36

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 scanning process shouldn't damage your prints in any perceptible way. If you were to scan them multiple (read hundreds) of times then there might be a noticeable effect. I'd make sure you use a flatbed style scanner- not the document feeder, which can subject prints to mechanical stress. Even a flatbed requires some care if the prints are badly curled. ...


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 ...


8

There are a number of important details missing from your question: What resolution do you require? Color or black and white? Does the scanner have to be able to handle a mix of sizes simultaneously, or can you sort them ahead of time so that all the photos in a given stack are the same? (Sheet feeders typically work best when the sheets are about the same ...


6

Don't forget, for less than $100, you can get a decent all in one printer with scanner, that likely does as good a job as the local officemart. Plus, you can control the conditions, cleanliness of the glass, and redo any that don't meet your specs. With enough prints it might break even. I currently have a Brother MFC-J825DW, that supports 2400 x 2400 dpi ...


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

Let me answer your direct question first: The document imaging folks have been doing this for ages. They typically are used for huge image scanning projects, like the US Census form processing. I've never seen one for photos, but that is really just a difference in pixel density -- everything else would be the same. These are insanely expensive to buy, and ...


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

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

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

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

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

Wait, are you saying your images are already digital but only in the wrong resolution? In that case you should really skip the printing-to-rescan part and directly use e.g. ImageMagick's convert which can easily batch-convert all images to your desired resolution. Assuming you're using Linux and all images reside in a directory original (including ...


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 ...


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