Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digitizing negatives with a digital camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Digitizing negatives with a digital camera

 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Hi,
I have a bunch of old 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negatives from family
members. The negatives, many color, are in good shape,
buy I have thousands to digitize. I could do the job fast with
my Canon 1D Mark II and 180 mm f/3.5 L macro lens. This system
gives more than enough resolution (it resolves film grain clumps),
and with raw output has the intensity precision (12 bits).

The problem I have is how do I convert the negative to a
positive (I have Photoshop CS2)? I can batch convert the raw
files using a linear or other custom transfer function
(using other programs). But when I do a simple "invert"
in photoshop I get a very blue image.
When I scan the negative on my Epson 4990 scanner (1200 ppi
is adequate to resolve all the detail in these hand-held pictures),
the colors come out great. I estimate I could do the digitizing
about 5 or more times faster with the camera compared to the
flatbed scanner.

Any ideas on how to get the colors right?

Thanks
Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bmoag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Le masque d'orange.
If you do your research you will find several formulas for dialing in color
correction to get rid of the orange masking of color negative film.
If you are time obesessed then calculate whether having the flatbed scanner
automatically remove the orange mask or manually removing it in PS is more
efficient.
Personally I cannot believe you would think doing this with your digital
camera is in any way more efficient or will yield better quality images than
using a decent flatbed scanner and software for 2.25 film materials.
How do you rapidly frame, focus and photograph with even illumination across
the field in any time that is more efficient than using a decent flat bed
scanner?
Sacre bleu!
If you do not photograph the film grain clumps than what exactly are you
photographing as grain clumps are what make up the film image. If you do not
resolve the grain you are producing digital mush copies of your film
originals.
I would hypothesize that in the time to post this, read the responses from
skeptics or true believers, you could have finished the entire project with
your flat bed scanner.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Roger N. Clark wrote:

>> I have a bunch of old 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negatives from family
>> members. The negatives, many color, are in good shape,
>> buy I have thousands to digitize.



bmoag wrote:

> I would hypothesize that in the time to post this, read the responses from
> skeptics or true believers, you could have finished the entire project with
> your flat bed scanner.



Wow, if he can finish several THOUSAND scans in the same time it takes
him to read through a couple of posts in a single topic, then I know a
few places that would give him a freaking job.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
bmoag wrote:
> Le masque d'orange.
> If you do your research you will find several formulas for dialing in color
> correction to get rid of the orange masking of color negative film.
> If you are time obesessed then calculate whether having the flatbed scanner
> automatically remove the orange mask or manually removing it in PS is more
> efficient.
> Personally I cannot believe you would think doing this with your digital
> camera is in any way more efficient or will yield better quality images than
> using a decent flatbed scanner and software for 2.25 film materials.
> How do you rapidly frame, focus and photograph with even illumination across
> the field in any time that is more efficient than using a decent flat bed
> scanner?
> Sacre bleu!
> If you do not photograph the film grain clumps than what exactly are you
> photographing as grain clumps are what make up the film image. If you do not
> resolve the grain you are producing digital mush copies of your film
> originals.
> I would hypothesize that in the time to post this, read the responses from
> skeptics or true believers, you could have finished the entire project with
> your flat bed scanner.
>
>

Well, let's see: 1200x1200 ppi on 2.25x2.25 negative = 7.3 megapixels.
1D Mark II: 8.2 megapixels.

Epson 4990 measured Dmax = 2.7
( http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners )
1D Mark II Dmax at ISO 100: ~3.5
( http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ignal.to.noise )

So I get a much better Dmax with the camera over the flatbed and similar
resolution (both of which are more than adequate for the detail
on these negatives).

I can use a a 2.25x2.25 film mount on a color corrected light
table, so a couple of seconds to place the film, and no preview
scan is required. I simply click the shutter with mirror
lockup and in a few seconds I'm ready to put the next negative
in place.

On the flatbed, one must open the top, place the negative,
close the top, preview scan, frame, final scan (it takes
a couple of minutes), repeat. The camera setup is about 10x
faster ignoring preview scanning on the flatbed.

I can write scripts to convert all the files, so there is
no need to do every one manually.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Flavius
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2005
Hi !

Yes, I do this all the time with fantastic results! Here is how I do it.

1. First I have a small color corrected light table (5000K).

2. I make a mask from heavy opaque construction paper with a channel in the
middle for the negative or negatives to sit or slide through. Mask as
needed.

3. A darkroom is not absolutely required but it helps. Be aware of stray
light sources that may reflect from the surface of the negative.

4. Using a reversed tripod I very firmly mount my camera about 2" above the
negative. My current cameras in use are my Olympus C8080 (2) or my Olympus
E-300. I actually prefer the C8080.

5. I set the camera to "super macro mode" which requires the use of MANUAL
focus.

6. I carefully measure the distance from the negative to the lens and focus
accordingly, Once the camera is in focus I need not refocus even after
(carefully) changing a negative.

