Scannerless Digital Capture and Processing of Negative Film Photographs

[dreed]

I've been given some negatives that date back to the 1950s to convert into digital images and I'm not quite sure how to go about it. The frames are of odd sizes, the negatives aren't nearly as perfect as Kodak from the 1990s. And then there's age. due to size they're not going to fit in any regular negative film scanner.

In search of a way to convert these I found this story on LuLa from November 2014:

https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/

The main question I have is will using a flash will negative film from the 1940s, 50s and 60s, damage the negative film?

Has anyone else been through this?

[plugsnpixels]

This is an interesting concept which I had not thought of or heard about before. It caught my interest because I often scan my older 1970s> negs using traditional methods (i.e., Nikon CoolScan for 35mm).

To answer your question about flash damage, I am assuming not, but maybe you can choose one of the less important negs and experiment on it. Flash duration is so fast (but bright), so if the negs have been fixed properly and have lasted this long, probably no harm will be done.

I am presently scanning my own 1975 B&W 126 negs (not for the first time) using a recent model Canon 9000F, but without the film holder (I don't have the one for 126 and laying the negs directly on the glass works quite well, despite taking a moment to align straight by hand). Maybe this under-$200 option or similar will be of use to you and save you some grief in the long run? I can get roughly 1"x1" at 1200ppi, with 2 strips fitting into the lid light area at once. I have attached a sample (shadows/highlights adjusted but no sharpening added).

[Mark D Segal]

I've been given some negatives that date back to the 1950s to convert into digital images and I'm not quite sure how to go about it. The frames are of odd sizes, the negatives aren't

The main question I have is will using a flash will negative film from the 1940s, 50s and 60s, damage the negative film?

Has anyone else been through this?

Numerous people do this all the time and I have seen no reports of damage. I know this is an incomplete answer but hope it helps.

[dreed]

Numerous people do this all the time and I have seen no reports of damage. I know this is an incomplete answer but hope it helps.

No, that's fine.

I am however looking at a weekend (or two) project to build a negative holder. That's going to be fun & interesting.

[SZRitter]

No, that's fine.

I am however looking at a weekend (or two) project to build a negative holder. That's going to be fun & interesting.

Go onto ebay and get one from an old enlarger. It's what I did.

Also, I took an old enlarger and made it into a rig for duping MF film. It gets me higher resolution than the scanner, but the scanner gets easier color from negative film and is a much faster process (for me at least). Overall, I would call it a toss up, although part of my issue was my light source (lightbox using FL tubes, not very consistent edge to edge).

[Mark D Segal]

Go onto ebay and get one from an old enlarger. It's what I did.

Also, I took an old enlarger and made it into a rig for duping MF film. It gets me higher resolution than the scanner, but the scanner gets easier color from negative film and is a much faster process (for me at least). Overall, I would call it a toss up, although part of my issue was my light source (lightbox using FL tubes, not very consistent edge to edge).

If you follow the process described in my part of this article Make TIFF to SF8 HDR you will see how easy it is to get decent colour "out of the box" from decent negs. But it means investing in some software. Still a big time saver.

[SZRitter]

If you follow the process described in my part of this article Make TIFF to SF8 HDR you will see how easy it is to get decent colour "out of the box" from decent negs. But it means investing in some software. Still a big time saver.

Not really for me. I still have a stitching step in there, and a few other steps that added quite a bit to the workflow. It might be worth it if I had a different digital camera that had a higher resolution and larger sensor, but I don't have a couple of grand to drop on one at the moment. A single capture from a 16MP m43 camera (E-M5) is about equal to what I get from an Epson V600, and the Epson is by far a lot less hassle. If I were to stitch, the Olympus wins hands down, as long as I can get consistent color.

[Mark D Segal]

Not really for me. I still have a stitching step in there, and a few other steps that added quite a bit to the workflow. It might be worth it if I had a different digital camera that had a higher resolution and larger sensor, but I don't have a couple of grand to drop on one at the moment. A single capture from a 16MP m43 camera (E-M5) is about equal to what I get from an Epson V600, and the Epson is by far a lot less hassle. If I were to stitch, the Olympus wins hands down, as long as I can get consistent color.

It just means a different organization of your workflow. You do all the captures and conversions of the image segments as defined in my article, then you import them as TIFFs to your stitching application and stitch away.

[SZRitter]

It just means a different organization of your workflow. You do all the captures and conversions of the image segments as defined in my article, then you import them as TIFFs to your stitching application and stitch away.

Most of my workflow issues are more at the time of capture, and specific to my rig. The one thing that would actually work better is if I could live view that camera from either a tablet or computer, but sadly the E-M5 doesn't have that. I don't have any AF macro lenses, so I have to achieve focus manually, which is part of the issue.

The other problem is my light source, which if the OP is using a flash, shouldn't be an issue at all.

Buying new gear, or software, at the moment is completely out as my wife just lost her job...

Can we go back to the OP's questions, now?

[Mark D Segal]

I think I already answered his question to the extent it can be. Threads in this forum often drift and that can provide food for thought in the minds of other readers. We each have our constraints and preferences, and that's to be expected. A real nice thing about digital imaging is that there are usually numerous ways of doing things, each with their own requirements and characteristics catering to different people differently. Best to you in your endeavours.