Photographing an Old Negative
Dec 30, 2015 15:40:27 #
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon D7100 (on a tripod) in order to take photos of old negatives; mostly for archive info but perhaps, for some, to enhance for other uses. Simple question: Do you take the photograph emulsion side up or down? It would seem that up would be the right answer as you would be focusing on the emulsion where down you would be focusing through the film.
I suppose it would be best to experiment but thought I'd ask first.
Any thoughts on the "right" way to do it?
I suppose it would be best to experiment but thought I'd ask first.
Any thoughts on the "right" way to do it?
Dec 30, 2015 16:08:44 #
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
If you want to see the image as the camera saw it, it would be emulsion side down and upside down. Focusing to get the sharpest image would still have you focusing through the film backing and focusing on the emulsion.
In all reality, it wouldn't matter if you did this emulsion side up or down, as you can always reverse the image in PP so that the image would look correct.
--Bob
Dec 30, 2015 16:15:46 #
rmalarz wrote:
If you want to see the image as the camera saw it, it would be emulsion side down and upside down. Focusing to get the sharpest image would still have you focusing through the film backing and focusing on the emulsion.
In all reality, it wouldn't matter if you did this emulsion side up or down, as you can always reverse the image in PP so that the image would look correct.
--Bob
In all reality, it wouldn't matter if you did this emulsion side up or down, as you can always reverse the image in PP so that the image would look correct.
--Bob
mmm The emulsion was toward the lens so side up... Side down when you loaded the film if you recall....
So, same as slide the emulsion needs to be toward the camera (or scanner) to (partly) avoid going through the support that may add artifacts due to old age...
Other wise, as you said, PP can adjust for the reverse orientation.
Dec 30, 2015 16:28:21 #
To view (and shoot) the image so it looks correct right to left, you would have the emulsion away from you, base side toward you.
Dec 30, 2015 16:54:54 #
Rongnongno wrote:
So, same as slide the emulsion needs to be toward the camera (or scanner) to (partly) avoid going through the support that may add artifacts due to old age...
Other wise, as you said, PP can adjust for the reverse orientation.
Other wise, as you said, PP can adjust for the reverse orientation.
That's largely what I was worried about; the support material artifacts. I can do all the necessary flipping, inverting, etc. in post quite easily.
Dec 30, 2015 18:33:11 #
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
Emulsion facing AWAY from the camera sensor, or else your images will come out inverted. (backwards)
Dec 30, 2015 21:20:31 #
DragonTom wrote:
That's largely what I was worried about; the support material artifacts. I can do all the necessary flipping, inverting, etc. in post quite easily.
:thumbup:
Dec 30, 2015 21:33:36 #
For the sharpest image possible I would have the emulsion side facing the lens
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
Dec 31, 2015 05:34:39 #
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
Unless you have some text to show the correct side, the shiny side is towards you or the camera. view it from the shiny side.
Dec 31, 2015 06:08:19 #
Hopefully, you won't mind my asking what purpose is served when copying a negative? I am sure there is a purpose and I merely just don't know what it would be.
If I were to attempt to answer my own question here, perhaps, I might say, more than likely, the magic of our PCs with installed software such as Photoshop will permit the copied negative to be used as if it were the original negative ~ which, also, is a function I am unaware of too.
Meanwhile, please excuse my lacking of knowledge with the subject.
If I were to attempt to answer my own question here, perhaps, I might say, more than likely, the magic of our PCs with installed software such as Photoshop will permit the copied negative to be used as if it were the original negative ~ which, also, is a function I am unaware of too.
Meanwhile, please excuse my lacking of knowledge with the subject.
Dec 31, 2015 06:25:01 #
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
I've worked in a museum. Photograph the emulsion side, then electronically filp or reverse the image to get L&R or T&B correct. Especially if you are talking about older films, not all film is extremely thin like modern 35mm. Old film might not have a "clear" or "clean" appearance. Many film types and formats are much thicker, say even today's 4x5" or 8x10" sheet films are thicker than 35mm. To say nothing of glass negatives. Kodalith and MicroFilm are usually very thin and might be copied as viewed through the backing if in excellent condition and not fogged or stained, otherwise photograph the silver. Kodak Estar(tm) thick base is thick!
Dec 31, 2015 06:30:43 #
DragonTom wrote:
I've set up a lightbox and macro lens on my Nikon ... (show quote)
Ca Central Coast. :thumbup: I own another home in Grover Beach. :-)
Dec 31, 2015 08:44:06 #
I've been looking into "scanning" negatives with a DSLR. There are numerous websites for various techniques. Seems like some are getting very good results with a camera and not a real scanner.
A quick Google search will answer a lot of questions.
A quick Google search will answer a lot of questions.
Dec 31, 2015 09:00:32 #
Why not try it and see. Anything on the backing is going to show up anyway, as you are shining light through the negative, aren't you? That being said, you may get slightly better sharpness photographing the emulsion rather than the backing. My guess it that it won't make much difference, as I used to do wet printing and sometimes reversed the negative in the carrier for one reason or another, and never noticed much difference.
Dec 31, 2015 09:12:24 #
kymarto wrote:
Why not try it and see. Anything on the backing is going to show up anyway, as you are shining light through the negative, aren't you? That being said, you may get slightly better sharpness photographing the emulsion rather than the backing. My guess it that it won't make much difference, as I used to do wet printing and sometimes reversed the negative in the carrier for one reason or another, and never noticed much difference.
I guess you still have the negative image which needs reversing in pp.
Wouldn't it be easier to scan or have it scanned, in a proper scanner which does the reverting in house?
I bought a good scanner that does it all. No messing about.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.