loading

My new Minolta XG-A and a question about fixing negatives

Today I went to Albuquerque and bought a minolta xg-a camera for only $10 (10.69 after tax). It included the body, 2 lenses, a flash, a book of cleaning cloths, and a bag. After 3 years of using my Canon A75 (3.2mp) I'm thinking of going back to film, but I still want to be able to pick and choose which pictures I want to keep, and which ones to get rid of. I want to do this by using a film scanner, but at the same time I want to be able to take it and get it printed. So, How would I fix the negatives, so I can scan them without them getting washed out?

Picture of My new Minolta XG-A and a question about fixing negatives
IMG_8871.JPG
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 35Next »
So from what I understand: You want to take film, develop it, and then scan it?

Youre best, easiest, and cheapest method would be to bring it to a one hour developer. They will develop and put it onto a CD for you pretty cheaply.

If you insist on doing it yourself:

https://www.instructables.com/id/Developing-Black--White-Photos-at-Home/

That instructable talk about what's required to develop the film yourself. When you go to scan it, your home scanner won't be a great option unless it's extremely high quality. Preferably you can use a film scanner, but that will cost some money to get. Again, the store has one and can do it much cheaper. The easiest way to "scan" it yourself and get good quality images is to put the negative on a bottom-lit light table, and use a camera on a tripod to take a perpendicular image of it.
Unless you go to a high-quality photo processing facility, you won't get very good scans. A couple of weeks ago I took some film to Walgreens and had them develop it and make photo CDs. A CD can hold 700MB. These CDs had 103MB used, and 34MB was used for my 24 images. The other 69MB was for their fragmented software that locked up any computer for five minutes upon loading the CD. 1.42MB is normally a fairly large file size for a JPEG, but for printing 8x10s, it's relatively small, particularly when the scanner was set for interpolated resolution. That's another point, Linux. If you get a film scanner, don't base quality on interpolated resolution. Interpolated resolution, wherein the software selects each pixel scanned in, looks at the pixels around it, and takes an educated guess as to how the pixel can be divided, has, theoretically, no limit. The scanner sitting next to my computer has a maximum true resolution of 7200 DPI (translates to a 196MB .psd file), but can interpolate up to 24000 DPI.
LinuxH4x0r (author)  CameronSS9 years ago
Ok, thanks for the advice! What type of scanner do you have, and how much did it cost?
It's a plustek OpticFilm 7200. My dad got it on eBay for a little over $100. It does an excellent job of scanning B&W negatives, although it seems to work best if I scan them in as positives and invert them in GIMP, rather than scanning them as negatives in SilverFast (the included software). It also does a very good job at scanning in old color slides (positives), but doesn't do very well with color negatives. Then again, it's the only negative scanner I've ever used, so I have no comparison. I attached a photo I took on black and white film that I scanned in at 7200 DPI, making a 10,000x6,000ish pixel image. I scaled it down to 1500x1000for Internet use, and added a watermark, so no stealing. You can somewhat see the film grain in this image, but in the original, each grain of 400 ISO film was about a 4x4 pixel array.

Okay, the color version has nothing to do with the topic, but I made it for a project in Advanced Photography, and I'm proud of it, so it's going up here, too. Please praise!
Caterpillar BW publish.jpgCaterpillar color publish.jpg
Whoops...Forgot this was the forum. Originals available here and here.
LinuxH4x0r (author)  CameronSS9 years ago
Very nice! Here are some of mine:
IMG_8216.JPGIMG_8215.JPGIMG_8197.JPGIMG_8190.JPG
Here are a couple of mine, taken from my yard.
PHOT0049.JPGPHOT0047.JPG
LinuxH4x0r (author)  Sunbanks9 years ago
Look nice! You might want to use a tripod though. (you have some good potential with these)
I uploaded some more pictures I took if you want to look at them on my Flickr. Haha I just found some of them on my computer, all my pictures were everywhere and I decided to do some "spring cleaning"
LinuxH4x0r (author)  Sunbanks9 years ago
Nice! These look really good!
1-10 of 35Next »