Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / June 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Scanning larger format negs to CD-ROM or DVD

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bob Hayden - 31 May 2004 08:40 GMT
Hi all,
Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
reception and they are of a larger format, NOT 35mm. In order to preserve
their usefulness I would like to have them scanned and have high res pic
files put on CDs or DVDs. There are several hundred photos, maybe as many as
a thousand, so I'd like it to be someone who not only does good work and is
trustworthy, but can do this at a reasonable price. Any idea of what to
expect price-wise and where should I turn for these services?
Any and all advice appreciated.
Bob in RSM, CA
Mark A - 31 May 2004 09:14 GMT
> Hi all,
> Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Any and all advice appreciated.
> Bob in RSM, CA

More than likely, you have 120 or 220 film which is called medium format
(MF). The only difference between 120 and 220 is the length of the roll,
they are both the same width (approximately 60 mm). You negatives are
probably cut into strips, so the original length is irrelevant.

MF can actually have several size negatives called 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc
All of them use the same roll film. Many wedding photographers use 6x6
(Hasselblad cameras), and some use 645 or 6x7. 6x9 is rare for weddings.

I think you would have a hard time finding someone to scan them at what you
consider to be a reasonable price. It may pay to purchase a decent MF
scanner for about $400-$500 and then learn how to scan them yourself. Epson
makes a fairly good scanner that also scan prints and documents.The Epson
Perfection 4870 PHOTO is one such scanner. The Epson Perfection 4870 PRO is
a bit more, but comes with some very good scanning software.

When you are done, you could sell the scanner on ebay for about half what
you paid, so it would end up being a very economical solution if you (or
someone you know) has the time.

If you really high-res pictures (I doubt it) you would need to send them to
a professional scanning lab that would use a drum scanner to get images of
about 50 MB each. These would cost $25 or more each. But I am fairly sure
you really don't need that level of detail.

Also, assuming the negatives are color, store them in a cool dry place,
never in an attack, etc. It would be best to seal them in airtight bags on a
very dry day (so as not to trap humidity inside the bag).
- 31 May 2004 12:24 GMT
In rec.photo.film+labs Mark A <ma@switchboard.net> wrote:
> More than likely, you have 120 or 220 film which is called medium format
...
> consider to be a reasonable price. It may pay to purchase a decent MF
> scanner for about $400-$500 and then learn how to scan them yourself. Epson

Mark's quite right, IMO; if you can spare the time, buying
a scanner would be MUCH cheaper than trying to pay someone
to do it for you.  The Epson 2450 was well-liked, and a quick
peek at Ebay just now shows that they're selling used for around
$100.  I've got the same scanner at home and it works quite
nicely; at that price you could throw the thing away when you're
done scanning the wedding pics and you'd still come out way
ahead, in terms of price.  :-)  I've got an Epson 1680 with the
transparency adapter at work, and that works a bit better for
scanning large numbers of negs or slides, but it's way more
expensive (I think around $1200 is what we paid.)

I use my 2450, among other things, for scanning a lot of my
father-in-law's old slides, so all his kids can have copies
of them.  The scanning is sort of slow, so I'll sit there with
a book; read a few pages, take the old slides out, put new ones
in, start it scanning again, and read a few more pages. :-)
Slow but not unpleasant.  And the 2450 will do medium-format
negatives--not all scanners will.

Good luck and let us know what you decide!

_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski   AC4RD    kuzen001 at acpub .duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see?  www.duke.edu/~kuzen001
Gary W. McIntyre - 31 May 2004 12:41 GMT
> Hi all,
> Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Any and all advice appreciated.
> Bob in RSM, CA

Bob,

Take the negs to a local professional lab (look in your yellow pages)
and have them scanned. Be prepared to spend a few bucks per scan, yes I
know it'll cost you quite a bit of money, but it is YOUR wedding!
Call a few labs and get some pricing and don't go with the cheapest,
again it's yuour wedding.
Don't be tempted to buy a scanner and do it yourself, it's your wedding
and your wife will kill you. :)
The scanners the pro labs use are worth at least $50K and do a fabulous
job, anything you do with a flatbed will be substandard and a cheap 120
film scanner will be at least $3K and really won't do a great job.
Screw this up, and your wife will kill you.

