FILM FUN?

[FUJI]

I was unsure whether to post these.......my one and only attempt at film Photography for over 20 years............I wont be bothering again........its expensive, slow and doesnt motivate me at all:

 

That aside, I have made the best I could with what I have..................one thing surprsed me.

 

My son scanned the negs at 600 dpi, then saved them as TIFFS,  the files look fine, until cropped, then the pic deteriorates.

 

 

Caesar's Tower was built circa 1126 by the Normans.....here, a large flock of Jackdaws had just taken off above it:

 

The washing up pic, is a crop of a wider view, the film was a B/W one 400 ISO so a fair bit of grit and grain:

 

Your comments and observations very welcome.......but whatever you say, I wont be returning to film again ;-)

 

FUJI

 

P.S.There was obviuously something wrong with the scanning....I went to print the pics, but when opened the files are tiny......Any advice regarding negative film scanning please......I know they were scanned at 600 dpi.........but what should the setting be for high quality prints:

 

Cheers!

[ChrisLumix]

So much to talk about here! 

 

First of all, the castle shot looks no different than a digital monochrome conversion, at least to my eyes. Whereas the other picture looks like film - and therein is its appeal (to me); all that 'grit and grain' is what makes the whole film thing so atmospheric. Vinyl as opposed to CD is even more dramatic, which is why vinyl has never died. There's something about the analogue experience that is not reproducible digitally, unless you add it in artificially.

 

As for scans - the higher the ppi/dpi, the smaller the print will be. If you reduce the resolution to something more like what your average printer is able to reproduce, the picture / print size increases proportionately. So a 600 dpi scan reduced to 200 dpi, will result in a print 3 times the size.

 

HOWEVER. If you scanned negatives at 600 dpi, and then reduce to 200 dpi, your tiny print will still be pretty small. What you want is a dedicated film scanner, whose resolution is in the 000's not the 00's. That will result in decent file / print sizes, as long as you take into account the following :

1. the scans take a long time

2. any dust or scratches will be hugely magnified (but as yours are new negs, that shouldn't be an issue)

 

It's worth it for slides. But I would say it isn't for film negs, where a scan of a good print will yield better results IMO. But, as I say, if you have a dedicated film scanner, it can be done.

[FUJI]

Numbers! numbers Chris......a I don't do numbers.........never have........I have a bog standard Tesco purchased £39.99 negative scanner that Ive never used.....the one my son uses is better, but I never ask how it functions.

Sooo .....it's shove the negative in the slot, then set the scan to 300 dpi ......Yes?

The higher the res equalling smaller prints, is confusing.....just like camera apertures, the larger the number the smaller the hole......my discaclculia just won't let me see that......

But.....I must agree that I do like the grain in the washing up shot......trouble is....when I went to print it.....the pic was about a centimetre square on my monitor.

FUJI

[David]

I agree that the washing up photo is true to a film photo, atmospheric and ageless and also my favorite of the 2.

 

I'm not up to speed with scanners and dpi though so can't comment on that.

 

Its good to experiment with old and new for interesting effects...its a shame you can't see the results sooner though.

[colinb]

I'm confused too Fuji - are you saying you are scanning to basically a thumb nail size then up-scaling them?

 

300 / 400 dpi should be sufficient for a quality print for example an 8 x 4 inch should give you around 2400 x 1200 pixels at 300dpi.

[FUJI]

I'm confused too Fuji - are you saying you are scanning to basically a thumb nail size then up-scaling them?

 

300 / 400 dpi should be sufficient for a quality print for example an 8 x 4 inch should give you around 2400 x 1200 pixels at 300dpi.

Yes, I am confused,

My son asked about scanning resolution, I said at least 300 up to 600 , he scanned the negatives at the latter, so I expected huge TIFF files......I was puzzled after I cropped to get rid of unwanted clutter......the file size on my monitor was tiny compared to my usual digital files.......Regardless, I processed them as best I could.

It was when I went to print the results that I was horrified to see a tiny smaller than thumbnail picture in the corner of my monitor, which, when enlarged pixililated into rubbish.

We did something wrong obviously.....but what exactly?

I have been given a cheapo negative scanner, but have no idea how to get best results from the ILFORD HP5 Plus 400 B/W film negatives......I just need a simple walk through please.

I can see that at least eight of the 24 frames have potential, and will persevere to get best results.......but won't be venturing down the film route again.

FUJI

[Korky]

No idea re the scans, far too technical for my weedy brain, but........

 

Royal Doulton plates? Flash bugger!

 

Korky (of the plastic camping dinner service).

[FUJI]

No idea re the scans, far too technical for my weedy brain, but........

 

Royal Doulton plates? Flash bugger!

 

Korky (of the plastic camping dinner service).

Well spotted Sir Korky........The truth us, that when we were young and had little money, we still liked nice things.........I saw the a Royal Doulton dinner service ( Seasprite pattern) in a posh shop sale at less than half price, all the items were seconds..........I took the plunge and bought the lot.......it served us very well..........over the intervening years and because if the kids many bits got broken until we were left with mainly dinner plates and a couple of dishes. then, very recently, I spotted a whole dinner service in the design in a charity shop for £25, I snapped it up.....then three weeks ago, my son spotted a Toureen, dishes and many other bits to add to it.....so, Yes! We are once again......a truly Royal Doulton household ;-)

At least it proves my pic is in focus ;-)

FUJI

[ChrisLumix]

Well, you have to remember that you are asking a scanner to do the job of an enlarger (which as you remember from film days, is an impressive piece of kit with a lens that projects your negative onto a piece of photo paper). A scanner doesn't project anything, but is basically a bed of glass that a scanner passes over; the amount of detail captured depends on the ppi you scan at. 

 

To try to keep it simple:

 

600 pixels per INCH means that each square inch of your negative is reproduced with 600 pixels. That will pick up a fair amount of detail. However, your negative is NOT ENLARGED!! It looks bigger on your screen because your screen displays at between 72 and 110 ppi - Photoshop will pretend to act as if it's an enlarger.

 

I'm not sure what's causing your tiny file sizes? (Assuming you're talking about 'size' as in megabytes, and not size as in pixels). 

 

However, to put your scan into perspective : 600 ppi is nothing. Think about the size of a digital camera sensor - most are less than 1". Yet the detail is recorded at somewhere between 6 megapixels to 20 megapixels. That's 6,000 to 20,000 pixels on a sensor less than 1" in size!!! If you want something the size of a negative enlarged to print size, you need a scanner that records ppi in the 000's, not the 00's. 

[FUJI]

Thanks Chris....I much appreciate your input....but methinks you misunderstand my scanner..................My son (nor I) use a Flatbed Scanner to scan the negatives.......He used a dedicated ...negative Scanner....I didn't see him use it though:

 

The one, I have I havent used yet......it was given to me only the other day...it is a.......

 

....TEVION 50615 Film Strip Scanner....purchased a year or two ago at ALDI......it has a 1/2.5"  5mp Sensor....A high resolution scan will be.....2592X1680 mps....................................5M = 1,800 dpi.

 

I must admit, that none of that means much to me......but when I do use it, I expect to see decent results on my monitor and not the tiny (nay minute) results as from my son's Film Strip Scanner.

 

Should anyone have experience of using such a scanner, perhaps they can advise?

 

FUJI

[ChrisLumix]

Thanks Chris....I much appreciate your input....but methinks you misunderstand my scanner..................My son (nor I) use a Flatbed Scanner to scan the negatives.......He used a dedicated ...negative Scanner....I didn't see him use it though:

 

The one, I have I havent used yet......it was given to me only the other day...it is a.......

 

....TEVION 50615 Film Strip Scanner....purchased a year or two ago at ALDI......it has a 1/2.5"  5mp Sensor....A high resolution scan will be.....2592X1680 mps....................................5M = 1,800 dpi.

 

I must admit, that none of that means much to me......but when I do use it, I expect to see decent results on my monitor and not the tiny (nay minute) results as from my son's Film Strip Scanner.

 

Should anyone have experience of using such a scanner, perhaps they can advise?

 

FUJI

 

Do you have the MP of your son's scanner? It may be very low indeed. Though I think, in fairness, there must be something else you need to be doing, as a scanner that produces files the size of 35mm negatives is not much use, really! Unless, of course, it's only intended to produce computer files and not prints?