A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Digital Darkroom > Scanning>Scanners>Film > Problems when scanning...

Featured Equipment Deals

Conservation Photography: The Power of Pictures Read More

Conservation Photography: The Power of Pictures

On Earth Day, wildlife photographer Chris Weston explains how photographs have the power to bring people together and create change.

Latest Equipment Articles

Sony a6300-First Impressions Read More

Sony a6300-First Impressions

When Sony's invitation to spend a couple of days shooting with the new a6300 in Miami arrived via email, I didn't have to think twice before sending my RSVP. Announced in February and shipping this...

Latest Learning Articles

Macro Photography Slideshow Read More

Macro Photography Slideshow

*These are some of the highlights from our recent Macro Photography Contest!* Click the arrow to begin the slideshow. h1. William Banik "Bayou...


Problems when scanning negative film

Juan Riera , Nov 27, 2004; 04:27 a.m.

I have seen some extra results with negative film scanned. I usually use Velvia or Provia in my 35 mm and medium format, and all tries I have done to scan negatives gives me a scan full of dirt and scratchs. On the other way, my Velvia and Provia scan are flawless (within the possibilities of my simple scanner) I guess if my scanner is focusing on the surface of negative film and not on the image and so is dirt what is perfectly scanned. Any special clue to get good negative scannings? Thanks

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Hatte Stiwenius , Nov 27, 2004; 06:39 a.m.

Can't understand you. ..."focusing on the surface of negative film and not on the image".

The scanner should focus on the negative side of the filmstrip. There's where the emulsion (i e the image) is. If you have a dirty filmstrip you'll of course record that dirt.

Juan Riera , Nov 27, 2004; 07:24 a.m.

I mean sometimes the scanner focuses on the opposite side of the film. If negative film is thicker than slides that could be an issue, I don't know. Of course my negatives are no more dirty than my slides so this should not be an issue there. I will try to post a small part of a negative scan just to see.

Juan Riera , Nov 27, 2004; 07:46 a.m.

Scan of a Kodak negative film 1:1


Attachment: scan_neg.jpg

Juan Riera , Nov 27, 2004; 07:49 a.m.

You can see what I consider a correct scan from a 35mm Velvia transparency here.

Roger Krueger , Nov 27, 2004; 08:50 a.m.

Are you sure this is really a scanning problem? My guess would be that your E6 is going to a good pro lab that keeps their chemistry clean and your C41 is going to 40-minute- photo place that's a little (or a lot) less careful.

Hatte Stiwenius , Nov 27, 2004; 09:37 a.m.

Juan, ".... sometimes the scanner focuses on the opposite side of the film".

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but what you say indicates that the focusing isn't consistent. That would most certainly not depend on the type of film.

Be sure the emulsion side faces the scanner's optics. Also see that the film is completely flat in the film carrier. If you don't get it sharp now the focusing is working improperly or your scanner simply isn't better than this.

Looking at your negative scan I can't say that the dirt is sharper scanned than the image.

Robert Martin , Nov 27, 2004; 11:40 a.m.

I assume your post of the negative film is at 100% and the Velvia is at a considerably smaller enlargement. What do they look like if both are at 100% and scanned at the same dpi?

I believe what you are seeing in the negative scan is film grain and not dirt. Scans of negative film show more film grain that scans of positives. Do you have GEM turned on when scanning negative film?

Scott Eaton , Nov 27, 2004; 12:20 p.m.

Juan, why bother shooting print film and fighting your scanner's software when you can get good resulte like that from slide film?

If you need lattitude and lower contrast, then shoot Astia.

Michael Beckmann , Nov 27, 2004; 01:45 p.m.

I would assume that you have ICE on with slides, and off with negatives.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses