How to move from picture to digital, still preserving point?
Hi,
I recently came across an antiquated film Minolta SLR camera. Back in it's days it used to help yourself to fantastic shots and I would like to experiment with it. My one and only problem is that I would like to edit and adjust things approaching curves, levels, colour balance etc... contained by Adobe Photoshop. What method should I use (least expensive) of turning film photographs into image files I'm competent to edit in Photoshop in need (or at least with minimal) loss within the quality captured by the show?
Thanks,
Ian
Answers: Most flatbed scanners can take negative and positive (slides) picture these days, you can digitize them with one of those. There are plenty of second appendage ones on eBay and the like or you can buy new.
Epson produce a stock of scanners, I have a Epsonperfection 3490 Photo, this is pretty old, it does a hugely good job, but I surface the perfection bit is slightly overstating it. May be the newer models are better.
Scanning negatives is a time consuming process and the results are definitely not to matching standard as a print. Theres a learning curve to this process here is a link to probably the best site for scan info.
http://www.scantips.com/
Once you have scanned them you can use them approaching any other digital picture file in Photoshop. Digital SLR's steal pictures that are far better quality than scanned negative.
This next remark is contentious, but I believe it to be true, there is far more information within a 6Mp Raw file out of a DSLR than in a professionally scan 35mm negative, far more.
A few years ago I used a Pentax ist DS and took a picture of the harbour at Whitby (UK), consequently I used a Pentax ME Super with the same lens on indistinguishable tripod and took another, I then had the motion picture developed and 10" X 8" prints made by my usual trusted lab that I used all through my professional career. I afterwards printed the digital file on 10" X 8". In isolation they both looked great prints, but there be far more small detail in the digital print, not just for a while more - lots more.
Chris
Related Questions:
I recently came across an antiquated film Minolta SLR camera. Back in it's days it used to help yourself to fantastic shots and I would like to experiment with it. My one and only problem is that I would like to edit and adjust things approaching curves, levels, colour balance etc... contained by Adobe Photoshop. What method should I use (least expensive) of turning film photographs into image files I'm competent to edit in Photoshop in need (or at least with minimal) loss within the quality captured by the show?
Thanks,
Ian
Answers: Most flatbed scanners can take negative and positive (slides) picture these days, you can digitize them with one of those. There are plenty of second appendage ones on eBay and the like or you can buy new.
Epson produce a stock of scanners, I have a Epsonperfection 3490 Photo, this is pretty old, it does a hugely good job, but I surface the perfection bit is slightly overstating it. May be the newer models are better.
Scanning negatives is a time consuming process and the results are definitely not to matching standard as a print. Theres a learning curve to this process here is a link to probably the best site for scan info.
http://www.scantips.com/
Once you have scanned them you can use them approaching any other digital picture file in Photoshop. Digital SLR's steal pictures that are far better quality than scanned negative.
This next remark is contentious, but I believe it to be true, there is far more information within a 6Mp Raw file out of a DSLR than in a professionally scan 35mm negative, far more.
A few years ago I used a Pentax ist DS and took a picture of the harbour at Whitby (UK), consequently I used a Pentax ME Super with the same lens on indistinguishable tripod and took another, I then had the motion picture developed and 10" X 8" prints made by my usual trusted lab that I used all through my professional career. I afterwards printed the digital file on 10" X 8". In isolation they both looked great prints, but there be far more small detail in the digital print, not just for a while more - lots more.
Chris
Related Questions: