Don't throw away those film camera just yet.

[0098386]

Too late

I use digital for the convenience. no developing and that. I love film quality but film is just too expensive for me to practice with.
I'm no pro. Right now I'm using my dSLR camera for snapshots and a bit of light experimentation.

 

[ksz]

I'm not sure what you've been using but I've a Minolta Dual Scan III and, even at 2800 dpi, it's quite good, especially at US $299. It's been replaced with a 3200 dpi model.

I like having 6 negatives scanned at a time but I've found that the automatic fixes to be useless. Software dust removal isn't much good, though something in hardware might be nice as the negative strip is pulled into the device.

Digital ICE works with the IR (infrared) channel on scanners that have IR sensors. It works exceptionally well; I use it all the time on my Super Coolscan 4000. However, I use an aerosol duster to blow dirt off the film prior to scanning.

The makers of Digital ICE also have ROC (restoration of color) and GEM (reduces visible graininess). However, ROC gets fooled too often in my experience, resulting in overly saturated and edge-enhanced/false-color results. GEM works well on old and grainy films, but produces a noticeable blur, which is not too bad a compromise depending on circumstances.

Digital ICE with a small amount of unsharp masking is the most effective of these technologies.

I scanned my dad's Kodachrome slides from the 1950s with absolutely wonderful results using both ICE and ROC. Faded, tinted, and scratched images were restored to life straight out of the scanner.

 

[allmac]

Resolution Ranking + Scanning

Two questions from one new to digital photography:

1) How would the digital "photo to CD" option compare to scanning from negatives? In other words, what is the best resolution that could be obtained when developing photographic film and having the developer at that same time create the digital .jpeg, .tiff, etc. files? (and is there better quality available from some of these processors, using different equipment?)

2) Is this ranking of formats and associated "Best to Worst" resolution correct:

Best/Highest resolution possible:
4 x 5 film
35mm slide
35mm negative

Good resolutions:
scanned 35mm slide
scanned 35mm negative
10 megapixiel DSLR
5 - 8 megapixel DLSR or "point & shoot"

Lower resolutions:
scanned photograph
2-5 megapixel point & shoot
Polaroid

 

[Mr. Jones]

Actually, there are digital backs for medium format cameras. They just cost over $100k, and need to be hooked to a computer constantly.

PhaseOne makes quite a few digital backs for MF, but even the most high end model they make doesn't cost even half as much as you say. And, in my opinion, if you shoot fashion, those digital backs are worth their weight in gold.

 

[joepunk]

I'm never throwing away my Minox 8x11 A llls.

 

[crazydreaming]

After owning it longer, do you still recommend the Epson 4870?

I'm in college taking a beggining film photography class. I want to get more serious with photography as I'm really liking it.

I'm thinking about buying this scanner because I have a ton of good shots, but don't have the time right now to spend hours in the darkroom printing all of them. Over the summer I won't have a darkroom, but I plan on continuing shooting. I'm planning on getting the supplies to develop myself, then scan the negatives.

Is the quality good enough for making 8X10 prints from a scanned 35mm negative?

Thanks for advice!

I ordered one online. However I noticed I get upgrade to the 4890 for $36 more after a $50 rebate. Is it worth it?

 

[ChrisA]

Two questions from one new to digital photography:

1) How would the digital "photo to CD" option compare to scanning from negatives? In other words, what is the best resolution that could be obtained when developing photographic film and having the developer at that same time create the digital .jpeg, .tiff, etc. files? (and is there better quality available from some of these processors, using different equipment?)

The photo CD's ARE scans from negs. Many of the automtic machines don't do direct prints anymore. They scan the negs and usa a laser to expose the paper. So they just save the digital data for you. I don't know the file size but I'd expect a dust and scrtach free scan. I suspect different services might givr you diferent file size. Full 4800DPI scans in TIFF are huge, like 100MB per image. You could only fit 6 per CD. So they would have to compress them somehow as the 100MB files are pointless anyways

2) Is this ranking of formats and associated "Best to Worst" resolution correct:

Best/Highest resolution possible:
4 x 5 film
35mm slide
35mm negative

Good resolutions:
scanned 35mm slide
scanned 35mm negative
10 megapixiel DSLR
5 - 8 megapixel DLSR or "point & shoot"

Lower resolutions:
scanned photograph
2-5 megapixel point & shoot
Polaroid

1) I think Negs win over slides. They have much greater range of tones I'm not sure about details but 100 ISO color neg film is good

DSLR vs. point and shoot: a 6MP Nikon DSLR completely blows away a typical 8 or 10MP P&S camera. The P%S will have very noticable noise in the image and typically much poorer optics

Some Polaroid images are absolutly outstanding. However many consummer level Polaroid camera had cheap plastic lens and sold for like $25. Profesional level camera loaded with
Polaroid film make greatimages. I had a Pol. back for my Mamyia RB67. When you place a $1,600 lens in front of the Polaroid film the results are ultra-sharp. Same applies for Pol. filmholders on view camera.

In 1979, Ansel Adams used 20 x 24 inch Polaroid film and an oversized camera to make a portrait of Jimmy Carter. Carter chose Adams and the Poleriod for his "officeal" portrait.
However the camera (and 20x24 film) was really designed for photographing museum artwork