I haven't been into photography for almost 40 years until my wife
bought me a digital negative scanner and I was able to scan over 100
rolls of B&W film that I had taken from 1968 to 1973. It was a cheap
scanner but it did a pretty good job. The negatives were mostly TriX
shot at 300 or 400 ASA developed with D76. Some of them were
developed with Acufine and shot at 1200.
Most of the negatives were in pretty good shape because they were kept
in a safe deposit box and archive processed. I did have to spend some
time with PS spot healer with some of them.
In any case, my interest in photography has suddenly been revived and
I want to know a couple of things.
1. I have a Nikon Coolpix digital camera but it sucks. On occasion,
it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
(I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus. I don't
mind using a hand held light meter because that's what I used to use.
It would be nice to take digital pictures the way I used to shoot film
pictures.
2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
Is that true?
3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:58:23 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
wrote:
>I haven't been into photography for almost 40 years until my wife
>bought me a digital negative scanner and I was able to scan over 100
>rolls of B&W film that I had taken from 1968 to 1973. It was a cheap
>scanner but it did a pretty good job. The negatives were mostly TriX
>shot at 300 or 400 ASA developed with D76. Some of them were
>developed with Acufine and shot at 1200.
>
>Most of the negatives were in pretty good shape because they were kept
>in a safe deposit box and archive processed. I did have to spend some
>time with PS spot healer with some of them.
>
>In any case, my interest in photography has suddenly been revived and
>I want to know a couple of things.
>
>1. I have a Nikon Coolpix digital camera but it sucks.
Hmmm. I have a Coolpix, and a dslr, but I've never thought my Coolpix
sucked. It's not as versatile as my dslr, but the images are usually
good enough. The close-up setting ("Macro" to some, but not to all)
actually produces better images than the dslr in some situations.
As my "car camera", it's fine for the unplanned photo opportunity.
It's also fine for family snaps on outings where the dslr is too bulky
to carry around. Where it is lacking is in the shot where you would
be using a longer lens on dslr than the 18/55. You don't go out to
photograph an osprey in a nest with a Coolpix.
> On occasion,
>it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
>everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
>(I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus.
All of them do, and all of them do it almost exactly the same. I've
never seen one that doesn't have Automatic, Programmed Auto, Aperture
Priority, Shutter Priority, and full Manual.
>I don't
>mind using a hand held light meter because that's what I used to use.
>It would be nice to take digital pictures the way I used to shoot film
>pictures.
The cameras have a light meter function. By going to Automatic and
noting what the auto setting will be, you can work from there to
determine what you want for either an Aperture or Shutter setting. By
going to Programmed Automatic, you can determine what the combinations
are for a change in setting to Aperture or Shutter.
That said, I just purchased a Sekonic (albeit an old one) hand-held
light meter on eBay. I haven't received it yet, but I'm looking
forward to getting it. Theoretically, I don't need it but I like the
idea of using one. Old habits die hard.
>2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>Is that true?
Always an argument. The higher settings take longer to scan, but some
believe that's the only way to go. Some believe that 300 is as high
as you need to go. I'm in the process of scanning 100s of old prints,
and using the 300 setting. I experimented and found little, if any
difference with higher settings.
>3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>
You can take color film into most processing centers and get back a CD
with .jpg images. I've never tried it with B&W. Ask. A phone call
to a Walgreen's or CSV or Costco or camera store will answer the
question.
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>I haven't been into photography for almost 40 years until my wife
>bought me a digital negative scanner and I was able to scan over 100
>rolls of B&W film that I had taken from 1968 to 1973. It was a cheap
>scanner but it did a pretty good job. The negatives were mostly TriX
>shot at 300 or 400 ASA developed with D76. Some of them were
>developed with Acufine and shot at 1200.
....
>In any case, my interest in photography has suddenly been revived and
>I want to know a couple of things.
Yes, you should make a backup of your scanned images. I suggest
having two backups. Either CD, DVD, or buy another hard disk and copy
them to that. Leave one set in your safe-deposit box. You don't want
to be yet another person asking how to recover photos that were damaged
or accidentally deleted.
