Scanning Your Film Negatives vs. Prints: An Interesting Comparison
When you start scanning your photographs — if you're lucky — you get to make this choice:
Do you want to scan your original camera negatives, or the prints made from them?
And what I mean by lucky is that many of us didn't hold onto our negatives when we had prints made from them. We got what we wanted when we took them to the Photo Bug or the Photo Hut or the drug store down the street — a stack of photos to stick in our photo albums. So, I guess a lot of us probably felt safe tossing out the film negatives.
An Interesting Discovery
I just had a couple dozen photos scanned by a scanning service called BritePix here in California and I wanted to see how they handled scanning a variety of different types of photos. I sent them all different sized prints, color and black and white, some with borders and some with rounded corners, some with scratches, and many that needed lots of color correction. In addition to the prints, I also sent some negatives and slides.
When I was going through all the images when I got them back — which was really cool by the way! This was the first time I had ever sent photos to a scanning service. When I was going through them, I noticed something really interesting.
I had sent them the print as well as the original film negative to a photo I took a long time ago when I was a boy. It's a picture of a small airplane flying over my Grandfather's house.
I was looking at the negative version of the photo and noticed there was more of the trees showing on both the left and right side of the image than there has always been in the print I had made. It almost seemed like an entirely different photo because the viewpoint looks like I took about 6 big steps backwards in order to get a wider shot!
Image Cropping
I always knew there was more information (image detail) stored in the negatives, but until now, I had never seen any real proof that scanning the negatives might yield a lot more of the actual image that had been cropped out when it was originally printed.
Check out the two images for yourself:
And here's a “side-by-side” to make it a bit easier to compare (click to enlarge):
As definitive as these comparisons seemed to me, I think the next image below really shows how startling the difference is.
I loaded up the negative image into Photoshop and then using the crop tool, I highlighted the approximate area that represents the amount of the image that was captured and printed when I had this roll developed in around 1980.
This really shows how much of the image I was missing all these years!
I'm not making a deal out of this to make you ponder how much shrubbery you will miss out on if you have just your prints scanned! (laughing)
I think what I am getting at here is that over your whole entire collection — possibly thousands of photographs — you just might find a lot of examples like this one but with parts of the image cropped out that you actually care about!
Consider vacation panorama shots where you carefully tried to frame a couple of landmarks in on both sides of the frame. It's possible one or even both of them were cropped out when prints were made!
Or what about tightly shot group photos. It's also possible some of your family members were cropped or cut out entirely to make that 3 ½ x 3 ½ print.
Image Detail
And so what about image detail. You may have heard that it's better to scan your negatives because they hold more image detail. And this is true — especially when you factor in how far printing quality has improved over the years.
Some of the techniques used in decades past to print photos don't make the best scans. Some of them have, for example, have lots of texture — waves or bumps. When you scan them, sometimes it seems like the more image detail you try and recover, the more detail (character) of the paper stock you get instead!
This image probably isn't the best example to show an improvement in image detail in the film negative. But that's okay, because it can represent the average of how your photos will be affected.
But, let's take for instance the small area of the photo with the plane. If you compare the two versions magnified, I think you will see there is a difference between the two.
The film negative version just looks — well, more like a plane! It looks in focus. The edges are much sharper giving it a bit more volume.
Also, notice you can see the “wavy” texture of the paper stock in the print version.
Here are a couple more magnified areas. With these, it's a bit harder to see the clear difference because the negative shows off a lot of grain that may distract you. But, focus on the darker areas. These areas of contrast are where the film negatives will hold more detail that usually aren't accurately conveyed with printing technology.
In some cases it will cost more money to scan your film negatives. In my case, with BritePix it was a “126 negative” that costed 75¢ vs. 65¢ (USD) for the print equivalent.
But as you can see, if you are lucky enough to still have the negatives, you might see not only more image detail, but you could also see a lot more of your photograph!
What do you think? Which are you or would you like to scan — your prints or negatives?
I have all of my old B&W negatives and want to make enlargements of some of them. I used to have a darkroom and did my own but have since moved and no longer have my equipment. Have you compared prints from negatives the old fashioned way with prints from negatives that have been scanned? Is quality lost in the scanning? Just wondering about grain and pixels. I’m about to start on a project using my old negatives and want the best results. Wondering if I should head back into the darkroom. Thanks for any input.
