32

According to Ken Rockwell: Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero. Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50. 320 pixels x 320 pixels ...


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 ...


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 ...


9

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

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 ...


7

I do not know at which resolution you scanned your image, but i'm willing to bet that it is way larger than needed or useful for web viewing. The first thing you should do is resize the image down to some useful dimensions. Think about how large it will be viewed and resize accordingly (keep in mind that currently a high end monitor resolution is 2560x1440)...


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

Oh my. Why on earth would you need to scan something at 4800 ppi? That would give you a file of 39840x56160 or a 2,237 Megapixels... a really pro normal digital shoot has rougly 80 to 100 Megapixels (not two thousand). The restrictions are likely for people do not freeze its computer or fill their hard drive with just 50 scans. A normal photo can be ...


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 ...


6

The only two viable options in the list are JPEG and TIFF. JPEG is fine for lossy compression, 8-bit/channel color, and smaller file sizes. I would use JPEG for paper originals that will not be heavily edited. TIFF supports 16-bit/channel images with lossless compression that can hold up better against extensive editing, but files tend to be very large. I ...


6

Real film scanners scan color negatives by increasing the exposure time of the blue and green channels (relative to the red channel). This is an analog operation, similar to using color filters in the dark room to filter out the orange and print on paper. There is no clipping due to this analog shift. Digital cameras cannot do those exposures, and must ...


6

Your "sprocket light leaks" don't cross into the negative rebate, so they're not light leaks. The marks are blue/cyan on the negative (hence orange in the scan), and darker in the scan than the surrounding image area, suggesting they're due to local underdevelopment. This is what I'd expect from bromide drag, which is caused by insufficient ...


6

Just so this isn't an 'answer in a comment' Before you give up, try VueScan - specifically reverse-engineered older drivers to run on Big Sur. I haven't used it myself, but a lot of people have been talking about it this past year - https://www.hamrick.com


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

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

"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

That is not a colour cast. A colour cast is an overall tint or bias toward a certain colour. This can be fixed by pushing the colour balance the other way. The image you posted is simply missing the red channel entirely. Regular techniques to shift the colour balance wont work as there is no red* to boost This cannot be fixed unless you fill in the missing ...


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 ...


5

It depends on what you were scanning and at what resolution, but in general you're missing out on a small amount of sharpness by scanning them upside down. However, if the scanned images look fine, it probably isn't worth the trouble to scan them again. The main issue with scanning them upside down (film base down) is that you might put the emulsion layers ...


5

Most of the problems are coming from the paper texture, or, rather, from the way the scanner's light source is reflected by the texture. You can minimize that by scanning the photo in several different orientations: vertical; vertical again, but upside-down; horizontal; and horizontal the other way around. Each of those scans will put the highlights of the ...


5

The curl is due to the fact that photographic film is comprised of multiple coats both emulsion side and base side. Each coat is slightly different as to its content so each has a slightly different rate of expansion and contraction. The chief ingredient in most coats is gelatin. This is the flexible, transparent binder that glues the goodies onto the film ...


5

Are they on the negative itself (look at the actual negative)? If so, they're probably water drops. You need to use a wetting agent (e.g. Kodak Photo-Flo) to avoid water marks. If they're not on the negative itself, it's some sort of scanning artifact. Try scanning again.


5

Your 1m x 1.5m print has a resolution. If this were dpi, you could have 39.3in x 59.6in, and if that were 300 dpi, then it would be 11790px x 17880px. So, if you wanted to print at 300dpi, you basically need an image of 210,805,200 or 210 megapixels. 300dpi is the quality of most 5x7 or 8x10 photo prints. Most large prints are not 300dpi. But this gives you ...


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