>1. I have a Nikon Coolpix digital camera but it sucks. On occasion,
>it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
>everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
>(I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus.
There are many. Anywhere from $600 to $6000. Canon and Nikon are the
market leaders but there are a few others as well.
> I don't
>mind using a hand held light meter because that's what I used to use.
>It would be nice to take digital pictures the way I used to shoot film
>pictures.
Good luck with that. Today's cameras are auto-focus and auto-exposure
although SLRs allow you to override.
>2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>Is that true?
Shrug. They're probably right but you could always rescan some photos
at a higher resolution and see how much difference it makes.
>3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
Nope. Far easier to shoot digital and then just remove the color,
leaving a B&W photo. As you have Photoshop already that's a really
simple job. In fact, Photoshop offers at 2-3 different ways of
doing it.
The best and worst thing about digital cameras is that it costs almost
nothing to take a photo. That's good because it allows you to
experiment and learn. Bad if you don't make any effort to get a good
photo because it doesn't cost anything.
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:58:23 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>> the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>> Is that true?
>
> Always an argument. The higher settings take longer to scan, but some
> believe that's the only way to go. Some believe that 300 is as high
> as you need to go. I'm in the process of scanning 100s of old prints,
> and using the 300 setting. I experimented and found little, if any
> difference with higher settings.
The use of the term 300 is odd when someone is asking a question about
what dpi to choose for negatives. Do you mean the resultant file is at
300 ppi?
Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
certainly sounds in the ball park.
>
>> 3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>> still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>>
> You can take color film into most processing centers and get back a CD
> with .jpg images. I've never tried it with B&W. Ask. A phone call
> to a Walgreen's or CSV or Costco or camera store will answer the
> question.
Apparently some do, but I see no good reason to do so, when shooting a
normal RAW or HQ JPEG [in color] results in an image that can be
converted into a smashing B+W image, with way more control than we ever
had in the develop or printing processes. [Lightroom and Photoshop come
to mind]
New high end printers can produce B+W prints that rival silver prints,
in the opinion of some. This latter takes some doing, though. Still,
very good to excellent prints are the norm. with some knowledge and
practice.
In general, scans produced by a Walgreens etc. will never be as good as
an original digital image, other things being equal.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:25:46 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
>certainly sounds in the ball park.
From what I understand, the resolution of TriX developed with D76 is
less than 2700 dpi so scanning them at a greater resolution wont
improve the image. That makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. I
tried a couple at 3600, which is the best the scanner can do, but I
couldn't see any difference.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:25:46 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:58:23 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> 2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>>> the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>>> Is that true?
>>
>> Always an argument. The higher settings take longer to scan, but some
>> believe that's the only way to go. Some believe that 300 is as high
>> as you need to go. I'm in the process of scanning 100s of old prints,
>> and using the 300 setting. I experimented and found little, if any
>> difference with higher settings.
>
>The use of the term 300 is odd when someone is asking a question about
>what dpi to choose for negatives. Do you mean the resultant file is at
>300 ppi?
I don't see what's odd about it. With my scanner, you set the
resolution at anywhere between 50 and 9600 dpi when you scan. I scan
at 300. Surely, by context, you know what the "300" is.
I just scanned a 3.5" x 5" print at 300 and it took 20 seconds. I
scanned the same print at 2400 and it took 6 minutes and 25 seconds.
His equipment may be different, but when you are doing a lot of
originals the time difference is very significant.
The result of the 300 scan is a .jpg that is 1210 x 1607, and the
result of the 2400 scan is a .jpg that is 9,680 x 12,858.
That was a print on a flatbed. I have a Minolta Dimage dedicated
slide/negative scanner, and I didn't experiment on that. I would
expect similar results, though.
>
>Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
>certainly sounds in the ball park.
My thoughts were similar, but it seemed rude and dismissive to say so.
If it's me, I'll scan the same source at various settings and examine
the results and make a couple of prints to see what difference there
is.
>>> 3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>>> still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>>>
>> You can take color film into most processing centers and get back a CD
>> with .jpg images. I've never tried it with B&W. Ask. A phone call
>> to a Walgreen's or CSV or Costco or camera store will answer the
>> question.
