photography - scanning negatives

anyone have any experience of scanning 35mm negatives on a home/office type scanner ?

Im looking at the Epson 1260u Photo which includes a "transparency unit".

is scanning negatives like this going to give better results than scanning a photo ?

does it also mean that i could open up a used 35mm film cartridge and just use the negatives, cutting out the development costs?

thanks.
Woody

no, you'd still have to have it processed.

i've got a negative scanner on my scanner back at my parents and it's naff, scanning in the pictures i found gave a much better result. think it's an epson too.

look for an old nikon coolscan as people move towards digital.

I've got an epson 2450 phot and scanning negs gives better quality than prints.

would i still need to get them processed/developed though?
if so what do they do to them?

they put them through a load of chemicals (probably c-41) and the neg can be used willy nilly after that, its quite tricky and a fair skill to do yourself as you have to remove the film from the canister in total (and I mean total) darkness and place inside another jobbie. and put in the right chemicals at exactly the correct temperature for the correct time.
its cheaper and easier to take your 35mm to jessops or the like. get some little prints done and then neg scan the good ones.

If you want to save some money try using slide film. If you want to scan negs id try and get a cheap slide/neg scanner.

If you're talking about a transparency adapter on a flatbed scanner then I wouldn't recomend it. A dedicated neg/slide scanner on the other hand is completely different. I've been using a Canon unit for the last 2 years and am still impressed with the results.

Ad kdr said you might be able to pick up a cheap(ish) second hand unit. Look for Nikon Coolscan or Canon if possible. Haven't checked prices recently but new you are looking at around £500 for something decent.

I bought a Nikon Coolscan IV ED in the summer of last year (Dabs.com usually have the best prices on the `net). Very good results - I scan my 35mm obtaining a file size of 4000x2600 pixels, that easily beats the resolution that my 5 megapixel digital camera can manage - 2560x1920 pixels.

Haven`t made many reprints/enlargements from my scans but when I have they generally look better than the orginal prints. The Nikon has various enhancement features built-in - eg. colour re-inhancement for faded negs, the ability to remove scratches and to reduce grain if your`e scanning from, say 400 or 800ISO film.

Simply burn files to cd and then nip into Jessops if you want anything printed on pukka photographic paper.

thanks, I didnt even know about those dedicated film scanners, they look the business.

Yeah, we've got a rather snazzy UMAX scanner at work. When we bought it, it was heading towards top of the range as far as scanners were concerned, but is now probably pretty outdated.
It one of those where the lid can be replaced with a full size transparency adapter. That produces very good results from colour transparencies, but the results with negatives can be very hit and miss. Sometimes they'll scan great, other times the colours will be so out that it's impossible to get an image that looks anything like it should.

I work with a Primefilm 1800I, check for the quality my pics from "Beru Top 10" and above...........

Pictures are taken with a Canon EOS 30 body and "black" Canon objectives

Originally posted by woodyracing
is scanning negatives like this going to give better results than scanning a photo ? Yes, definitelly. Every film has an inherent granularity, but when you scan photo's you scan the granularity of the photo-paper as well.

PS: A film scanner (not the most professional though, something like 2400-2700 dpi optical) is not very unaffordable, it's in the US$ 200-300 range (in my area).

Its always best to scan the negative but only if you have a good scanner if not the print is better.

Try using a 100 asa film which I know is slow but you will not get the grain like on a 400 asa film.

Steve.