John Grossbohlin wrote:
> I've got bunches of 22+ year old 110 negatives and was wondering if it
> is possible to scan them with an Epson V500?
>
> I ordered this scanner for use with 35 MM and prints am I'm awaiting
> delivery... While waiting I got to thinking about all those old 110
> negatives.
>
> Thoughts? Process description?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
If you can find some 110 slide mounts, you can scan them as 35mm and
crop, then reverse the image (Negative to positive). Don't expect much
in the way of quality though
"Jim" <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4827128b$0$5736$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> I've got bunches of 22+ year old 110 negatives and was wondering if it is
>> possible to scan them with an Epson V500?
>>
>> I ordered this scanner for use with 35 MM and prints am I'm awaiting
>> delivery... While waiting I got to thinking about all those old 110
>> negatives.
>>
>> Thoughts? Process description?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>
> If you can find some 110 slide mounts, you can scan them as 35mm and crop,
> then reverse the image (Negative to positive). Don't expect much in the
> way of quality though
I know the quality will not be on par with larger formats but I thought it
might be interesting to see what can be done in Photoshop to make them
better...
Back before the advent of point and shoot compact 35 MM I used a 110 while
"adventuring." For example, I've got negatives and photos from a 3 month
solo bicycle trip and underwater photos taken at live coral reefs that I'd
like to play with. Back then I had some 8x10 prints made from 110 format
negatives as the content was interesting... not great but got the point
across. ;~) Trying to scan the old prints with my old scanner got me no
where as the scanner only added to the quality problems. I thought the V500
would present more possibilities... might not!
Never thought about 110 slide mounts as I wasn't aware such a thing existed!
"John Grossbohlin" <grossboj.nospam@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OfednRf6h8mnhLrVnZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>
> "Jim" <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4827128b$0$5736$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> I've got bunches of 22+ year old 110 negatives and was wondering if it
>>> is possible to scan them with an Epson V500?
>>>
>>> I ordered this scanner for use with 35 MM and prints am I'm awaiting
>>> delivery... While waiting I got to thinking about all those old 110
>>> negatives.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Process description?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> If you can find some 110 slide mounts, you can scan them as 35mm and
>> crop, then reverse the image (Negative to positive). Don't expect much
>> in the way of quality though
>
> I know the quality will not be on par with larger formats but I thought it
> might be interesting to see what can be done in Photoshop to make them
> better...
>
> Back before the advent of point and shoot compact 35 MM I used a 110 while
> "adventuring." For example, I've got negatives and photos from a 3 month
> solo bicycle trip and underwater photos taken at live coral reefs that I'd
> like to play with. Back then I had some 8x10 prints made from 110 format
> negatives as the content was interesting... not great but got the point
> across. ;~) Trying to scan the old prints with my old scanner got me no
> where as the scanner only added to the quality problems. I thought the
> V500 would present more possibilities... might not!
>
> Never thought about 110 slide mounts as I wasn't aware such a thing
> existed!
>
> John
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:vIIVj.3435$3O7.578@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...
> "John Grossbohlin" <grossboj.nospam@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OfednRf6h8mnhLrVnZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>
>> "Jim" <Jimdotedu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4827128b$0$5736$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> I've got bunches of 22+ year old 110 negatives and was wondering if it
>>>> is possible to scan them with an Epson V500?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts? Process description?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can find some 110 slide mounts, you can scan them as 35mm and
>>> crop, then reverse the image (Negative to positive). Don't expect much
>>> in the way of quality though
>> Never thought about 110 slide mounts as I wasn't aware such a thing
>> existed!
>>
>> John
>
> You can find 110 slide mounts here:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...nstamatic.html
>
> If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum detail
> that is available in a paper print.
>
> Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
Thanks for the reference.
The problem with the old Mustek was I get banding and the images are out of
focus.... it is an inexpensive model that was fine for photocopy use but not
photo scanning. ;~)
> If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum
detail that
> is available in a paper print.
