35mm film to digital

[wataby]

I have about 40 years of photos and negatives that I would like to preserve,can you copy to digital if so any ideas as to the best or easiest way?
wataby

[Rhys]

I have about 40 years of photos and negatives that I would like to preserve,can you copy to digital if so any ideas as to the best or easiest way?
wataby

Cheapest and easiest way - buy a flatbed scanner and put the negatives on the scanner, scan them and let the software sort it all out. You don't need a very high resolution scanner unless you want to copy the grain in all its glory.

Downside - the file format you choose to copy into might not survive for 40 years. There are already digital camera photo formats that are no longer supported by anybody.

Another downside - the media you store on might not be around for another 40 years. Remember 3.5" floppy disks or 5.25" floppy disks? They were all the rage then vanished. Now a computer with a 3.5" floppy is a rarity.

Don't even rely upon IDE hard disks being around much longer either - they're being replaced by SATA and even those are likely to be replaced within 20 years.

The valve radio - try to get valves for one!

[griptape]

That's a little dramatic of you Rhys. Considering the standard CD size isn't likely to go anywhere (remember what a huge success mini discs were?) and the fact that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are backwards compatible all the way back to the lowly CD, I think a CD or DVD would be pretty safe. And I don't see photoshop suddenly dropping jpeg support (or any of the other thousands of programs that support it simply becoming unavailable).

But any place that develops film should be able to convert negatives to digital on a CD (they'll all have film scanners).

[seo]

The valve radio - try to get valves for one!

http://www.tubedepot.com/

http://thetubestore.com/

http://www.newtube.com/content/

[tim11]

I have about 40 years of photos and negatives that I would like to preserve,can you copy to digital if so any ideas as to the best or easiest way?
wataby
Like RHYS said. You can buy a negative scanner and scan them yourself. Good news is scanner nowadays don't cost an arm or a leg (compared to years back) but the bad news is there is no easy way if you are to do it properly. Remember to scan them at large size and not default settings of the scanner. Remember also to have lots of hard drives to back them up. Personally, I'd back them up on 2 hard drives in case of one failing later on.

[Mark_48]

http://www.tubedepot.com/

http://thetubestore.com/

http://www.newtube.com/content/

Another good one out of the many out there.....
http://www.tubesandmore.com/

I've got several pieces of gear I use regularly that use tubes. Tubes aren't dead yet.

So far as scanning negs, I've got a dedicated 35mm film scanner. If you're fussy about dust specks on a digital camera sensor, you'll really enjoy scanning negs. The software included with a scanner for dust cleanup works pretty well, but best to start with a clean neg. I've almost resolved it's easier to get good quality 4"x6" prints made from the negs and scan the prints.

[tim11]

... I've almost resolved it's easier to get good quality 4"x6" prints made from the negs and scan the prints.

If you scan an image from printed 6x4" you will lose image sharpness and clarity if you want to reprint at a larger size later. The same effect you get if you print a 16x20" out of a passport size photo since there is not much details on the small original image to begin with.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

But any place that develops film should be able to convert negatives to digital on a CD (they'll all have film scanners).

Do it yourself or look for a specialist. Standard film labs can sometimes do a pretty poor job or they subcontract it to a specialist firm.

I scan this stuff professionally and there is a lot to learn about scanning - colour negatives are particularly difficult. You'll be able to do a great job yourself but it will take lots of time to do and effort to learn. If you're gainfully employed in a good paying job then pay a specialist. If money's tight and time is free then do it yourself treating it as a hobby.

Oh and if you're just looking to preserve a memory rather than reproduce high art then Mark_48's right. If you have a choice between silver halide (not bubblejet) prints and negs scan the print it's heaps more intuitive. If quality is vital then use the neg.

A high quality flatbed scanner will do a pretty reasonable job. Like everything to do with photography there's the cheap end of the market and the expensive end, what you want will likely be in the middle.

PS If you live in Australia and want to pay someone then make sure it's me:D

[kgosden]

Recently a company has opened an outsourced scanning service, ScanCafe.com (http://scancafe.com/). They have received some decent reviews in reputable magazines and newspapers. They are cheaper than anyplace else from what I can tell.

[Rhys]

Just something that cropped up... Somebody mentioned scanning from prints. This is not a good idea as I find most prints are very slightly out of focus.

[cdifoto]

Just something that cropped up... Somebody mentioned scanning from prints. This is not a good idea as I find most prints are very slightly out of focus.

If the print is out of focus, the negative is too.

[Mark_48]

If you scan an image from printed 6x4" you will lose image sharpness and clarity if you want to reprint at a larger size later. The same effect you get if you print a 16x20" out of a passport size photo since there is not much details on the small original image to begin with.

This is where you have to decide what intended purpose you may have for an image in the future. The ones I was scanning from prints were from family photo albums that I anticipate I'd never want anything larger than 4"x6" or 5"x7". If I had to scan 1000's of frames of negs simply to archive family photos, I probably wouldn't. Scanning prints, while still time consuming, results in an image adequate for same size reproduction and distribution to other family members.