I'm not familiar with "RSM" otherwise I'd try to make some
recommendations.
JR - 31 May 2004 17:40 GMT
> Bob,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> I'm not familiar with "RSM" otherwise I'd try to make some
> recommendations.

Bad advice...and bad information.  Medium format film can be scanned
quite well with a $500 flatbed, and fantastically well with a
$1000-$2000 film scanner.  I use the Minolta Scan Multi Pro and I get
600+ MB files that are stunning that I can print to poster sizer at 300
dpi...If you have computer aptitude then scanning them yourself is an
option, although there is a learning curve.  My advice is to pick the
ones that are the best, then scan those.  You may find that you only
need to scan 30, not 300.  That may be much more affordable at probably
$10 per scan from a pro lab.  Or find someone local that is willing to
do the job, if you are on SoCal, email me and maybe we can come up with
an agreeable price, if you want 300 images scanned, then it may be a few
wekks worth of work.  It can take 10 minutes per scan depending on the
resolution you need.  

JR
jrhone@mac.com
Mark A - 31 May 2004 20:50 GMT
> > Bob,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> JR

I doubt seriously that he needs more than about 10MB resolution per scan,
except for a few full length portraits. Most wedding photos are shots of the
wedding and guests that would not be printed larger than 5x7. If they were
stored digitally for display on a computer monitor, I doubt the would ever
be printed in the distant future.
Mark A - 31 May 2004 20:45 GMT
"Gary W. McIntyre" <sillywillybobsdad_withoutspam@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:sillywillybobsdad_withoutspam-> Bob,

> Take the negs to a local professional lab (look in your yellow pages)
> and have them scanned. Be prepared to spend a few bucks per scan, yes I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> film scanner will be at least $3K and really won't do a great job.
> Screw this up, and your wife will kill you.

Why would she kill him? If you don't like scan, you can do it over again. It
is not like he will destroying the negatives.

A pro lab will charge a lot more "a few dollars per scan." More like $25-$50
per scan. The only ones that cost a few dollars per scan are the ones that
use the same flatbed scanners (or worse) as I suggested. Also, don't be
surprised if the negatives come back scratched and with finger prints from
the high school kid they hire to do the work.

You are wrong about flatbed scanners, they work fine for most work,
especially if displayed on computer monitor. Wedding photos do not need to
contain excruciating detail of a professional photo shoot.

Your statement about not buying a flatbed scanner and doing the work
oneself, is obvious self-serving because your are in the professional photo
lab business yourself.
Gary W. McIntyre - 01 Jun 2004 00:45 GMT
> "Gary W. McIntyre" <sillywillybobsdad_withoutspam@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:sillywillybobsdad_withoutspam-> Bob,
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> oneself, is obvious self-serving because your are in the professional photo
> lab business yourself.

Well, she would kill him, if he is like many people and misplaces the
negs in the next few years... and has to rely on the scans for output.

I don't work for a lab, nor do I own one.
I do visit labs on a daily basis as a techician and have been servicing
printers and scanners for many years. The results I have seen from
flatbeds with transparency adapters have much lower dynamic range and
typically have poor shadow detail. In contrast, a good pro scan looks
amazing.
My customers routinely do 30 mb scans for a couple bucks, and they do
not employ high school kids... actually many of my customers are
replacing their optical printers with the intent of scanning all film by
the end of the year and the old optical printer operators are the people
running the scanners.
Mark A - 01 Jun 2004 03:20 GMT
> Well, she would kill him, if he is like many people and misplaces the
> negs in the next few years... and has to rely on the scans for output.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the end of the year and the old optical printer operators are the people
> running the scanners.

