37

Your DSLR can do it in about 5 seconds each. You need a tripod, a piece of glass and a decent light. Try to come up with a way to work at table height. Aim the camera straight down. Put a flat board down, and make a right angle of masking tape. You can apply the tape directly to the table if you are absolutely sure it won't pull off the finish. Not a ...


30

For large collections (in the 1000s) outside services can be very expensive. Especially if you: A) want decent quality, B) don't want them shipped to another country for cheaper processing, and/or C) want to preserve the backs. Setting up a camera like in Sherwood Botsford's answer is rather labor intensive and has drawbacks of getting lighting perfectly ...


16

An alternative... If you have considered Sherwood Botsford's answer and it seems like a lot of work...well, you are not wrong, especially for larger archives. Consider finding a service to do this tedious, time-consuming, laborious, boring work for you. ScanCafe (for example) have a "Value Kit" option where they ship you a box, you fill it full of "Paper ...


9

The 14 bit depth is the limit of the physical sensors capabilities, it isn't just that the engineers decided to throw away useful data. An increasing number of bits available in a sensor reflects an increasingly larger complexity of circuitry and precision needed to resolve those progressively finer and finer details. Complexity and precision don't come ...


6

I get reasonably good results photographing negatives with a slide copier attachment and a macro lens (vs using a flatbed scanner). However, if you plan to scan many frames of film, you should consider a dedicated film scanner with batch feeder. Depending on your lens and camera, image quality from a film scanner may or may not be better, but it would be ...


5

I have been using this method for scanning my negatives into my computer via a DSLR. Originally, I was doing this to scan black and white and slide film. Once I read some details about color correction, I was better able to use filters that I had to correct for the orange film of a color negative. What's been identified in comments above is that the blue ...


4

My first thought is that humidity is your friend, at least as far as rolled photographs are concerned. One approach is to put the rolled photograph into a closed container with some damp cloth/paper towels/sponge making sure that the photograph itself does not get wet. After a day or two see if it's a bit more flexible. A suggestion from the National ...


3

For color film copy transparency, they took a color photograph (negative), developed a color transparency (positive) and scanned the transparency to produce a digital file. Digital file from original means that the original was either scanned or digitally photographed. It has to do with what was digitized, was it the original or some kind of copy.


2

Bit-depth may also differ between a DSLR and a scanner. According to the Internet, a higher-end DSLR will provide 14 bits of information per channel when shooting RAW, while 10 bits per channel is more common for more accessible DSLRs. Either way, you must shoot RAW to get more than 8 bits per channel for any DSLR. By contrast, the cheapest flatbed that can ...


2

I know this is an old thread, but the issue is amaranthine. I'd just get a Super Chromega dichroic colour head or similar (from an old enlarger) and turn it upside-down to use the diffuser as the light source. You can then dial in as much cyan as you like, via the dichroic CMY filters (along with a little yellow and magenta as needed for balance). In this ...


2

The standard solution to digitizing medium format is scanning - adapters to A4 (or so...) scanners for 120 film are easier to implement than digitizing adapters. There is a number of reasons for this; these include standardization issues - only the width of 120 film was properly standardized, at 56mm, and never the length. So you have rather different ...


2

You do need to realize the details of reality. You can plug in other numbers, but consider the numbers. Suppose you used a 24 megapixel DSLR camera. It has an image size of 6000x4000 pixels. Photographing an A4 artwork, (8.27 x 11.69 inches), the maximum resolution will be 4000 pixels / 8.27 inches = 484 dpi result. Which is a lot, but the camera cannot do ...


2

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding in the value of this: Not talking about "you couldn't tell the difference", the point is about we being able to capture (there's much more room available for values) some sort of a ultra high dynamic range image which only blown up thing would be pointing to the sun directly or bulb mode exposures. Adding ...


2

Keep in mind that dark is bright on a negative. Anything black is going to become white, so underexposing the image of the negative results in an overexposure of the positive. Boost your original exposure of the negative and the inverted version will be more natural. It's probably being exposed dark due to being on a light table which is probably throwing ...


2

I'm in the middle of converting thousands of color negs mostly Kodak Gold 100, 200, and 160NC. I use a Nikon D810 Camera, 105mm f2.8D Micro Nikkor, Two D700 flashes in a plywood light mixing box with two 1/8" diffusers, a neg carrier that is 2" above the top diffuser, two blue (Full CTB) and two green filters to swallow the orange film cast. Exposure is ...


