| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 84236 | 2007-10-29 08:52:00 | Scanning Negatives etc:. | sarum (6222) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 606371 | 2007-12-03 03:14:00 | But then why would scanner makers like canon make the adapters for negatives, if it did nothing?? Why go to a photo shop / chemist, when a scanner can do the same thing? |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 606372 | 2007-12-03 03:21:00 | Well I've been playing with this method without much success. It may just be my scanner, so I wonder if anybody else can reproduce the success the author claims. www.abstractconcreteworks.com |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 606373 | 2007-12-03 03:28:00 | Hi BM I tried that technique when it was posted on here a while ago, the images were vaguely recognisable but looked like i had applied some sort of blurry paint? effect to them, they weren't as good as the ones he shows on that site, I can tell you that for nothing |
Morgenmuffel (187) | ||
| 606374 | 2007-12-03 03:29:00 | Why do you want to scan negatives. As far as I know to turn negatives into photos is a chemical process. :) Scanning a Negative will give you a digital image of the photo. If you choose to scan the negative as opposed to scanning the positive you will get a LOT more information into your digital image. I personally use an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner. It does a great job. I have scanned both Slides and negatives. Scanning these formats means you need to scan at a much higher resolution due to their physical size. Check out http://www.scantips.com |
Bantu (52) | ||
| 606375 | 2007-12-03 03:34:00 | Well I've been playing with this method without much success. It may just be my scanner, so I wonder if anybody else can reproduce the success the author claims. www.abstractconcreteworks.com That article was 1999. Scanners have come a long way since that article was done. |
Bantu (52) | ||
| 606376 | 2007-12-03 03:48:00 | I had a quick read ot that article, and when scanning colour negatives you are left with an orange tinge which requires software to edit it out. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 606377 | 2007-12-03 04:17:00 | That article was 1999. Scanners have come a long way since that article was done. Good point Bantu. So why can't we get anything like the same results as the author of that article. :confused: It's a challenge, so lets do it. :thumbs: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 606378 | 2007-12-03 05:09:00 | He states scanning it at 150DPI. If he scanned a Slide at 150 DPI you would barely see it. That image he shows there has been sized up. I used to have a Scanmaker E6 but I had a Transparancy Lid for it, even then it did not scan Slides or Negatives very well at all. |
Bantu (52) | ||
| 606379 | 2007-12-03 05:13:00 | 150dpi is pretty small. Most of the stuff I have ever scanned in was 200dpi minimum - usually 300-400 dpi. | winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 606380 | 2007-12-03 05:19:00 | Negatives and Slides need about 1200+ dpi due to their small physical size. Scanning a Slide at 4000DPI will result in about a 21 Megapixel Image. Quite acceptable to edit. |
Bantu (52) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||