I’ve searched all over the internet and this is the first and only post on this subject I’ve been able to find. I’m glad there’s at least one page on the internet that compares film negative scanning vs photo scanning. You finally answered my question about whether film negative scans actually provide better quality. And it was interesting to learn about the cropping. And FYI, I’m sure people would love to see even more comparisons such as how much color accuracy and dynamic range can be achieved when scanning each type of media.
Bagha, thank you for the acknowledgment. Glad you found the article to be helpful. Yeah, good ideas on future post topics. I’ll definitely keep that in mind.
If you print your photos in the darkroom, you’ll get accurate colors and more details than scanning the negative.
In my experience, it’s true that scanning the negatives yields better resolution, better dynamic range, as well as allowing you to recover parts of the image that didn’t appear in the print. However. And this is a big however. Getting the colors right when scanning negatives can be a meticulous and time-consuming process, requiring individual adjustment of the majority of photos scanned. And this is abundantly clear even in the example given in this article. The version that’s from the scanned negative has a garish green color cast that is extremely unlikely to have been part of the original photographed scene. And when scanning color negatives, such color casts are more the rule than the exception, unless you have exactly the right profile for the type of film used.
And so I’ll offer this counterpoint: the viewfinders of most cameras back in the day didn’t generally show the entire field of view that would be captured on film; and that was okay, because in the printing process, that unseen area would be cut off anyway, so the photographer still mostly captured what they intended to. Additionally, color film was originally meant to be used for printing on color print paper, and the process involved in doing this automatically produced relatively accurate, pleasing colors which take a lot more work to reproduce from negative scans.
And so I would say, if accurate or pleasing colors are your priority, you’d do well to consider scanning your prints instead of your negatives. If you use an IT8 chart to profile your scanner, you can pretty much “set it and forget it”, and just scan photos as fast as the scanner allows, while at the same time getting the exact same colors you see in your prints. And if your prints are faded, most scanning software should have a function to restore the colors, which tends to work great on faded prints, but not at all on faded negatives.
My personal experience with scanning negatives has been one of frustration. Sure, there’s somewhat more detail and dynamic range to be brought out by doing so, and while some rolls of film scan beautifully, and require minimal adjustments to produce good colors, I’ve found that most rolls are recalcitrant messes of weird color shifts and color casts. In the end, I’ve found I’m getting much better results (color-wise) scanning the old prints instead. Not to mention it’s a lot faster.
I have a large collection of photos from 80’s onward and I have preserved almost all the B&W and Color negatives till date. A few years ago I bought a flat bed scanner and scanned all the photo prints (mostly postcard size) from my albums. Though they have a sentimental value, I was not very happy with the scans, compared to today’s digital photos.
Though the 35mm film (max of 87MP) held most of the information than today’s 2.5MP to 20MP cameras, I have used till date, I find a disappointment to compared the paper print scans to direct digital photos.
That is the reason why I bought a small film scanner (not very expensive, Jumbl 22MP All-in-1 Film & Slide Scanner w/Speed-Load Adapters for 35mm Negative & Slides, 110, 126, Super 8 Films from Amazon US). I am yet to scan some photos and compare with the print scans. If the negative scans produces better than print scans, I am going to replace all my old scans with new film scans. This is a huge project and I will be needing lot of time. Being still in a job at 62 years, I find it difficult to allocate time for these things as I have lots of other hobbies. 🙂
What a wonderful comparison. It really makes me wish I had scanned more of my film instead of just my paper prints!
Curtis, this thread is getting pretty old but I am hopeful you are still monitoring. I have beautiful photos from a 35mm of my firstborn. When my twins were born 28 years ago I discovered way too late that the first few months of their life there was I believe a problem with the internal light meter and many of my photos are very, very dark. In some cases hardly worth keeping the print. I do have the negatives! In this case, will I be able to improve the image substantially with current photo editing software? Would I be better off having a company like Brite Pix do it for me?
I have a lot of black and white negatives shot without benefit of a light meter in the 1930s and 1940s. I experimented on an Epson Perfection V850 by scanning at 16 bits (mono) and using Tone Correction, and convinced myself that it is possible to bring badly exposed negatives to life. I, too, wonder whether a commercial scanning service would do that (I may not live long enough to finish my collection of negatives).
Thanks for your input on my dark negatives. As it turns out my sister just purchased an Epson scanner (not sure which one) that I can experiment with and your tips will help. I also just located a great local service that will be easy to try and compare.
once they have been scanned If you have time to familiarize yourself with a computer program it is very easy with free software such as GIMP for example to recover photos that seem very dark … in a dark picture there is often a lot of information that the program can exploit to lighten your photos, you will surely be surprised and then it will allow you to sort between those who are irrecuperable and others … while a company such as “brite pix” risk I think you do pay all the scans, even the bad ones! … you have to know that conversely a photo too clear is much harder to recover because there is more information to treat, they are burned
If post editing is important be sure to get the scans in TIFF (not just JPG). That way much more information is kept and you’re able to do much more magic with Lightroom or other software.
I tried the Epson Perfection V850 and the software that was included was the worst I had ever used, Silverfish I think it was. I was not alone in my opinion about this software issue also. I then returned the scanner and purchased a 9-11 light panel. $85.00
I tried using my Nikon D810 and my Zeiss 100mm F2 macro lens and a few extension tubes to make some in camera copies of old ( 35 yrs ) that I had in my portfolio. The Zeiss is a manual focus lens so I used the focus confirm to verify focus. After shooting a few I then loaded them into Lightroom and I noticed that if I posted them on Facebook they looked ok but if I really hit the 100% enlarge in LR they were not in focus. Do you think the original wasn’t 100% tack sharp or that my Zeiss lens needs to be calibrated or Fine Tuned a bit? The only other scanners I have seen that do 35mm & 120mm film run about $1200.00 to $1500.00 They are not the flatbed scanners.
I have a Mac computer and I am preparing to scan thousands of photos and film. Since all your info is at least a year old, would you now recommend the Epson Perfection V800 or V850? Also, the apple software is no longer made…would you recommend Adobe Photoshop Elements software instead? And is the V800 that much better than the V600? Thanks for all your wonderful help as I am
not a techie and I could never have considered this project without your outstanding advice.
Hi Marilyn!
Disclaimer: I am no pro photo guru, just an old Mac guy. Newer Mac software often can get the job done, so to speak, but every so often scanner software can surprise you with special settings specifically designed for your scanner. Some of those might be worth exploring. The real trick there is how to dig up and run such relics and determining if that possibility is worth your time. A little online research and snooping can go a long way there.
Forums are typically gold in that arena, so I would Google your scanner’s name and make along with forum for any hits as a start. Joining (sometimes needed) and posting on such specialty boards can potentially connect you to hobbyists who may be able to offer you great tips, advice and even free support! If Epson, in your case, no longer hosts a copy of their scanner capture/editing software for your scanner model, they may direct you to places to get it online, such as online repositories that include scanner software. They may also know if this software comes in better flavors, lol, such whether their Windows or Mac software has more or more functional functions than its counterpart, or even alternatives to the scanner’s manufacturer’s own!
Archive.org can sometimes retrieve old web pages no longer online if you still have the original site domain names and links where you may happen to locate copies of the original software downloads. Ebay and a few other used auction sites may sell you copies of the scanner software CD-ROMs if you have no luck with the online forums. Be careful of sites posing as legitimate software download sites to lure you into installing malware or virus-rigged software. More of a longshot, older publications such as books and magazines may also contain reviews of your scanner or software compatible with it that may be worth reading for tips. Some of these CD-ROMs and publications can be perused or downloaded online at Archive.org as well.
If your really adventurous, older Mac and Windows software can be run on newer computers, either virtually or with computer emulation. The issue there may be if such old scanner software setups can talk to your attached scanner. That’s where getting forum assistance can be priceless. VMPlayer, Virtual PC, VirtualBox and several Mac emulators can all bring old software to life again, but each has their pros and cons. The best bet is always to run such software on the original operating systems they were made for or compatible modern versions.
For Mac emulation forums specifically, emaculation.com can be very useful to see if that’s a route worth taking. Another helpful Mac site is the Macintosh Garden, which focuses on old Mac operating systems, software, old Mac publications and emulation. Other Mac sites do exist, but these two should be must-reads if your research leads you to a Mac solution, especially since you already own a newer Mac, compared to the era of your scanner I’d imagine.
These tips may prove useful to others who may be in your shoes and/or have similar scanning goals in mind. I hope these tips help someone who may be stuck! ????