2

It does not mention a maximum Most lenses, macro or not, have no maximum working distance - it's referred to as "focus at infinity" or other similar terms. Only when you start using extension tubes, diopter "close-up" lenses and other means do you lose the ability to focus on distant objects. I know nothing about that specific lens, but I would check ...


2

Perhaps not a total fix, but some ideas in hopefully a helpful direction. I doubt the noise is camera noise at 100 or 200 ISO, if you are completely filling the frame of the D5000. My D5500 is newer, but I'm almost sure it couldn't be that much noisier than mine. It is, btw, just about fixable in Photoshop, pic at the end of a quick 'fix' attempt. To fix ...


1

If you take picture of negatives, you want something like this, and these often include a (removable) close-up lens, so this would work with about any regular lens. Of course if you use a prime lens you don't have much control on the framing but the added stability is worth the loss of pixels.


1

While I'm sure a proper photo scanner like the ones bucknljake suggests are significantly better in terms of quality, I've archived a bunch of old photos just by putting them in the feeder of one of the big scanner / printer things at my office (the one I used was Konica Minolta C554, FWIW!) Whilst the quality probably wasn't the greatest and there were ...


1

Enlarger lenses and projector lenses are figured to work flat-to-flat. In other words, project an image of a flat negative or transparency onto flat paper or screen. The camera lens is figured to work a 3 dimensional world (objects at different distances) and project their images on flat film or flat digital image sensor. To accomplish, enlarger and ...


1

Broadly speaking, digitization is conversion from analog to digital by any means. Scanning is a subset of digitization in which an image is captured in sequence, usually pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line. For home conversion, "digitizers" often capture the entire image simultaneously using a digital-camera sensor. These digitizers are much quicker than scanners,...


1

If by "digitizing adapter" you mean a film scanner, then yes, there are a few such scanners that will accept at least some sizes of medium format film. By far the most common are those that will allow 120 film (such as your 56mmx56mm '6x6' negatives) to be scanned in its various lengths. There are a few budget models, but the quality of the results are ...


1

I have digitised 1000’s of negatives and slide films from the 80's & 90's using the Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV. (not a flatbed). I have been using this for the past 10 years scanning at 3,200dpi on both, PC’s and Mac. Recently, I used a friends Canon9000 flatbed scanner to scan both negatives and paper and was shocked to see how poor the ...


1

Ideally for this you want a macro lens, as they tend to have flat imaging fields which are ideal for this sort of copying work. But we can only work with what you've got :-) So - 14-42 will be your best lens for this assuming you're talking one of Olympus' plastic pancake lenses with manual focus. Longer focal lengths in general help, but in this case ...


1

Dedicated film scanners are generally accepted to give the best results (and highest resolution) when scanning film. However it's very expensive to buy a good resolution film scanner that will handle both 35mm and medium format negatives. Flatbed scanners, while they boast very high resolutions such as 9600dpi, in most cases are not capable of producing ...


1

This will be a game of trade offs. The first thing I would recommend is that mounting it on a wall may be easier than putting it on the floor since it may simplify lighting. Lighting the map clearly and evenly will be the most important aspect as it will be very noticeable in the end result if it isn't evenly lit. Using two or more strong, well diffused ...


1

****Color Neg to Pos without orange mask sampling (Photoshop)**** I use a Nikon ES2 slide copy device and capture negatives with a flash as light source. I struggled to get an easy way of going from neg to pos, but the following works fine on RAW files (out of camera JPEg can come out over saturated, jpegs made from RAW in Photoshop work fine) At first ...


1

See my general setup on www.fechnerimaging.smugmug.com It uses two SB700 flashes into a light box with diffusion screen. I filter the orange cast of the color negatives so that the red channel on the D810 is not compressed using 3 sets of gels. Cinegel #3202: Full Blue (CTB) Cinegel #3204: Half Blue (1/2 CTB) Cinegel #4415: 15 Green You can buy the blues on ...


1

I'm using a slide copier attachment on my camera. I copy the negative to camera raw and open in the Photoshop raw image editor. I select the white balance tool and click on one of the brightest parts of the image. (This will be black or nearly black in the final image.) The white balance tool removes the orange cast in the raw negative. I then use the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible