Scan Help for 1920s BW negs, please

Nee

Hello SmugMuggers. I am in over my head here, and sure could use some advice.

I recently found a bag FULL of old b&w negs in with my grandmother's papers.They are an odd size, 2-1/2 x 4-3/4- inches, but fit in the neg holder of my Epson 4490. I've tried a few settings, but don't know if I am going about this in the right way, specifically

1. Should I be scanning in color or b&W
2. Should the scanner be set for 16-bit, or 8-bit greyscale (if b&w)
3. What dpi to use -- I have read everything from 600 to the highest I can get

I have been saving as TIFF files and trying out Lightroom b/c I would like to use some batch features. I was using XnView but was very frustrated with the limited documentation and tutorials. I think I will probably need PSElements, but I don't think it does batch saving, converting etc.

I don't intend to print these negatives much larger than 5x7 (if that) and could possibly rescan if I needed to make a few larger. Mostly I want to catalog and print small prints for my genealogy files and for my mom.

Would it be adequate for me to scan at 600, maybe 1200 for negs that obviously need zooming in? Or would I be regretting this later.

And should I be using a color setting rather than b/w?

Thanks for any ideas, similar experiences to share.

Tanuki

From my (admittedly limited) experience, I would suggest the following...

Use 16 bit scanning for B&W negatives. When you get them in Lightroom and you should consider applying some duo-toning for printing on a color inkjet printer.

B&W scanning will probably be sufficient for the capture, but Lightroom probably won't allow duo-toning of a b&w tiff. You'll have to try it and see.

In some instances there can be a benefit to scanning in color. If there is a stain on the negative, for example, it might show up less in one color channel than the others.

The ratio of scan dpi to print dpi will determine the enlargement of your negative on each dimension. So if you scan at 600 dpi and print at 300 dpi, your print will be twice the size as the negative on each dimension. For your 2-1/4 x 4-3/4 negative, that results in a 4.5 x 9.5 print.

Regards,
Mike

I'm sure you know this already, but I feel compelled to remind you never to throw away your negatives after you scan.

Nee

Finding best scanning res
Thank you Mike, for your reply. Oh no, I am not throwing out the negs. In fact, that is what prompted this project; I want to move them into archival sleeves. Maybe I should just scan for cataloging and small prints with the thought that if I later select a few to restore I can rescan at a higher res. I thought I read that negs should be scanned at a much higher ppi than prints, but that doesn't seem practical.

I downloaded VueScan just to see if it would give better results than my Epson scan software, and the image (all Auto settings for Archive Quality) is great, but Lightroom freezes up. I have 1.99 GB Ram on this new desktop and thought it would be enough! I think I need to find another configuation that is more workable.

I also wondered if I should archive my scan TIFF right off, and work on a JPG copy. Would that help?

Best, Denise

largelylivin

Sorry to disagree
I have restored over 500 negatives and prints from the 20's and 30's. many can be seen at http://www.bluedogdigitalimaging.com.

1. Buy Restoration and Retouching by Katrina Eismann. It will teach you all of the steps and techniques to use PS for restoring photosgraphs.

2. Scan negatives at the highest resolution possible, at least 600dpi. Scan in 16 bit color and save as uncompressed TIFF. (These negatives are deteriorating as we speak. Most are "silvering", getting brittle, and may be on flamable material (not marked "safe film") which are subject spontaneous combustion!

3. Why color? Scanning negatives and prints in color allows you to remove stains and discoloration that are on the negatives. Also, an advanced technique allows you to restore the image using the better images in different color channels.

4. If you have negatives that are curling buy a piece of Anti-Newton Glass from a photo supply store to place over the neg and hold it flat.

Here's a restored and altered photo from a 656 1929 negative. (the baby's face and arm were replaced using another photo.) It is split toned.



Here's another 656 neg from the early 1930's, also split toned.



Finally, a hand colored photo form about 1942.

Tanuki

Nee wrote:

... I thought I read that negs should be scanned at a much higher ppi than prints, but that doesn't seem practical.

It's true that negatives typically should be scanned at higher ppi than prints. But I don't understand what that has to do with your situation since you're scanning negatives. Maybe your confusing the ppi for scanning a print (i.e., input with a scanner) with the dpi for printing (i.e., output to an inkjet printer)?

Nee wrote:

... but Lightroom freezes up...

Sorry to hear about that. Lightroom used to freeze up on me too, although I'm sure my problem was different that yours (mine was the "Bezier" problem, and I solved it by turning off my video card acceleration). Just a thought, but what happens if you modify your workflow where you don't have to run Lightroom and Vuescan at the same time. Does this help?

... I also wondered if I should archive my scan TIFF right off, and work on a JPG copy. Would that help?

Maybe, but then you would lose the benefit of working with the 16 bit color file in Lightroom.

I have trouble believing that Lightroom can't handle your TIFF files, as it was designed to handle RAW files, which are rather large. On the other hand, I think TIFF files can be enormous if they are not compressed (LZW). How big are your individual TIFF files?

Tanuki

Brad,

When you said to save as uncompressed tiff, I assume you were thinking of lossy compression. Lossless compression (e.g., LZW), on the other hand, will not degrade the image at all.

Regards,
Mike

largelylivin

Tanuki wrote:

Brad,

When you said to save as uncompressed tiff, I assume you were thinking of lossy compression. Lossless compression (e.g., LZW), on the other hand, will not degrade the image at all.

Regards,
Mike

Uncompressed is the same as Lossless.

largelylivin

Another couple pointers.

1. I also have an Epson 4490. Epson's ICE does absolutely nothing good with B&W and takes forever to run. Also, for the best results do not use the sharpen, noise and dust filters on the Epson. You'll get better, more controllable results in PS.

2. Make very sure that the emulsion side is face down on the scanner.

3. If you have a lot of dust, scratches or mildew, look into Polaroid Dust and Scratch Remover. Its worth every dime.

Tanuki

largelylivin wrote:

Uncompressed is the same as Lossless.

Uncompressed is not compressed. On the other hand, compressed can be lossless compressed or it can be lossy compressed. TIFF with LZW compression is lossless compressed, and takes up much less file space than a TIFF with no compression. But quality is the same, which maybe is what you are saying.