Converting film to digital

[McCormack]

I've got a Canon A-1 that I love, and every now and then I have a need to post pictures to the internet. I post pictures so seldom that it doesn't really pay for me to buy a digital camera, but I've been told that I can have my 35mm negatives scanned and burned to CD, which I then can throw into my computer and post to the web. Does anyone have any tips for me to get the best possible image quality from 35mm negatives? Would slide film give me better quality images than print film would?

[another view]

Hi and welcome! By the time you're done reading this post, you'll be looking for an inexpensive digital camera...

Yes, you can digitally scan film with excellent results. With 35mm, you'd be best with a dedicated film scanner instead of a flatbed type, which are often used for scanning documents. Inexpensive film scanners can be found for under $200, or even much less for used ones. One that might be a really good deal is a Nikon LS2000 but before buying that or any other older piece of computer gear, make sure you can get the correct driver for your operating system from the manufacturer's website. I have an Acer 2720S which is decent too and there is a Win XP driver available. Problem with this one is that it's SCSI only so you'll probably have to add a SCSI card. These can be found on ebay too - mine is a PCI slot card, so you'll also need to make sure you have room to install it. For new USB 2.0 scanners, Konica-Minolta and Nikon have nice ones in the $5-700 range and you wouldn't have to worry about the SCSI thing. You'd also be gaining Digital ICE which removes dust spots from your negative (or slide). This cannot be added to older scanners or I'd have it myself...

Then there's the learning curve of how to scan. It took me some time but I'm pretty happy with the 8x10's I get from slide film. I'm not pro-grade by any means, and better equipment would help, but it wouldn't be everything. I've found Fuji Provia to scan very well, especially compared to most slide films. B&W neg films seem to scan best (for me) as a positive transparency (slide) then converted to b&w in Photoshop using one of many techniques. The amount of time it takes me to get one good final image from a scan is one of many reasons I don't do it very often.

Hate to rain on your parade, but depending on the quality level you're looking at, it can be a big undertaking. If you have the option of shooting whatever you need with a digital camera, I'd do that. If quality isn't much of a concern, you could even scan a print on a flatbed - that would be very quick and easy.

[McCormack]

Thank you for making feel welcome here on the site, and I really appreciate your taking the time to give me some advice on converting negatives to digital. I should have been more specific about what I'm looking to do - I only need to post a couple of pictures a month on the web, so I'm thinking that it really doesn't make much sense for me to buy a scanner or a digital camera and learn how to use them and all that just for those few pictures. What I'm looking to do is to have my local photo developer scan my negatives when the need arises and burn them to CD for me. But, a year or so ago I had my local Walgreen drug store develop and burn to CD a roll of color print film that I had shot, and when I played the CD on my computer the image quality was horrible. The negatives turned out fine, so it must have been something in the scanning process that made the picture quality turn out so bad on the CD.
I've heard that one can get excellent image quality scanning negatives and converting them to digital, so that's why I posted my question here on the site, and what I'm mainly looking for is advice on what it would take for my local photo lab to get me the results that I'm looking for in scanning my negatives and burning them to CD for me.

[rzozaya1969]

I understand that if you really don't need to use digital images maybe buying a digital camera or a dedicated scanner might be more money that you want.

I guess that there should be some profesional studios near you that should offer this service (convert a negative to a digital file). What I think is that the quality of the image files would depend on how well the studio works. So, probably some good image files will cost some money.

Now, how important are the pics to be in digital? do they need to be in a big file, or is it just for some product shots to be shown in a web site accompanying a web page describing the product, how much, contact, bla bla bla? Or you want to post them to sell your photographs, or to deliver them to your customers?

If you don't need huge files, a flatbed scanner might do the trick. But if you really want a good image to sell, you'd probably need to invert in a better scanner, or find a pro shop that handles that type of conversions pretty good.