I am not suggesting that someone scan the negatives without looking at them
and then through away the negatives. Scan some, and make sure they are done
right. No one needs 30BM scans for wedding pictures. 10MB is probably fine.

But I would really like to see the name and/or website of one that does 30MB
scans for a couple of bucks.

Flatbed scanner technology has increased dramatically in the last few years
and the prices have come down (just like digital cameras). The $500 Epson
will produce remarkable results for what is needed in this situation. I am
not talking about scans that will be used to make 20" x 30" prints. These
are wedding pics.
Gary W. McIntyre - 02 Jun 2004 03:26 GMT
> But I would really like to see the name and/or website of one that does 30MB
> scans for a couple of bucks.

http://www.tcnlab.com/default.htm

30MB scans from full rolls at time of development are $1.50 per frame.
Scans from individual frames or cut negs are $8 per frame.
Note these prices are in Canadian dollars, so it's almost free in US
dollars. :)
filmscan@look.ca - 14 Jun 2004 21:09 GMT
Look at my website, covered in my signature below, for my prices for 35mm.
Add $500 and I will do the 120/220 negatives since that will pay for the
scanner.  The basic price per scan will be the same. I can do it if it is
NOT in a great rush since I am simply adding to my retirement income.

If I didn't have a pension and other sources of money coming it, I too would
be charging $5.00 per scan or more.

The real issue is time. Anyone who does this spends their time instead of
your time doing it, and is lucky if they can do a good job of scanning more
than 10-15 negatives or slides per hour with a review of each and minimal
adjustments for each.  That is what you are really paying for... TIME.  The
equipment gets paid for over time. I have 3 flatbed scsi scanners  and one
pull through scanner plus a Nikon film scanner with the APS adapter. I do
NOT have any for 120/220 film however, so would need to acquire one, and
that is not in great demand around here.

In any case, if you do it yourself, you are looking at using up your time,
and what is that worth to you and yours?  If it is more than any of us
charge, choose someone from the various responders and 'save' that way.

In the end it is totally your decision, so go from there..

Filmscan

============================================================
FilmScan@Look.CA                         Toronto, ON, Canada

See http://members.rogers.com/rheuman/index3.html

Copyright retained for what it is worth.  If this is illegal
where you are, do not read it.  Trademark also retained.....
Craig Schroeder - 31 May 2004 14:57 GMT
Just curious, but the phrase "preserve their usefulness" left me
wondering a bit.

Are you concerned with preservation?  Is so, your safety deposit box
and proper packaging would be best.  Usefulness for sharing digitally
(email, etc?), then simple scans of the photos might suffice (I assume
they're sharp and well processed if someone bothered with medium
format in the first place).  Decent hi-res scans of medium format
negatives are very bulky as there is a lot of information there!  They
can take 6-10 minutes each to scan correctly and it sounds like you
might have days of work there!  Again, it all matters what your
intended purpose is in digitizing these.....

>Hi all,
>Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Any and all advice appreciated.
>Bob in RSM, CA
RWatson767 - 01 Jun 2004 07:06 GMT
Bob
> Scanning larger format negs to CD-ROM or DVD

There are several hundred photos, maybe as many as a thousand,

This must have cost a bundle uness it was a gift. At $10.00 a print it was a
several thousand dollar photo job

But what ever. Good scans will cost $5.00 and up. I do jobs like your  by the
hour. Several per hour for 120/220. Actually have three scanners to work with
so things go along quickly.

Bob  AZ
Paul Schmidt - 01 Jun 2004 15:42 GMT
> Hi all,
> Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Any and all advice appreciated.
> Bob in RSM, CA

You could really use any flatbed scanner that has 240DPI (optical)
resolution, don't forget that a 120 negative is 4 times the size of a
35mm negative, so prints can be made that are 4 times the size at the
same resolution.  Now CD's and DVD's are no more archival storage, then
the original negatives.  In fact storage methods are roughly the same.

