Thanks- would be interested to know if the quality was ok.. I bought an Epson perfection scanner (which has the mounts for scanning photos and slides) but have yet to get round to really using it. Lots to do... or maybe not!
I tried a smaller device before that, but it wasn't up to it.
I've a few more more slides still to scan yet so still amateurishly experimenting will let you know....
It's perfectly possible to convert a DSLR to shoot infrared, this normally uses a special filter in front of the sensor, but there are alternative methods How to Try Out Infrared Photography Without Modifying Your Camera and also adobe have a number of post processing filters that can be used on existing images
I don't understand your post. Slides (usually mounted) are positives and don't need colour inversion. Colour negatives will have an obvious orange tint which will need to be neutralised and the colours inverted. Your film scanning software should be able do this else you will need a reasonably capable photo editor some of which are free.
You will get the best results if orange neutralisation and colour inversion is done in the film scanning software resulting in a positive image. It may be worth having the original slides rescanned at a resolution of at least 3000 dpi using dust cancellation, orange neutralisation & colour inversion which should result in better quality scans if you still have the original slides.
Finally managed to solve the harshness problem still using just Irfanview and the £49 Amazon DigitNow film scanner, by using the sliders across the bottom in the entry just below "Negative (Invert Image)" called "Colour Corrections" as in the before and after pic below. Thanks for all the help....
Very chuffed !!
Pretty good from a slide..
It's amazing what even simple photo editors can do. I like tools like Ashampoo Photo Optimiser.
Sure, you can find such features in the really big complex photo editors, but it shows side-by-side before, after and has auto-adjust features as well as a range of manual adjustments. Great for preparing Google maps for printing in B &W which I do for trips- easier to glance at than the phone (which I use too), and I can scribble on them!
If the film is in a 2" x 2" ( 5 cm x 5 cm) cardboard mount with a Kodak logo, then it's a positive slide. Negatives can be either for black and white or color. With black and white, the lights and darks are reversed from a normal image. For color, there is an overall orange color to the negative, with colors that are very different from a normal picture.
You may find that a refresh of the "hardware" and concepts in play with old film based imaging will help you understand how best to treat your stock of film ...
One such resource is the PetaPixel website PetaPixel - Photography and Camera News, Reviews, and Inspiration
Slide vs Color Negative Film: How They Compare and When to Use Each is a comparison between Film and Slide Stock and gives some good insights
My number one tip to anyone contemplating editing digital images is ... Forget JPG format, everytime you work on and save a JPG image you throw away data and the image you see degrades
all scans should be to a non compressed, [or lossless compressed format], the favourite for pros scanning old images is Tiff, preferably uncompressed, but one of the lossless compressed variants is OK
If you compare the size of an uncompressed Tiff that could be 40MB to it's JPG version that is nearer 4MB you have to see that there is a lot of the image missing!
I do a fair amount of Digital Imaging and shoot RAW that means that my images are around 25-30 MB each, all the image manipulation I do is based on a non destructive system and if I need to use a compressed format for online use I make a JPG or PNG, [Slightly larger file size but better quality], If I decide this image is not up to requirements it's deleted and a new file created from the original.
If I ever need to take someone else's JPG image for manipulation, I create a Tiff Image from the JPG and use this, much larger file, as my digital negative
Hi folks.
@Barman58 - thanks for your notes on Infra Red and the links in your post and agree 100% with forget jpeg in doing any of this stuff -- I convert the TIFF to PSD (Lossless) and use Photoshop for post processing. If using non Film cameras then I choose RAW as well.
I managed to source a genuine Canon (very rare) FD-->EOS converter which allows me to use FD Lenses on modern EOS cameras -- you lose 1/3 stop and have to shoot in Manual mode but If you've got some old 400 / 600 FD telephotos -- it saves a fortune !!!!!. The Canon converter has optics in it and if you've got any of those magnificent FD long glass - it's brilliant -- you can often pick up some of the FD glass for a "song" -
Don't bother with cheap imitations with no optics !! -- useless and probably only good for macro shots.
For Film scanning :
Expensive but absolute tops if like me you still do some Film photography from time to time :
Nikon CoolScan V LS-50 ED.
Not for people though who basically just need to convert a few old pics -- you might find one of these on ebay but I think it will still set you back around 450 EUR / USD though !!! however you really can't beat the quality at 4,000 dpi.
Once scanned I then use Photoshop to post process etc. Note you'll need a reasonable computer to drive processing to get high quality A4/A3 Prints (I hate mobile phone pics !!!!).
I've always loved photography ever since I was a small lad !!! -- Not the cheapest hobby though if you do it seriously.
Might be a bit (only a bit) bonkers but I still get a huge enjoyment with Film shooting from time to time -- often I get a quick sense of what I want to shoot using a modern camera and then compose the Film shot -- it's really good fun but can't be rushed and you need to study light, angles, vist etc. It's a zillion miles from Mobile phone cameras. !! I'll bet a lot of youngsters have never seen a photographer using a Tripod either !!! - with Film you can't afford to waste shots !!.
This is a Photographer of the highest quality BTW
Ansel Adams - Wikipedia
Cheers
jimbo
Last edited by jimbo45; 19 Mar 2019 at 04:47.
I have a subscription to the Adobe Photo package, I have used Lightroom for digital image management and basic correction and the $10 US for the sub is well worth it, It's cheaper than buying a new full version of LR every two to three years and it includes a full copy of Photoshop for my Image manipulation, [ and 3D modeling, video editing etc, etc ] Some my say I have gone over to the dark side, not true, I was always there
I shoot in raw to Sony .ARW but always convert to Adobe's open DNG [Digital Negative format], and this gives me the non destructive workflow that is not really possible with PS [you can in recent times use adobe RAW to get some form of this but PS is a destructive pixel editor at heart]
I currently use my trusty Sony A77 DSLR, with a set of lenses from 15-750mm [35mm equivalent] plus a 1.4 Teleconverter ,
When I decided to go to a new digital around six years ago I looked at what was needed to make a good digital camera and came to the conclusion that the main difference between the major makes was the companies experience with Electronics, Sony won that one hands down, and the A77 does what I want for what I shoot, up to 8000th sec, upto twelve frames a second, [sounds more like ripping paper than the usual series of clicks of a motor drive], 24.9 Megapixels [ interestingly Sony supply this, and other sensors, to other manufacturers, including Nikon - in their top of the line cameras]
The other thing with the Sony system is that it uses the same lens mount as the old Minolta Film cameras, and these will also, with the use of an adaptor, fit the current range of Sony Mirrorless
Quote
