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 ...


17

A modern scanner of typical resolution should be able to do a reasonably good job on old photos if well used. Method of use can make a difference. See references at end for some tips and guidance. A 6" x 4" print at 300 dpi corresponds to 1800 x 1200 pixels ~=.... 2.5 megapixels A 6" x 4" print at 600 dpi corresponds to 3600 x 2400 pixels ~=..... 9 ...


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 ...


14

Well, first off, its highly doubtful there is a color negative "filter" that would invert the negative in such a way that it came out color positive on the sensor. Color negative film is converted to a color positive print in a multi-step process, ultimately using the film itself as a color filter when enlarging it onto photographic paper with the correct ...


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 ...


8

I'm the originator of the flickr discussion, and I'm flattered that it's thought to be worth reviving here :-) I went through the process mainly for archiving purposes. The fear of losing these personal negatives was much more important to me than technical quality. Whatever I did, it had to be fast so that I could do every single one of my negatives. I ...


7

I would scan at the max of 600 dpi - however if the print resolution is so low that printing artifacts are visible at this resolution (e.g. small colored dots), then the result should either be downscaled or a median filter should be applied to eliminate them (or both). Don't go under 300 dpi no matter what or you won't be able to use them to reproduce new ...


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

First, I strongly recommend Ctein's book on photo restoration. It's got all of the gory detail work and techniques in it that are needed for this: Photo repair .com site Not sure what scanner you are using, but modern scanners, even really inexpensive ones, are pretty good. I've done a fair amount of recovery work of family photos using under $100 Canon ...


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 ...


5

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 ...


4

Sometimes, outsourcing this particular job is best, especially if it involves a large volume of material. I'm pretty sure there are lots of them offering these services in your area.


4

Since you're open to a negative scanner consider the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, it can scan whole rolls of negatives, individual 6-photo strips of negatives or up to 50 slides (in a slide hopper) at a time. I use the 6-photo strip adapter and slide hopper. The 50 slide hopper and negative roll adapter are extra attachments you need to purchase but the ...


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 ...


4

Aside from the recommendations from @Itai, do take your time to browse several related questions and answers here at photo.SE. Or just go ahead and browse the slides tag. There's tons of great advice all around this place.


4

There are plenty of alternatives for this: Have it done for you. Most photo labs offer this service. The advantage is that professionals do it and they may even clean up dust and spots for you. There is nothing for you to learn or buy, just spend the money for each slide. This is probably the way to go for small quantities in the low hundreds. Buy a slide ...


3

I agree with the other answers: scan at the highest resolution. Downsampling to the desired size will always give you a better result than just scanning at the desired size. Getting a good scan is never as easy as simply pressing the "scan" button. Taking the time to set black and white points will get you a much better scan. If your scanning software doesn'...


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'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

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

If I cared about the photos I would scan in the highest resolution possible. Storage is fairly cheap and it’s a pity to lose information by scanning in lower resolution. Today it might seem overkill to scan in 600 dpi for display purposes, but then again five years ago I would not have believed I’d have a display with 2048×1536 resolution and 264 ppi. The ...


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 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

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

Your question might be better suited on ebooks.SE. Maybe. Although they mostly deal with wrestling things into epub/mobi formats and various ebook store submission hoops. :) But they do also handle book-as-PDF questions. But to my mind, points 1, 2, and 3 are all antithetical. You either get a specialized book scanner, destroy the book (slice the pages off ...


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 ...


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