Scanning 35mm films

[dinodan]

That sounds pretty cool. I would love to see some of the pictures from that -- if you have any.

Sorry, no. That was many, many years ago.

 

[doobs]

I believe you need to backlight the film while scanning it.

That just left a huge white spot on the scan.

 

[Battou]

That just left a huge white spot on the scan.

I could be wrong but I believe the backlighting is supposed to is supposed to work like an enlarger and scanning the aria where the photopaper would normally be. I think you may have had too small of a lightsource or the neg was too close.

but Like I said I could be wrong.

 

[doobs]

I could be wrong but I believe the backlighting is supposed to is supposed to work like an enlarger and scanning the aria where the photopaper would normally be. I think you may have had too small of a lightsource or the neg was too close.

but Like I said I could be wrong.

Uhh, I don't know understand. I put the negative on the scanner and hold a light high over that? I tried that and it left another bright spot on it. The lid has to be closed as well, because the film is slightly curved from drying. Also there is a light source on the scanning thing so that should be fine, I guess... I'm not sure what to do. I'm going to try that other software that Aquarium Dreams suggested later.

 

[Alpha]

You don't have a transparency lid for your scanner, do you.

:meh:

 

[Orrin]

How is it that you are exposing the 35mm film outside the frame area? I have never seen that.

He's using a 120 roll film camera!

 

[doobs]

You don't have a transparency lid for your scanner, do you.

:meh:

I've a piece of glass I could use?

 

[Alpha]

The problem is that your scanner is not equipped to scan negatives, as far as I can tell. As opposed to having a normal lid that you'd use for scanning documents, your scanner needs what's called a transparency lid, which has a piece of glass and a separate backlight.

A regular scanner has a lid like this:

A film scanner has a transparency lid, which looks like this:

If your scanner does have the second lid, then you need to learn how to use it. If it does not, then you need to buy a transparency lid or a new scanner that has one.

 

[doobs]

Hmm, looks like I'm investing in a new scanner. :\

 

[Battou]

Before you buy a new scanner, try sandwiching the negs between a couple sheets of glass and using a different or covered light. Put a thin white cloth between the light source and the negative (in much the same way one would approach lighting for a portrait and what not).

I'll try this too just to see how it goes.


MaxBloom, there are a lot of different HP all in one scanners so it's likely doobs is using a different one than I but this is the one I am using and no it is not back lit in any way. In the same token though HP dose offer a good number of neg capable all in ones.

Img taken from globalvisionja.com

 

[Alpha]

Battou,

It may be possible to scan negs like that, but I guarantee it will be at significantly reduced quality compared to a proper transparency lid.

 

[Battou]

Battou,

It may be possible to scan negs like that, but I guarantee it will be at significantly reduced quality compared to a proper transparency lid.

Yeah, I'm just brainstorming right now, truth is I am actually somewhat satisfied with scanning the prints with this untill I can get a good dedicated scanner. I'm going to try just to find out what it will do, I'll never know if I don't try.

 

[doobs]

I'll try that tomorrow. I have the same printer/scanner, but it's a different color -- not sure if that changes anything. It's the HP PSC 1210 all-in-one. I'm sure Max is probably right. The reason I want to scan negs is so I can scan pictures that I'd like to show friends and see what people think of them, etc. and don't have the need to print. I've scanned prints though as well. It comes out good.

 

[Flash Harry]

Max is right. H

 

[Helen B]

The most of it is HP5 and a few rolls of FP4. I shot the FP4 in my 35mm camera and it had the blue tone, however when shot in my Holga (120 roll) it came out perfectly clear. I develop the film myself, and I do a water pre-soak before hand. I process the film with Xtol. Everytime I develop film it has been this color as has most other people at my lab, as far as I have seen. They also print fine from a Saunders/LPL Enlarger.

This is a sample of the closest I can get it to a normal looking picture (as you can see, whites are gray and dark):

The first thing that strikes me about that image is that the sprocket holes are the only things close to a pixel value of 0. The darkest part of the image itself is around 20 to 21 - so the image looks grey in relation to the sprocket holes. Taking the darkest parts of the image down to 0 helps:

I think that your scanner appears to be doing a reasonable job of scanning negatives. When I look at the histogram of the scan of the full sheet I do not see evidence of clipping - the full range of tones on the neg appear to be being captured by the scanner. The lack of detail in the tree is not caused by a scanning problem but by underexposure.

Are you scanning with the emulsion against the scanner glass? Don't worry which way round the image appears, you can flop it round it later. You want as little between the emulsion and the scanner's lens as possible. It might also be worth finding the best focus plane, but that is the next stage.

Best,
Helen