Digital BW, The Print

Norm -

excellent questions...I, too, wonder about the limitations of  
negative scanning. I have managed to get details but for some reason  
my 35mm negs scanned seem like I've used some filter, even when I  
have not.  I have experimented with different settings in the scanner  
software, but I'm still getting "eh" results. I am scanning at the  
max res, too (12,800 dpi) and then resizing the image down to 300.  
That has given me he best results.

Another option are pro places in NYC. They may be better at scanning  
services but be prepared to pay for it. I know I can't afford to.

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net



On Dec 23, 2007, at 1:53 PM, nsams2002 wrote:

> I recently had a local photo store do some scanning for me of some B&W
> 35mm negatives. I was very disappointed with the results. Areas in
> shadow, the details of which are visible in the negatives, were
> complete lost in a sea of black. No way could I get Photoshop to bring
> out the details. The negatives were scanned by a high-end Nikon  
> scanner
> (so I was told) and show up as 4,000 pixels per inch. I asked if the
> scanning couldn't be adjusted to quiet down the blacks, and the answer
> was yes, but that this store didn't do that kind of custom work, and
> didn't want to get into same. I was also told that the grain in the
> film made it very difficult to get a good scan. I was given a full
> refund, which I hadn't asked for, as some of the scans were somewhat
> o.k. So, I don't know. Maybe I should try a different shop? Would I
> be able to do better if I did my own scanning? (I don't want to put a
> lot of money into a machine which I wouldn't be using all that much).
> Or is the scanning of negatives bound to result in a vastly inferior
> image?
>
> Norm
>
>
> 







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]