Negs or slides that I think I may want to print substantially larger I do scan directly.

[Mark_48]

If the print is out of focus, the negative is too.

Not necessarily so. You ever try WallyMart for processing ???

[griptape]

Not necessarily so. You ever try WallyMart for processing ???

Wal-mart uses fuji equipment for their film scanners, and hp for their print scanners. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[cdifoto]

Not necessarily so. You ever try WallyMart for processing ???

Yeah and they were fine. Maybe I'm lucky or have a really good Wally World.

[FLiPMaRC]

Yeah and they were fine. Maybe I'm lucky or have a really good Wally World.
OT story ... I usually get my small 4x6 prints from my local Walgreens pharmacy because of convenience (upload online, then pick up). One day there were these customers arguing with the person that process the prints. They were accusing him of changing the colors and exposure of the original shot ... LMAO! I don't really know what happened. I picked up my prints and left.

[Mark_48]

Wal-mart uses fuji equipment for their film scanners, and hp for their print scanners. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It was a few years back I had some prints done at the local WallyMart. Prints came back blurred like as slightly out of focus. They reprinted them free and they were fine. Explanation was the machine had gone out of calibration. In general WallyMart isn't too bad for budget prints, but I've gotten some back every once in a while that had to be done again.

[tim11]

This is where you have to decide what intended purpose you may have for an image in the future. The ones I was scanning from prints were from family photo albums that I anticipate I'd never want anything larger than 4"x6" or 5"x7". If I had to scan 1000's of frames of negs simply to archive family photos, I probably wouldn't. Scanning prints, while still time consuming, results in an image adequate for same size reproduction and distribution to other family members.

Negs or slides that I think I may want to print substantially larger I do scan directly.

Now that we are clear, I totally agree. Scanning 6x4" print for reproduction of the same size or net posting is of course adequate enough. I just want to point out to those who are not aware that if you intend to reproduce large prints, the best result is the negatives and they should be scanned not smaller than the intended size of the future prints.

Scanning negatives is time consuming of course, and the larger the files the longer it will take; but the memory is priceless.

[cdifoto]

I would scan at low resolution to have a digital index, and sort the negatives accordingly so they can be easily located for a high resolution scan if a large print is desired.

High res scans take longer than low res quickies and are MUCH bigger data files. I have a scan from my sister's wedding that's 306MB! Hard drives are cheap, sure, but having huge scans on your drives just to cover the absolute remote chance that you might print it big someday is blatantly wasteful.

[Rhys]

If the print is out of focus, the negative is too.

No. Not necessarily. I've come across some rotten photo labs. I sent the same negative to two labs. One came back out of focus and the other came back sharp.

Don't forget that unlike digital, film has two focussing cycles. The camera lens has to be focussed between the subject and the film. After the film has been developed, the film has to be printed. This involves another focussing stage where the lens has to be focussed between the film and the paper. At both stages it's possible to have focussing errors. I guess you haven't used much film though.

[Mark_48]

No. Not necessarily. I've come across some rotten photo labs. I sent the same negative to two labs. One came back out of focus and the other came back sharp.

Don't forget that unlike digital, film has two focussing cycles. The camera lens has to be focussed between the subject and the film. After the film has been developed, the film has to be printed. This involves another focussing stage where the lens has to be focussed between the film and the paper. At both stages it's possible to have focussing errors. I guess you haven't used much film though.

I think most labs, at least like a Walmart and such, currently take your negative and make a digital scan of it and then print in the same manner as a normal digital image would be done. I guess it would depend on the lab you used and whether they actually used an enlarger type of system or digital.

Of course I can drag out my old Durst enlarger and misfocus making a print, which occasionally did happen if the negative warmed up in the carrier and flexed a little during exposure.

[griptape]

After the film has been developed, the film has to be printed. This involves another focussing stage where the lens has to be focussed between the film and the paper. At both stages it's possible to have focussing errors. I guess you haven't used much film though.

The vast, VAST majority of modern labs use film scanners rather than projecting from the negative. It basically makes the film digital, and then they use (generally) a thermal dye printer to make the prints from the digital file. I guess you haven't used much film lately though.

[Rhys]

It might come as a shock to you but even a scanner can be misaligned, causing it to be out of focus.

The last time I saw film being printed it was done so with a normal photo printer onto real photographic paper.

How long the ink on the current photo inkjets will survive, I don't know. I do know that my wife has some tintype photos that are pretty darned good and have survived at least 120 years - sometimes of rough handling. I doubt our fragile digital images will be so lucky. This current era could well become the new dark ages of which future historians know little due to the fragility of storage media (also the relative proprietaryness of file formats).

It's humbling to remember that Great aunt Agnes photo will survive as will your grandparents and your baby pictures but no later photos are likely to.