burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There has been a lot of interest recently, both here and on YouTube, regarding how to transfer film (slides, black-and-white negatives, and color negatives) to digital files.

I'm in a pretty good position to discuss this, since for five years, I ran a high volume film scanning operation (and all other digital imaging departments) of a major portrait lab. 20 years before that, I did plenty of film duplication as an AV producer making big corporate slide shows. So...

There are three classic ways to do film-to-digital conversions:

> Use a service bureau

> Use a scanner

> Use a digital camera with macro lens or other sort of close-up attachment (enlarger lens on bellows, reversed normal lens on extension tubes, etc.)


The advantage of a service bureau is that you don't do much of anything. Just fill up a box with media and send it off. Some time later, receive your materials back, along with a disc, flash drive, or link to download the files.

The disadvantages of a service are that it is usually a bit expensive when you have lots of files to digitize. The service takes time. Many services send files to a remote scanning sweatshop in an emerging nation, to minimize their labor costs. Confidentiality is impossible to maintain, if you need that. And the quality can range from excellent to excrement.

The advantage of scanners is that you are in control. The scanner can be a reasonable expense ($230 to $1300 for a decent flatbed or film scanner). You can take advantage of technology that removes dust and scratches, restores some semblance of color balance to faded media, and so forth.

The disadvantages of scanning include:

> A lack of speed (Scans can take a boring minute or more per original for high resolution.)

> Complexity (If you don't understand the principles of digital imaging, you can get very disappointing results.)

> A lack of resolution (Flatbeds rarely focus film as accurately as I would like. Effective resolution usually is much lower than the scanner's rated resolution.)

> Obsolescence (I wish I had a $20 bill for every scanner abandoned by its manufacturer in less than five years! I'd take my wife to a fancy restaurant.)

The advantages of using digital cameras with macro lenses include:

> A full 36 exposure roll of film can be "scanned" (copied) in about seven minutes or so.

> Digital cameras can resolve more than original 35mm film did. Use a high resolution camera (50 to 100 MP) on medium format film, and the same is true.

> You can save raw files and process them the same way you would process other digital camera files.

> Excellent software exists for converting both black-and-white and color negatives to positive digital images *without* fighting curves tools.

> You may already have much of what you need to use your digital camera to copy film. Add a light source, a film holder, and some software, and you're set. Almost...

I've spent years mulling over how to proceed to digitize my collection of film. It's of no use to me as film... I want to make videos of it, sell products from it online, preserve some of it for family, etc.

Accordingly, I settled on the copy method for film. I'll flatbed scan prints, but film will get the macro treatment.

I've written a white paper explaining how I am doing it. It is a PDF file you can download and view with your favorite browser or PDF viewer. It contains links to videos, reviews, and commentaries, and to various sources for the products I'm using. (Some of the links may need to be copied and pasted into the URL line of your browser.) I've also included some samples I "scanned" from images recorded on film 30 to 50 years ago. Enjoy:

>

Attached file:
(Download)

marquina Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Excellent! Thank you! Just in time for my needs.

Nelson

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

ScanCafe does all its own work at its lab in Indianapolis.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes, there are a few labs that do that. They charge higher prices to pay Americans to do the work, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if you have thousands of images to convert, it gets expensive.

The usual target market for those sorts of scanning services is a bit different from the enthusiast and pro photography markets.

My goal here was to reach those who want high quality digital files of their images that they can manipulate with post-processing software and then print, if desired.

gmw12 Loc: Indianapolis & Windsor/UK & Montreux/Switzerl

I used the copy method you mention (24Mb APS-C DSLR + 50mm macrolens mounted on my old enlarger column and an equally old Multiblitz Slide Duplicator flash with some ND gel filters to reduce the light intensity - this flash was formerly used for 3-6 ASA slide duplication ektachrome...) to digitize my 20 to 50 year old slide archive and I am pretty much happy with the results after PP the raw files with PL4. Timewise and cost wise, it beats any other method. (BTW, I shoot the slide with the emulsion side up to the lens to avoid shooting through the film layer itself and flip the picture back in PP).

What I haven't tried yet is the digitization of color negs and I wonder which stand-alone software you would use for the conversion, knowing that PL4 doesn't offer this function ?

John Maher Loc: Northern Virginia

Thank you.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you read the PDF download in my first post, above, you will find all the information you need on page 11. I use the Negative Lab Pro plug-in with Adobe Lightroom CLASSIC.

Back in the early 1980s, I was a multi-image AV producer. We had a Bowens Illumitran IIIc slide duplicator, with 60mm Bogen enlarging lens on its bellows. It worked great with Kodak Ektachrome SO-366 duplicating film, which was designed for the reciprocity characteristics of electronic flash. Later, we switched to a Beseler 4x5 enlarger dichroic color head, inverted, as our light source, so we could use Ektachrome 5071 duplicating film, which was much easier to get and more consistent from emulsion batch to emulsion batch.

We had a precision "X-Y slide compound" mounted on the color head, so we could compose to .001" precision (it came with vernier dials and thumb screw controls) when duplicating film in registration for composites and titling and soft-edge masking. I still have the pin-registered Nikon F3 we used.

Knowing how to duplicate film in AV gave me half the experience I needed to understand how to digitize film.

gmw12 Loc: Indianapolis & Windsor/UK & Montreux/Switzerl

Thank you. Which reminds me that I still have a bunch of deep-frozen unexposed SO-366 since the mid-80s...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Oh, wow! Fun trivia. That stuff was really obscure THEN.

I was part of a creative services group in a school portrait photography company doing millions of dollars' worth of film/paper/chemistry business every year with Kodak, and it was still hard to get. They made it in small batches.

5071 was what the larger AV companies and movie production houses used for positive duplication using Forox and Oxberry systems (those used continuous 3200K illumination). One of the local labs in Charlotte kept a Forox camera busy all the time, making slide duplicates and doing special effects with it for the local multi-image crowd. Unfortunately, they used Hope roller transport processors for E6, which scratched a lot of their film...

The lead tech guy left, and started his own lab. He quickly had most of the business in the area because he bought a Refrema dip-and-dunk processor that did not touch (or scratch) the film. His former boss didn't understand where his business went.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Much grass!

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

And the correct context for interpretation of "Much grass!" is???

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thank you very much. This is headed for my keep file.

srt101fan

Muchas gracias?

ulfeld Loc: New York City

Hi fellow UHH's ... I have a CanoScan 9000F... It is a flatbed scanner that comes with film holders (for lack of a better term) that allows you to scan 35 mm Positive, Negative, and Slide film ... also 120 film ... I have used it with great efficiency to scan my film archives ... unfortunately there are no drivers or software to enable me to use it with my new Mac ... also, unfortunately, Canon no longer makes a flatbed that can accommodate the "film Holders"... Canon does sell refurb versions of the 9000F scanner ... when in stock they are asking $119.00 ... I'm probably going to put mine up for sale on UHH ... It's a great and reasonably priced scanner ...I have a complete list of the various operating systems, both PC and Mac that still have Drivers and Software available that can be download from the canon website for this unit ... Garett von Ulfeld