24

In olden times we had lots of tricks up our sleeves. We would mount negatives on a viewing screen. This is milk-glass illuminated from behind (X-rays are viewed this way). We then took a picture of the negative. The result was a positive suitable for projection. In truly olden times, these were called “lantern slides” because ancient projectors, before ...


21

In theory you can get more out of a negative than a print. However, in practice you are more likely to have access to a flat bed scanner that can give a wonderful scan from the print. A good film scanner is much more expensive and slower. Considerations are similar for larger format film. But the costs go up even more, since the consumer-level film ...


19

If you don't know the crop boundary then you can use Fred Weinhaus's multicrop script (this script also uses Imagemagick). The script also handles different photo sizes and rotated images. Example (book covers): Scanned image (input.tiff): multicrop input.tiff output.tiff Result: output-0.tiff: output-1.tiff:


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 ...


17

Its better to scan the original slide/negative as its better to reproduce from as close to the source as possible meaning quality of reproduction goes down in this order: The source (whatever it was you actually were shooting) The slide/negative or digital camera file A print of the photograph. It essentially comes down to every stage of recording ...


16

Here's a dirty little secret: 35mm film has no aspect ratio at all until it is exposed. It is just one blank piece of film a specific width (35mm) and any practical length with perforations occupying the outer edges that leave a 24mm wide strip in between the perforations. What determines the dimensions of the photo is the size of the film plane each ...


12

This used to be a standard technique - it was the only method to make copies of slides, or motion picture film. For slides it was done with a macro lens and bellows - have a look at a fancy Nikon one here. It was so common that special lens, optimized for 1:1 enlargement, were made just for this purpose. Example are the Rodagon D series. In the movie ...


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 ...


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

It seems that the problem is caused by having Digital ICE turned on for B&W photos. See example here. It's worth noting that the preview must be made again if the Digital ICE checkbox is changed.


7

Once you have the negative you use an enlarger to create your prints. An enlarger has a head containing a bulb, a negative holder and a lens. The head is on a column attached to a base. You can raise the head away from the base to make the image larger (or turn the head to project the image onto a wall for large prints) If you want to do a contact sheet, ...


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 ...


7

Any decent camera with some degree of macro capabilities will be a feasible slide/negative scanner, but, tthere are some other factors that incide a lot in the results. The first is an adequate backlighting device. Can be as complicated or as simple as you wish, as long as it allows you to get good exposure. I have tried different combinations of flash and ...


7

Long-term degradation of film depends on a few different factors including the type of material they were stored in, along with temperature and humidity of the storage environment. That said, from the four types of film most people are exposed to (pun intended), B&W negative and Kodachrome slide film are perhaps the least affected by age. B&W film ...


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 ...


6

That is around 2 megapixel. A 35mm negative has at least 6 megapixel of information, so you are not getting a good scan. The scanned image is barely enough to make a print that size. You should have it scanned at a higher resolution to have a bit of latitude.


6

Such banding is not uncommon, you have a a few choices on how to proceed. Option 1: try and fix the root cause of the problem -- the scanner. Odds are there is a (very small) bit of dust on the scan head, try opening up the scanner and using a rocket blower or similar along the scan sensor. Of course this involves opening the thing up and depending on you ...


6

These days, there are basically five ways: Get the film developed, and scan the negatives. (Or develop yourself, depending on enthusiasm, space, and time for that — easier with black & white, hard with color.) Unfortunately, this was easier 20 years ago than it is now, since there aren't as many scanners made, especially for film other than 35mm — Nikon ...


6

When you expose film to light at proper exposure levels to eventually get a photo it does not create a visible change to the film. The chemical reaction of the film's emulsion to light is not a visible one unless one grossly overexposes the film in which case it will go from being semi-transparent to being solidly opaque. A properly exposed undeveloped ...


6

What can I do to improve the quality of the resulting image? Working with your tiny image rather than being able to adjust the scan limits what I can do. Based on the amount of noise and the blue/purple cast I'd say that you would want to go into the color management and: increase the brightness a bit, knock down the darkest reds a hair and knock back the ...


6

Scanning handles removing the overall orange mask in color negative film. Scanning as positive, and then postprocessing invert does not remove it, inversion simply turns that orange mask to a deep blue overall. NOT Bluish, but very strongly deep blue. Then additional work to try to remove it. This is a difficult job to do in digital postprocessing (not ...


6

Buying cheap AC adapters for parts and modifying them into a custom wire-harness that is run from a central power supply is my preferred solution for a problem like this. The most graceful solution for a setup like this is design a cable harness that includes the wiring for the power to each camera, as well as the trigger sync, and have them branch out in ...


5

That's obviously very low — both too low to be useful at beyond 4×6 prints, and much lower than technology allows. I had the same thing happen at a local camera / photo shop, and when I complained, they explained, in the most condescending way possible, that that resolution was completely fine for "all normal uses", and that if I wanted higher-resolution (...


5

"Best" is arguably a purpose built negative / slide scanner. Good ones will provide resolutions in excess of what your original contains, and will not be cheap. without checking I'd guestimate many hundreds to several thousands of dollars. There is a whole world of low to middle quality scanners / USB connected imagers etc. The cheapest probably start in ...


5

No, it can't. A reason for that is quite simple to understand. Printer splits an ink in dots pattern where some of the dots are larger, some are smaller, and some overlap. See the macro image of printed page: Meanwhile computer images work on a basis of pixels - where each "dot" is square (not round), equal in size and doesn't overlap any other, nor there ...


5

In theory: Yes, as perfectly described in sampling theory, in the Nyquist rule. If you know the grain size of the photograph, or the point size of the the printout, you have to use at least a double resolution using scanning. Meaning: a grain or dot on the photograph has to be at least perfectly covered by two scanlines and two scanner sensor pixels, or ...


5

I think something along the lines of "Digital print from 35mm film negative" should sum it up quite well - it clearly states that the original photo was taken on 35mm. I don't think you need to say that it was scanned. Scanning is I guess the standard way to transfer film negatives to digital format, but obviously there are also other ways, eg a device for ...


5

Without being able to see the negatives in question, there are three things you should check: Monitor calibration: This can be ruled out somewhat if you can make two identical scans with the same parameters (curve, white/mid/black points, etc.). Backlight on your scanner: I have had issues with my own scanner where sometimes the backlight is set very bright ...


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