Photoshop programs and 35mm?

[New Hampshire]

Hey folks,

I'm just wondering if 35mm film users can get any benifit out of a Photoshop type program? I have a Cannon Pixma MP500 scanner/printer/copyer/photo printer, but I'm wondering if scanned film prints will be reproduced perfectly well enough to be used on the computer with a Photoshop program. (Hmmm, ok, I guess this could be a "is my scanner good enough" question as much as photoshop program question....sorry )

Brian

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

Stashed away somewhere I have an old Epson Perfection 3170. This is a flatbed scanner with a "NEG SCANNER" built in. Not as good as a dedicated neg scanner. But good enough for most applications. Scanning prints is frankly not good enough. but if you can get a good neg scanner (And these days they are very good and comparatively cheap. That is what you need. You can then get your images into PhotoShop in a manner and at a definition that is usable. (between 30 and 50 megs is the norm today. But I used to scan negs at 25 megs in the "Old Days").

 

[New Hampshire]

See, and when I posted this I thought "what a stupid question for me to be asking" . I guess this proves there is no such thing as a stupid question!

Ok, so I've browsed around a bit on the Cannon site for Negative Scanners. Thankfully it looks like I can get myeslef into one for between $100 and $180! Not too shabby actually.

So thank you very much. I learned something new today :thumbup: .

Brian

 

[New Hampshire]

Another quickie.....

What are your thoughts on this one?: Cannon CanoScan 8600F

Brian

 

[EYEAM4ANARCHY]

Another option would be to have your photos copied to a cd when they are developed.

 

[New Hampshire]

Another option would be to have your photos copied to a cd when they are developed.

I tried that once when I had my film developed at Wal Mart. The pictures came out fine in print, but on the cd every single one was horribly blurry and barely discernable. I wonder if maybe it was just a fluke or something?

Brian

 

[EYEAM4ANARCHY]

I tried that once when I had my film developed at Wal Mart. The pictures came out fine in print, but on the cd every single one was horribly blurry and barely discernable. I wonder if maybe it was just a fluke or something?

Brian

I would think that is a fluke, but, just like any time you are depending on someone else to develop your work, it's a good idea to find someone you know is reliable and stick with them.

 

[Digital Matt]

Have your film developed and scanned at a pro lab, and you'll see a quality increase for sure.

 

[New Hampshire]

Would Ritz Camer be considered "pro"? I searched through the phone book the other day looking for camera shops, and the only really dedicated "Photo shops" anywheres near me is 2 Ritz Camera stores :???: . There are a couple of other places that have "potential" a bit of a drive away, but I do not think they do film developing....just sell camera equipment (though I could be wrong.)

Brian

 

[Digital Matt]

Well, I can't attest to the quality of Ritz personally, but they are a national camera store, and I can almost gurantee that their processing and scanning will be higher quality than Walmart.

 

[New Hampshire]

Thank you very much Matt!

Brian

 

[JIP]

Ritz camera scanning is low-res unless you ask for a higher res scan. this is more expensive. I think noone has stated the obvious here yet but if you want the editing benifits of digital isn't it time to just get a digital camera? just asking,

 

[Don Simon]

There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't scan negatives and edit in PS. As I'm currently without a traditional darkroom I do it myself quite a lot. It gives me a lot more control than just handing over negatives to a lab. Even though I now have a dSLR, I still shoot and scan 35mm film too.

That Canon you linked should produce scans of 35mm negatives good enough to print at reasonable sizes. I use the 8400F, at 3200dpi, process in PS and have prints made at 6x9" no problem. With the increased scanning resolution on the 8600F you can probably do even better. The quality is not the same as with a dedicated negative scanner (which cost a lot more) but is still good, however you need to play around with the settings and possibly use some third-party scanning software like VueScan to get the most out of the scanner. But the scanner is still very good for the money, especially if you ever decide to shoot medium format film as well.

 

[New Hampshire]

Ritz camera scanning is low-res unless you ask for a higher res scan. this is more expensive. I think noone has stated the obvious here yet but if you want the editing benifits of digital isn't it time to just get a digital camera? just asking,

I have a Digital for point-and-shoot as well as my 35mm. For some reason, no matter what all the extra hassle is to have it developed and such, I just can't get enough of my 35mm SLR. Plus, I have had the body and lens for a while now, so I look at my still-good 35mm and the prices of new digital SLRs and a wind up hugging my 35mm

ZaphodB, thanks for the advice on the Cannon scanner. I would look to keep prints to a reasonable size, probably never larger than 8 1/2 x 11 inch, and probably more likely smaller than that. The way I figure it, since the last Photo CD I got was $10, at $179 it seems reasonable that if I shoot enough then the scanner would have paid for itself rather quickly than just buying photo CDs.

Brian

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well I qualify as old school on this. I have a few 35mm cameras including a slr system with two bodies and box full of glass. Several range finders and a scanner that does better than I deserve.

I also have a couple of somewhat larger cameras.

I just recently began putting together a 35mm low cost sell to the public project. I took a long look at how long it would take me to scan negs then I went to Eckerds drugstore and had a roll of film done on their Noritsu or whatever it is called.

The image size (in Pix) is barely adaquate but it is. The sharpness of the scans I can not match at home. Since it is my opinion that if you are not planning to enlarge an image past 8x10 with zero cropping the Noritsu scan is superior to what I can do.

If I have to make an 11x14 or larger, I'm either going to scan it myself at a much higher pix count. or I'm going to use the negative to make the print. I just can not see me sitting in front of a scanner for hours on end to make a hundred scans for 5x7 prints. Now that might go counter to the other opinions but its mine.

As for pro labs I have dealt with them for 30 plus years. It is my opinion that they are usually more acknowledgeable than the min wage employees in most one hour labs. That said I don't need a lot of services these days. I would think that if you do your own editing of a digital file and have it printed at a good one hour lab by a qualified (by even their standards) technician on a well maintained printer that you will get a result very similar to the pro lab. Again that is just my opinion. I think you need to know your lab even if it is Eckerds and how they do things.

Also I personally like film.... I like everything about it... I also like to be able to clone out things when it has been converted to a digital file, but I DON"T FEEL I NEED a digital camera. As you might guess I hear different music in my head.

By the way I don't own any eckerds stock.