>
> Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
That would only be true if printing the images at actual size (same size
as the negative, e.g. postage stamp or, in the case of 110 film, smaller).
Since you most likely want to print the images at several inches x
several inches, you actually want to scan at a resolution ***MUCH***
higher than 300 dpi. That is, if you had a 1" wide negative and you
wanted to print a picture on paper that was 6" wide, to get a 300 dpi
output to the 6" wide paper you would want a total resolution of 1,800
dots (pixels). But the actual negative is only 1" wide, so you would
want to scan at 1,800 dpi.
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4827854f$0$30491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Re: "
>
> > If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum
> detail that
> > is available in a paper print.
> >
> > Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
>
> That would only be true if printing the images at actual size (same size
> as the negative, e.g. postage stamp or, in the case of 110 film, smaller).
>
> Since you most likely want to print the images at several inches x several
> inches, you actually want to scan at a resolution ***MUCH*** higher than
> 300 dpi. That is, if you had a 1" wide negative and you wanted to print a
> picture on paper that was 6" wide, to get a 300 dpi output to the 6" wide
> paper you would want a total resolution of 1,800 dots (pixels). But the
> actual negative is only 1" wide, so you would want to scan at 1,800 dpi.
What you say is true for a NEGATIVE, not true for an existing 4" x 6" paper
print.
If you scan a 4 inch by 6 inch print at 300 dpi you get a 1200 x 1800 pixel
image. If you wanted a 8 x 12 inch print from that paper print, you would
scan the 4" x 6" print at 600 dpi and print that image (2400 x 3600 pixels)
at 300 dpi.
The OP said he has some prints from the negatives.
Prints from 110 film are never very clear, the film format is to tiny, the
negative is only 13 mm x 17 mm.
Convert mm to inches 13 / 25.4 = 0.512 inches by 17 / 25.4 = 0.669 inches.
1/2 inch by 2/3 inch.
And yes, to get a 8 inch wide print from a 17 mm width film you would scan
the negative at 4688 ppi to get a 300 dpi print.
Which means you would need a scanner that is capable of 4800 dpi.
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:fEYVj.3301$J16.2180@newssvr23.news.prodigy.ne t...
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4827854f$0$30491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Re: "
>>
>> > If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum
>> detail that
>> > is available in a paper print.
>> >
>> > Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
>>
>> That would only be true if printing the images at actual size (same size
>> as the negative, e.g. postage stamp or, in the case of 110 film,
>> smaller).
>>
>> Since you most likely want to print the images at several inches x
>> several inches, you actually want to scan at a resolution ***MUCH***
>> higher than 300 dpi. That is, if you had a 1" wide negative and you
>> wanted to print a picture on paper that was 6" wide, to get a 300 dpi
>> output to the 6" wide paper you would want a total resolution of 1,800
>> dots (pixels). But the actual negative is only 1" wide, so you would
>> want to scan at 1,800 dpi.
>
> What you say is true for a NEGATIVE, not true for an existing 4" x 6"
> paper print.
>
> If you scan a 4 inch by 6 inch print at 300 dpi you get a 1200 x 1800
> pixel image. If you wanted a 8 x 12 inch print from that paper print, you
> would scan the 4" x 6" print at 600 dpi and print that image (2400 x 3600
> pixels) at 300 dpi.
>
> The OP said he has some prints from the negatives.
> Prints from 110 film are never very clear, the film format is to tiny, the
> negative is only 13 mm x 17 mm.
>
> Convert mm to inches 13 / 25.4 = 0.512 inches by 17 / 25.4 = 0.669
> inches.
> 1/2 inch by 2/3 inch.
>
> And yes, to get a 8 inch wide print from a 17 mm width film you would scan
> the negative at 4688 ppi to get a 300 dpi print.
>
> Which means you would need a scanner that is capable of 4800 dpi.
This last bit confirms my thoughts that I might be able to improve the
prints by scanning the negatives with the V500 at the highest settings... in
cases where I only have prints from the 110 format my expectations are
lower... and lastly, the whole exercise may prove futile. ;~)
The original poster said that he wanted to scan NEGATIVES.