[McCormack]

I sell things on ebay from time to time and I'd like to be able to include a picture of the item that I'm selling, and every now and then I'd like to be able to e-mail a picture or two to friends, so the images don't have to be of professional quality, but on the other hand I would like them to be fairly decent. I was hoping that someone here on the site had some experience with having their negatives converted into files by their local photo-finisher and thus could advise me on what to look for in order to get the best possible results. But it sounds like most of ya'll have your own scanners and what-not right in your homes, so I guess I'll have to get on out there and learn by trial and error.

[rzozaya1969]

What about buying a used point and shoot? Maybe for photographing pics of stuff for ebay you can buy a very nice cheap camera that would allow you to take many pics of the product and just upload them to ebay. You wouldn't need to go to develop the photos and then have them scanned?

There are several 4-5 Megapixels point and shoot on ebay for around 100 bucks, some for less. Just an idea.

[yogestee]

I've got a Canon A-1 that I love, and every now and then I have a need to post pictures to the internet. I post pictures so seldom that it doesn't really pay for me to buy a digital camera, but I've been told that I can have my 35mm negatives scanned and burned to CD, which I then can throw into my computer and post to the web. Does anyone have any tips for me to get the best possible image quality from 35mm negatives? Would slide film give me better quality images than print film would?

McCormack,,,the only advice I can give you is find a good lab,get to know the owner/opertator and have a long heart to heart with him/her...Most labs will convert film to digital and burn your images to CD...The $64,000 question is at what resolution..If I were getting my film scanned I'd go want 30 cm at the longest dimension @ 300dpi...That will give you an image size of around 24megs when opened in Photoshop..

IMHO print films give slightly better quality than slide film for the one reason that print film has a tad more exposure latitude than slide film...You have more chance of gaining that "perfect" exposure using neg film than slide film,,its all in the picture taking not the scanning..Makes sense??

Jurgen
Australia

[mjs1973]

Welcome to the Forum McCormack. How far are you from Madison? The reason I ask is because I have taken some film (35mm slides) to Star Photo at 924 Williamson Street and had them scanned, and burned to CD for 50 cents each. The quality was pretty good, and would more than meet the needs you described. If Madison is too far, check with some local labs and see if they can scan your film for you.

[another view]

Resolution doesn't necessarily equal quality - there's a lot more to it than that. I buy and sell stuff on ebay too, and as a buyer the pictures are one of the main things I'm looking at. I can't (most likely) check it out before I buy it, so the pictures have to be good or I probably won't bid. If I do end up bidding, it won't be as much as I might otherwise.

So, an inexpensive p&s digital and a little bit of a time investment in getting good results with it would really be a good investment. The expense of shooting, developing and scanning the film will even out and chances are you'll get better results easier than most photo labs will give you in this case.

[McCormack]

I'm over here in Milwaukee, mjs1973, so it's a little far for me to go to Star Photo in Madison, but I appreciate the suggestion.

You were right about the scanning resolutions, Jurgen... I went to one of the local camera shop/photo finishers here in town, and they told me that their film scanner has different resolutions that film can be scanned at. The local drugstores and Walmarts don't offer that option. So, I'm going to take your advice about the print film Jurgen and shoot a couple of test photos and have the photo shop develop them and make a photo CD for me and see if higher scanning resolution is the answer to getting quality digital images.

And if that doesn't work out then I guess I'll break down and pick up one of those cheap digital point and shoot jobs... I see HP makes one with a fixed non-zoom lens, and it's been my experience that fixed lenses in general offer better image quality than zooms, so maybe the HP will take decent enough pics. I'll keep you posted...

[yogestee]

McCormack,,,I wouldn't bother getting a cheap point and shoot,,,I recommend you buy a reasonable flatbed/neg scanner combination for around the same cost (?)...The image quality you are getting out of the A1 will leave the point and shoot for dead...The point and shoot will only frustrate you...
I have an Epson Perfection flatbed/ negative/slide combination which will scan upto 4200dpi,,,they aren't too expensive and work well..

Jurgen

[EastCoastHucker]

two things:

1- stay AWAY from CVS..;)
2- the scanner idea is a good one in my opinion... even already having a D70 I'm thinking on getting a film scanner to get the best result out of my film cameras.
FILM ROCKS.

PS.
check the Canon SC 8600F http://syndicate.tentoe.com/Syndicat...e=FP3FUC-15645

[Greg McCary]

I paid for my first P&S camera by selling on e-bay. My frustration about selling on e-bay with a P&S was with close up pictures of labels and details of the items, scratches and things. The P&S just didn't get the job done. My problem with film was the wasted film and turn around time to getting the item on e-bay and seeing if my pictures turned out. Also getting film scanned is getting more difficult, our local K-mart has closed down it's one hour service. You can still get your pictures developed but they have to be sent off to Kodak. This is a growing trend I fear. You might consider a DSLR. The prices of them seemed to have dropped lately and if you get the right set up, you will be able to take a picture of anything with instant results. Don't get me wrong I still use film and love it, but getting quality scans is getting harder by the day, Just my 2 cents. By the way a friend of mine loaned me his AE-1 to use for awhile and it's one sweet camera.
Greg

[another view]

Guess I got a little carried away with my first post...

You can get excellent results with both film and digital capture. I suggested digital because the learning curve for scanning to get really good results is a long one, and even after you get there (or to where I'm at which isn't necessarily there) it takes some time. Flatbeds take up a lot of desk space if that's a concern. I've seen plenty of bad pictures on ebay that look like they weren't good to start out, and after scanning they just look worse. This is on fairly expensive items too. Those sellers are losing bidders because of it so the auctions close at lower prices. For the buyer it's a gamble because you don't know exactly what you're getting (how can you tell if it's in excellent condition if the pictures are blurry and distorted?).

Working with a digital P&S is still photography so all the same rules apply - tripods help, on-camera flash is usually not the best option, etc. I'm not anti-film and it is possible to get good results with either. I personally find it easier with digital, that's all.

[Loupey]

A lot of great advice here already but I'll throw in my 2 pennies...

A good lab is hard to find these days (just about all the good one's in my neighborhood are gone) and the large chains handle large volumes so the quality will most likely suffer. "If you want it done right, do it yourself" has always been my photographic philosophy.

So you have 2 options as others have stated already: 1) buy a scanner or 2) buy a digital camera. Both can be around the same cost but depending on how far you want to take this will determine your decision.

I used to do primarily industrial photography (machinery, factories, etc.) and I used medium format. When I needed quick digital files for pamphlets, brochures, web images, etc., I would just have an 8" x 10" printed and scan it on a flat bed. Worked good - although the digital version was a 2nd generation copy - but tedius. I also have a 35mm film scanner - works good too but still tedius. So for low volume work, I would suggest a scanner (either type) but only if you love film.

I went digital about 4 years ago and it immediately removed 3 steps (getting the film processed, getting the specific enlargements made, and scanning the enlargement) and 4~5 days. Haven't shot much film since.

Oh, I'm glad that you like your A-1. That was my first SLR - brings back good memories

[freygr]

Don't buy a cheap flat bed scan with a 35mm film attachment, for quality digital files of high resolution suitable for quality digital enlargements, a film scanner is required. As far as getting a digital camera, make sure it will do the job you are going to need it to do, as most small PS camera have slow lenses and limited ISO settings.

[rzozaya1969]

If you go digital, and decide to go with a P&S camera, try to find one that let's you set the focus point, and some let you play with manual exposure.

I had a Canon A520 which let me set the focusing area for wide area, or just use spot for focusing area, and I could adjust the shutter speed and aperture (to be honest, I didn't really played with this settings, only the spot auto focus).

The P&S camera that I use while mountain biking is a Canon SD700IS, which is very nice, fast, good pics, but the camera decides where to focus on, and I can't play with lens aperture and shutter speed.

What I think is that if you're just intrested for digital media in using it to photo products to sell, a digital camera will be simpler and faster than going to develop the film and have it scanned, however good the photo store. For that purpose a digital will be more convenient.

[mdmc]

Hi McCormack ,
I hope I can be of some help. I've had some negs burned to cd at wallmart and though the files are small they should be ok for web posting. thing is they look very bad without some adjustment meaning you would need to spend a little time
working on them with photo software. I still use a very basic photoshop elements2.
This would be the easiest route for you.
Personally I think that getting a scanner for occasional use would be a waste of time space and money. I have a highend flatbed scanner(epson 4870 pro)that sits unused since I went digital 2 years ago(nikon D70). I will use it some day, I think! yes it can give some pretty good results but it takes time.
I think that in the long run getting a decent p&s camera is your best bet. you should be able toget good reslts right fom the camera without fiddllin' around with them and if you dont like what you get just reshoot.
anyway here's a sample of a walmart cd scan before and after i fixed it up plus 2 links with some info about a great little camera for less than $150. Its not the only camera out there but looks like a bargain to me.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/a530.htm

I'm not trying to argue with anyone these are just my opinions and suggestions based on my experience. BTW the original walmart scans file size is 1536x1024, reduced to 640x427 to post here.
Mark

[McCormack]

I took a couple of test pics (print film) today and I dropped them off for developing and scanning. The price list is $4.99 for set-up (includes the CD), and the scan prices are: Standard quality scan = $0.34; Premium scan = $1.99; Max scan = $3.99. I went with the premium scan, and I'll be picking up the photo CD tomorrow afternoon and we'll see how they turned out. If I can figure out how to do it I'll post the pics here on the site for everyone to see.

Those Walmart pics aren't too bad Mark, and I appreciate your taking the time to post them, and I also appreciate the links you provided. I'll wait and see how my test pictures turn out before I decide if I'm going to go in the point and shoot direction.

[McCormack]

Well, I got my photo CD back from the photo-finishers, and here's what one of the pictures looks like. This is the first image I've ever posted on the web, so I'm kind of excited about it ... wheee!



This is a picture of an amp that I'm selling (How do you like the way I used my couch as a backdrop... professional photography!), and overall I'm pleased with the results. I don't know what the little white dots/specks are on the top of the amp... the amp is in mint condtion so the dots/specks shouldn't be there. This image was scanned at the medium scan rate, so if I need an even better quality image then I can go up a step to the 'Max' scan rate and supposedly get better results. I'll have to try it at some point in the future to see if the 'Max' scan is indeed better.

OK then, it's looks like I'm good to go for posting pictures to the web using film, but I do have a confession to make... I broke down and bought an HP E427 point and shoot - it's got the fixed non-zoom lens. But I haven't opened it yet... I wanted to wait and see how my photo CD turned out, and seeing as it turned out so good I might return the HP for a refund. But then again, I might not... does anybody care to weigh in with an opinion if I should keep the point and shoot or not?

[yogestee]

McCormack,,,,those white dots you are referring to are dust spots on the neg..

Jurgen

[McCormack]

Hmmmm.... I'll have to have a talk with the photo-finishers and tell them to please keep my film clean when they develop it. Competence is so hard to come by these days.

[rzozaya1969]

.....
OK then, it's looks like I'm good to go for posting pictures to the web using film, but I do have a confession to make... I broke down and bought an HP E427 point and shoot - it's got the fixed non-zoom lens. But I haven't opened it yet... I wanted to wait and see how my photo CD turned out, and seeing as it turned out so good I might return the HP for a refund. But then again, I might not... does anybody care to weigh in with an opinion if I should keep the point and shoot or not?

In my personal opinion, I just think that a digital camera is better for shooting products to sell on ebay. You don't need an excelent quality, but it's just more convenient to just shoot your object using different exposures, lighting and just selecting which ones looks great on a web page.

[mdmc]

Yep, that will do well for ebay.
Oh, and congrat's on your first image post!
I would have prefered that you bought a ps with a zoom, but thats ok, shoot your heart out and post some dust free digital images here
Mark.

[another view]

If the lab gives you scans with dust on them at any quality level, then a higher quality might not be dust-free either... Stick with the digicam - no negs so no dust...