buddam
newbie
Reged: 27/04/2008
Posts: 9
|
|
Hi all
just come back to photography after a long gap. I wondered what is the best way to get old photos and negs onto my PC and to print the odd few off.
1. flatbed scanner like an Epson V350, using the transparency adapter when possible, and then print with a good quality printer?
2. macro photograph the photos?
3. use an all-in-one scanner-copier-printer like Canon Pixma 610? I don't think this has a tranny adapter - is this crucial for quality?
I'm looking for high but not necessarily highest quality. I have a new Olympus E510 DSLR and could get the 35mm macro for c.£140
Thnaks
Adrian
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3059
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
A flat bed scanner will be fine for prints and larger negatives (providing it has a negative scanning facility) but to get the best from 35mm negatives/slides you'll really need a dedicated scanner. I don't recommend trying to macro photograph them and an all-in-one scanner/printer wouldn't be a good choice. To scan negatives or slides the scanner needs to be able to project a light through them.
--------------------
Rog
|
Monobod
'Phantom' of the forum!
Reged: 03/04/2003
Posts: 5991
Loc: Just West of Norwich, Norfolk
|
|
If you scan old black and white photographs on a flatbed scanner at 300dpi resolution, you should get a good reproduction file for printing at the same size as the original. If you wish to increase the size, then scan at 600dpi. etc.
You might find that the scanned image has a slight amber colour cast. This is easily removed if you have Photoshop, by selecting 'Image. adjustment, channel mixer and then clicking on the 'monochrome' option.
You can then use the 'Curves' control to adjust the contrast to get the blacks back to black instead of a greyish tone. Apart from using the healing brush to tidy up small scratches and dust spots, that should be enough.
A dedicated scanner for the negs and trannies is the better option, but will cost you a few bob for the hardware! 
--------------------
David.
-----------------------------------------------
Photos hosted by Flickr.
www.flickr.com/photos/monobod/
-----------------------------------------------
I see the world thro' a viewfinder, but the world watches me via CCTV!
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I have both a flatbed (Epson 4990) and a film scanner (Nikon Coolscan 5000). The Nikon is 35mm only. Obviously the Epson is my only choice for larger sizes but even on 35mm there is barely anything between them. I scan film at 4000dpi which may be considered optimistic particularly for my older pictures but as storage isn't too expensive I like to squeeze the most out of the film. The Epson is also my only option for prints and particularly, as Monobod says, at 600dpi squeezed everything out of a print.
My conclusion is to suggest you start with a good flatbed and see how you like the results.
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2117
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
I'd agree. I have been scanning with an Epson 4490, using Vuescan software to create a DNG RAW file. The file size (dimension-wise) at 2400 dpi is about 7.8MP - plenty of detail especially if just making images for web use.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
buddam
newbie
Reged: 27/04/2008
Posts: 9
|
|
Thanks for the replies. Anyone tried the cheaper Epson V200, which gets good reviews?
Adrian
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