CSM1 wrote:
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4827854f$0$30491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Re: "
>>
>>> If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum
>> detail that
>>> is available in a paper print.
>>>
>>> Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
>> That would only be true if printing the images at actual size (same size
>> as the negative, e.g. postage stamp or, in the case of 110 film, smaller).
>>
>> Since you most likely want to print the images at several inches x several
>> inches, you actually want to scan at a resolution ***MUCH*** higher than
>> 300 dpi. That is, if you had a 1" wide negative and you wanted to print a
>> picture on paper that was 6" wide, to get a 300 dpi output to the 6" wide
>> paper you would want a total resolution of 1,800 dots (pixels). But the
>> actual negative is only 1" wide, so you would want to scan at 1,800 dpi.
>
> What you say is true for a NEGATIVE, not true for an existing 4" x 6" paper
> print.
>
> If you scan a 4 inch by 6 inch print at 300 dpi you get a 1200 x 1800 pixel
> image. If you wanted a 8 x 12 inch print from that paper print, you would
> scan the 4" x 6" print at 600 dpi and print that image (2400 x 3600 pixels)
> at 300 dpi.
>
> The OP said he has some prints from the negatives.
> Prints from 110 film are never very clear, the film format is to tiny, the
> negative is only 13 mm x 17 mm.
>
> Convert mm to inches 13 / 25.4 = 0.512 inches by 17 / 25.4 = 0.669 inches.
> 1/2 inch by 2/3 inch.
>
> And yes, to get a 8 inch wide print from a 17 mm width film you would scan
> the negative at 4688 ppi to get a 300 dpi print.
>
> Which means you would need a scanner that is capable of 4800 dpi.
>
You are correct, he did say negatives when he talked about 110 film, he
mentioned prints when asking about the scanner.
I looked at the original post.
--
CSM1 http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48291b43$0$5176$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> The original poster said that he wanted to scan NEGATIVES.
>
>
> CSM1 wrote:
>> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4827854f$0$30491$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Re: "
>>>
>>>> If you scan the prints at 300 DPI/PPI, you will get the maximum
>>> detail that
>>>> is available in a paper print.
>>>>
>>>> Paper prints do not have any more detail than that.
>>> That would only be true if printing the images at actual size (same size
>>> as the negative, e.g. postage stamp or, in the case of 110 film,
>>> smaller).
>>>
>>> Since you most likely want to print the images at several inches x
>>> several inches, you actually want to scan at a resolution ***MUCH***
>>> higher than 300 dpi. That is, if you had a 1" wide negative and you
>>> wanted to print a picture on paper that was 6" wide, to get a 300 dpi
>>> output to the 6" wide paper you would want a total resolution of 1,800
>>> dots (pixels). But the actual negative is only 1" wide, so you would
>>> want to scan at 1,800 dpi.
>>
>> What you say is true for a NEGATIVE, not true for an existing 4" x 6"
>> paper print.
>>
>> If you scan a 4 inch by 6 inch print at 300 dpi you get a 1200 x 1800
>> pixel image. If you wanted a 8 x 12 inch print from that paper print, you
>> would scan the 4" x 6" print at 600 dpi and print that image (2400 x 3600
>> pixels) at 300 dpi.
>>
>> The OP said he has some prints from the negatives.
>> Prints from 110 film are never very clear, the film format is to tiny,
>> the negative is only 13 mm x 17 mm.
>>
>> Convert mm to inches 13 / 25.4 = 0.512 inches by 17 / 25.4 = 0.669
>> inches.
>> 1/2 inch by 2/3 inch.
>>
>> And yes, to get a 8 inch wide print from a 17 mm width film you would
>> scan the negative at 4688 ppi to get a 300 dpi print.
>>
>> Which means you would need a scanner that is capable of 4800 dpi.
>>
scan 110 negatives? 
Linear Mode