Then again, simply store the nrgatives properly, and you can print from
the original negative as well.  There are 3 enemies for photographic
negatives, heat, light and moisture.  So you want to store them in a way
that they are kept cold, dark and dry.  Your targetting storing them for
around 100 years, much beyond your own grandchildren, nobody will really
care.  So, go ahead and scan them if you like, just make sure you store
the CD's or DVD's and the Negatives in a different physical location.
If there is a fire or tornado or something wipes out your house, and
they are stored together, then everything is gone.

Storing the negatives:

Put them in a chemically neutral envelope, put that in a box, put the
box in a plastic bag with some desicent inside, put that inside another
plastic bag, sealing both with strong tape.  Drop the whole thing into
the bottom of the deep freeze, and they should be quite happy there,  If
at some future point, you need them for something, take out the whole
thing, let it thaw for a good 3 days, then open the package.  Seal it up
the same, either refrech the desicent or replace it.

Paul
Tim - 02 Jun 2004 10:28 GMT
There is nothing wrong with the current technology in home scanners.
In fact many professional photographers are using them to produce some
very high quality prints!!! A Perfection 4870 will be more than
adequate producing top quality scans.
Yes you will obtain more detail from a drum scanner, but I doubt that
you would at the prices quoted earlier in this thread. To obtain
maximum output you need to put the input (work) into achieving the
result.
What is your output device? Is your system colour calibrated? Ask
yourself if you will be able to notice the small amount of detail a
drum scan will reveal? And it is a small amount of detail, the prints
from your own scans will only look different under a magnifier, and
who looks at photos under a magnifier?
There is some good advice in this thread, and some that is a little
misleading...

> > Hi all,
> > Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Paul
Mark A - 02 Jun 2004 11:12 GMT
> There is nothing wrong with the current technology in home scanners.
> In fact many professional photographers are using them to produce some
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> There is some good advice in this thread, and some that is a little
> misleading...

I don't think there is an output device. He wants them for archival
purposes. Maybe in the future some will be printed, but these days many
people are quite happy to view pics on the monitor (except perhaps for one
or two wedding shots).
Gordon Moat - 02 Jun 2004 08:58 GMT
> Hi all,
> Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Any and all advice appreciated.
> Bob in RSM, CA

You can try getting a Kodak Pro Photo CD, or several. There are more than a few
options for scanning your films. Just to give you an idea of options, and a
good quality professional lab, take a look at:

<http://www.chromedigital.com/filmscans.html> Be sure to scroll down to see
many prices for different types of scans, or just contact them for more
specific quoting.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com
Mark A - 02 Jun 2004 09:38 GMT
> You can try getting a Kodak Pro Photo CD, or several. There are more than a few
> options for scanning your films. Just to give you an idea of options, and a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Gordon Moat

Looks to me like the reasonable prices scan options on that website only
apply to 35mm and are done by machine with questionable quality. The custom
scans (probably all 120/220) are quite expensive.
Gordon Moat - 02 Jun 2004 20:26 GMT
> > You can try getting a Kodak Pro Photo CD, or several. There are more than
> a few
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> apply to 35mm and are done by machine with questionable quality. The custom
> scans (probably all 120/220) are quite expensive.

Unfortunately true. However, I thought it was important for you to see a
variety of choices. This might make it easier for you to decide if you want to
get your own scanner, or shop around for a different service. I have seen
places that advertised placing still images onto DVD, but only 35 mm sized. In
general, it is faster for a lab to scan 35 mm, and that is reflected in the
costs. It might actually be cheaper to have duplicate negatives/positives
made, and store the copies in another location for the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com
Bowzre - 10 Jun 2004 15:36 GMT
Do you really need to scan all of them? Why not select the best hundred and
have them scanned?

> Hi all,
> Our wedding photographer sent us all of our negatives from our wedding and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Any and all advice appreciated.
> Bob in RSM, CA
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.