B&W Negative Scanner

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Edward Holt - 29 Jan 2006 10:03 GMT

Can anyone recommend a scanner that will get black and white negative images
onto a PC?

I'm not after anything fancy and will only need to use it to convert some
old negatives.

Reply to this Message

Pat - 29 Jan 2006 14:29 GMT

read the threads here and at rec.photo.digital re negative. Most are
re color, but the same thing applies for b&w, except you don't have to
worry about color cast.

Reply to this Message

tomm42 - 30 Jan 2006 01:59 GMT

If they are 35mm, the Minolta 5400, if multi formats the Epson 4990.

Tom

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 04 Feb 2006 23:08 GMT

> Can anyone recommend a scanner that will get black and white negative images
> onto a PC?
>
> I'm not after anything fancy and will only need to use it to convert some
> old negatives.

The very first consideration is how large you intend to print.

The usual dpi "rule" for printing is 300 (although 150 dpi is often
sufficient).

So, to print an 8x12 from a 24mm x 36mm frame requires:

8 x 300 = 2400 (points required on the print in the narrow dimension))

2400 / 24mm = 100 d/mm

100 d X 25.4 mm/in = 2540 d/i (dpi) scanner minimum.

(Repeat the math for the long dimension should give the same end result)

Next, dynamic range. Most "good" film scanners should do fine if they
have 10 or more bits/channed (30 or more bits overall).

The current Minolta 5400 II, Nikon Coolscan V or 5000 will be more than
sufficient. A used Minolta Scan Dual II or better will do the job fine.

Cheers,
Alan.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

Angus Manwaring - 17 Feb 2006 20:36 GMT

On 04-Feb-06 23:08:26, Alan Browne said

>> Can anyone recommend a scanner that will get black and white negative
>> images onto a PC?
>>
>> I'm not after anything fancy and will only need to use it to convert some
>> old negatives.

>The very first consideration is how large you intend to print.

>The usual dpi "rule" for printing is 300 (although 150 dpi is often
>sufficient).

Guys,

On the black and white thing, I used to use B&W film to take studio shots
of bits of equipment for instruction manuals. Some of the kit was very
dark but included shiny metallic areas, producing a high contrast range.

I gathered that most(?) digital cameras only produce 256 shades of grey,
is that right?

And presumably using a digital camera in B&W mode does not suddenly
improve its contrast range in the way that B&W film does over Colour film?

So in B&W mode on a digital camera the contrast is the same as the Colour
mode but you just lose all that colour information?

Can somebody unconfuse me? :)

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 18 Feb 2006 03:05 GMT

>And presumably using a digital camera in B&W mode does not suddenly
>improve its contrast range in the way that B&W film does over Colour film?

That depends on how the camera creates the B&W. If it makes it from an
already-processed color image, it will have that color to B&W look. If
it got the B&W directly from the RAW data without converting to color,
it can have that B&W-type contrast.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 18 Feb 2006 03:53 GMT

>I gathered that most(?) digital cameras only produce 256 shades of grey,
>is that right?

If it only outputs JPEG and TIFF, yes. If it outputs RAW, then it is a
bit more complicated. RAW has a lot more luminance precision,
especially in the highlights. It's hard to say how many levels there
are, because you usually have 1/2 the pixels sensitive mainly to green,
1/4 to red, and 1/4 to blue. So, how you scale them determines the
number of levels. There are at least 3967, in any case, with my Canon
20D. I sometimes make 2.05MP greyscale images from the RAW data of an
8.2MP camera by binning 2x2 tiles of pixels (2 greens and a red and
blue) into a single 14-bit pixel (16,768 - 513 = 16,255 usable levels'
black is about 128.25 with this camera). This potentially halves the
noise, and adds about 2 stops of dynamic range. There isn't much
aliasing from this "box filter", because the anti-aliasing filter in the
camera is still effective at this resolution for luminance, and spatial
color shifts are not particularly visible in greyscale.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

Angus Manwaring - 20 Feb 2006 18:56 GMT

On 18-Feb-06 03:53:46, JPS said

>>I gathered that most(?) digital cameras only produce 256 shades of grey,
>>is that right?

>If it only outputs JPEG and TIFF, yes. If it outputs RAW, then it is a
>bit more complicated. RAW has a lot more luminance precision,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>camera is still effective at this resolution for luminance, and spatial
>color shifts are not particularly visible in greyscale.

John, thanks a lot for the answer. I got a bit lost with the RAW option,
though, but that's not youe fault. :)

It seems like an aspect of photography that is largely overlooked,
considering its importance.

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

Reply to this Message