are bits end files are files, but the emotional resonance of a quality print is what hanging out in that smelly darkroom was all about. I'm more encouraged to hit my B&W film trail, again.

I'm really glad the print was more than worthy!
C