7. I leave the camera (usually) in program mode and auto white balance, I
only rarely need to tweak these settings.

8. I trigger the shutter by aiming the infrared remote at the negative. The
signal bounces to the camera and the picture is taken. Change negative and
repeat. I can work VERY fast (you can too with practice)!

9. After the XD and CF cards in the C8080 are full I move them to my OTHER
C8080 and start the upload to my computer. While it is uploading I recycle
the OTHER XD and CF to the first camera and continue photographing
negatives.

10. Once in the computer I invert the image using Micrographics Picture
Publisher, adjust levels if needed and burn to CD for printing at my local
lab ( $0.16 for a 4x6).

11. I have many times printed as large as 11x14 this way with excellent
results. I suspect I could get all the way to 20x30 but have not yet had a
customer ask for one that size.

12. Adjusting white balance as needed to correct for orange cast either in
camera or on the computer seems to work about as well either way. Simple
color corrections are a breeze in Picture Publisher. While I like and often
use Photoshop, the older software still does a fine job and is, for me, much
easier to use.

YMMY

L8r
JDR

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
> I have a bunch of old 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negatives



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> The problem I have is how do I convert the negative to a
> positive (I have Photoshop CS2)? I can batch convert the raw
> files using a linear or other custom transfer function
> (using other programs). But when I do a simple "invert"
> in photoshop I get a very blue image.


In order to get the colors right, and reduce posterization/noise,
you'll need to use blue filtered light. The trick is to start with a
neutral white rendition of the film base (mask). You either change the
color of the lightsource, or filter the light that enters the camera
with a filter

Equal Digital Numbers for R/G/B of the film base will optimize S/N if
they approach saturation, and produce color accurate blacks after
inversion. Subsequent white balancing will get the highlights right
and all intermediate luminosities should more or less follow. A final
saturation tweak should allow you to get close to reasonable
rendition, except for potential dye fade. Restoring faded dyes is a
different subject altogether, because their fade rate is different per
color.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005

"Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> In order to get the colors right, and reduce posterization/noise, you'll
> need to use blue filtered light. The trick is to start with a neutral
> white rendition of the film base (mask). You either change the color of
> the lightsource, or filter the light that enters the camera with a filter


Sheesh. You're flipping brilliant. Really. I've been ranting for ages how
after-the-fact white balancing is bogus and digital requires color
correction filters just as much as film, and completely missed that that's
exactly what's required here.

Ain't it amazing how "brilliance" consists of seeing the obvious???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In order to get the colors right, and reduce posterization/noise, you'll
>>need to use blue filtered light. The trick is to start with a neutral
>>white rendition of the film base (mask). You either change the color of
>>the lightsource, or filter the light that enters the camera with a filter

>
>
> Sheesh. You're flipping brilliant. Really. I've been ranting for ages how
> after-the-fact white balancing is bogus and digital requires color
> correction filters just as much as film, and completely missed that that's
> exactly what's required here.
>
> Ain't it amazing how "brilliance" consists of seeing the obvious???
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


Bart,
Great info! I'll try it. I do have a number of blue
filters around.

David, I agree.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dk6dnr$742$(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> Ain't it amazing how "brilliance" consists of seeing the obvious???


It probably stems from our prior 'education' in photographic film /
wet chemistry. Even before digital photography became popular,
Garbage-In-Garbage-Out (GIGO) ruled.
Just because we can manipulate the result with more ease, it still
pays to get it right from the start.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> Bart,
> Great info! I'll try it. I do have a number of blue
> filters around.


Those would at least improve the green and blue S/N. Alternatively,
you could try 3 exposures (rough first approximation is an R:G:B
channel exposure ratio like 1:2:3 or G and B a bit closer to the Red
exposure if blue sky background is used). Potential drawback is an
increased chance on blooming of the Red channel as exposures increase.

Because you use ImagesPlus, there might even be a possibility to
combine the R, G, and B pixels from 3 Raws and Demosaic a composite of
the three files. It may be difficult to get accurate color though,
because I don't know how the Canon libraries will react to such a
fabricated neutral exposure (the AA-filter and secondary band
transmission may/will cause unexpected results). The whole exercise
may become too involved for more than a few negatives or an
experiment.

It is almost certainly much easier to filter the light before it
reaches the sensor, with the backlight color (blue sky would already
help some) and a lens filter.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Negatives, Slides, Photo Scanning/Digitizing newscans Digital Photography 0 01-08-2008 07:03 PM
Digitizing slides and negatives: software to convert the negatives? MB Digital Photography 5 01-15-2007 02:31 PM
Scanning vs. Digital Camera for Copying Slides, Negatives and Prints RH Horn Digital Photography 16 05-07-2004 12:15 PM
Digicam negatives? (wasRe: Digitizing film negatives) Mark Johnson Digital Photography 0 04-02-2004 07:39 PM
Re: digital camera that creates negatives Don Stauffer Digital Photography 2 09-01-2003 04:31 PM



Advertisments