>
>Apparently some do, but I see no good reason to do so, when shooting a
>normal RAW or HQ JPEG [in color] results in an image that can be
>converted into a smashing B+W image,
Jeez, John. Which of the two of us is not reading what the man wrote?
He's talking about shooting B&W *film* in a older Nikon. How could he
shoot RAW?
>New high end printers can produce B+W prints that rival silver prints,
>in the opinion of some. This latter takes some doing, though. Still,
>very good to excellent prints are the norm. with some knowledge and
>practice.
>
>In general, scans produced by a Walgreens etc. will never be as good as
>an original digital image, other things being equal.
Again, who's reading correctly here? The comment about Walgreens is
about getting *film* processed and, instead of prints, getting back a
CD with .jpgs of the images.
The OP has a scanner. He says so here. No one's talking about
Walgreens doing scanning. I mentioned Walgreens or a camera store to
do the developing of the *film*. (You remember film, don't you?) I
have no idea who processes film in his area.
>>1. I have a Nikon Coolpix digital camera but it sucks. On occasion,
>>it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
>>everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
>>(I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus.
>
>There are many. Anywhere from $600 to $6000. Canon and Nikon are the
>market leaders but there are a few others as well.
>
>Go to this web site: www.dpreview.com.
>
>Read.
>
>> I don't
>>mind using a hand held light meter because that's what I used to use.
>>It would be nice to take digital pictures the way I used to shoot film
>>pictures.
>
>Good luck with that. Today's cameras are auto-focus and auto-exposure
>although SLRs allow you to override.
Wha? Any dslr gives you a choice of automatic or picking your own
settings.
>>3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>>still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>
>Nope. Far easier to shoot digital and then just remove the color,
>leaving a B&W photo. As you have Photoshop already that's a really
>simple job. In fact, Photoshop offers at 2-3 different ways of
>doing it.
>
Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
get-go.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:07:05 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hmmm. I have a Coolpix, and a dslr, but I've never thought my Coolpix
>sucked. It's not as versatile as my dslr, but the images are usually
>good enough.
It's just the lack of control that bothers me. I'd much prefer to
focus the lens myself and set the aperture and shutter speed after I
determined what the proper exposure is. Just like the way I used to
do it. However, the benefits of having a digital image rather than
film make me want to use a digital camera.
There is a certain magic to developing your film and printing your
pictures in a darkroom, but, after the magic wears off, digital
photography is a lot better.
Another big advantage is that you can see if you got the exposure
right when you take the picture and, if not, you can shoot it again.
No matter how good you are, you're bound to get some exposures wrong
and with film, you find that out too late to do anything about it.
>The close-up setting ("Macro" to some, but not to all)
>actually produces better images than the dslr in some situations.
I agree with this. I made a series of Thomas the Tank Engine pictures
from my kids' toys a few years back with the Macro function and they
were excellent.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:07:05 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On occasion,
>>it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
>>everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
>>(I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus.
>
>All of them do, and all of them do it almost exactly the same. I've
>never seen one that doesn't have Automatic, Programmed Auto, Aperture
>Priority, Shutter Priority, and full Manual.
That sounds nice. I still have one of my Nikor lenses. It's a 55mm,
f1.2. If I bought a Nikon DSLR camera, could I put it on the camera.
BTW, what ASA speeds can you get for color and B&W. I only want to do
natural light photography. In the old days, getting enough light was
always an issue shooting indoors. Have things improved?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:06:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:25:46 -0700, John McWilliams
><jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
>>certainly sounds in the ball park.
>
>From what I understand, the resolution of TriX developed with D76 is
>less than 2700 dpi so scanning them at a greater resolution wont
>improve the image. That makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. I
>tried a couple at 3600, which is the best the scanner can do, but I
>couldn't see any difference.
Just out of curiosity, how long does it take - roughly by the sweep
second hand on your watch - to scan a neg at 2700?
Try some at 300 to 600 dpi and compare the results and time taken.
Back from the Dead 
Linear Mode
