File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, I'm going into film and I want to ask you guys, what's the cheapest or best way to save your pictures? Do you own film scanners, have it processed then burned on a disk or have it developed then scan that with a flatbed scanner?

Pic related, it's what I'm using
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A550Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFirmware VersionGOwner Nameon 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:09:05 18:41:21RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/7.1ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/7.1Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304Image Number100-9711
>> Anonymous
Put them in a box.
>> Anonymous
>>154454
durr, I meant save them in my computer. Of course I'll have properly labeled canisters or strips tucked away somewhere.

btw, noob question, I heard of putting them in your fridge to preserve them but does that also apply to processed film? I wouldn't think so cause I've seen negatives older than I am in good shape.

also, negatives. cut or uncut?
>> Anonymous
>>154455
I Have negative sleeves for easy access. I store negatives in the sleeves and keep the sleeves away from light.

If you process film at random drugstore always take them uncut. That way you cat cut them to length of your choosing.
>> Anonymous
bump
>> Anonymous
My foreskin is uncut.

I also tend to develop my own stuff, print my own stuff in dark room or if it's color get it back on a CD for preview then do the equivalent of a telecine and transfer the NEGS for editing.
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
I have sleeves that double as sleeves for contact sheets, and archive them in three-ring binders. They fit in strips of five frames. Generally, I'll only scan prints for online display purposes (they look so much better on paper), using the crappy flatbed I have way at home.

The fridge thing...I don't think it matters, because, unless you sepia-tone your negatives or something, the emulsion will harden with a standard developing process, and it will last very long iirc.
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
>>154588

The thing that pisses me off about the sleeves is that they'll fit 35 frames on a single sheet...so rolls of 36 end up overflowing. I roll my bulk film accordingly.
>> Anonymous
Thanks for the replies so far, I now have good ideas for keeping the negatives. But what about the scanning or transferring to my computer? How big will the photos be if I ask for them on a CD? I remember 35mm film being okay for large prints and having great resolution before the grain makes it pointless.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>154650
What I do with color-film is just develop it at a lab (no prints) and scan them in at home.
B&W is much more fun to develop and print yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>154589
I bought sleeves that fit 42 negatives (6 in a row) so i can fit roll of 36 shots to one sheet and if im lucky and the roll can take 37 frames i got one extra row for the last frame.
>> Anonymous
>>154478
I just tell my drugstore to cut in strokes of six. : )
>> Anonymous
How's the quality if I ask for the frames on a CD? Will they still resize them?
>> Anonymous
>>154764
Usually very bad. It's best to get a cheap scanner and do it yourself. Even a cheap flatbed with a little bit of skill will produce better results than photo CD scans.
>> Anonymous
>>154767
hah, no, that's bullshit. A film scanner or film capable flatbed, sure, but most flatbeds flat out CANNOT compete with a photolab's CD. fuck, WalMart can scan better than a flatbed.
>> Anonymous
>>154791
No, it isn't. Have you ever looked at a frontier scan? They're terrible, especially if the operator doesn't know what they're doing.

And yes, obviously the flatbed has to be "film capable" which is to say it has to have a transparency adapter. Otherwise it's pretty damn hard to scan film.
>> Anonymous
>>154793
Keywords being "must be film compatible" and "cheap flatbeds"

Protip: Cheap flatbeds aren't film compatible. More expensive flatbeds are.
>> Anonymous
>>154795
Some cheap flatbeds are actually, I own one. Too bad it makes everything look like shit.
>> Anonymous
>>154453
>what's the cheapest or best way to save your pictures?
>cheapest
>best

Those are two different things. A drum scan is probably best, but not cheap. Scanning at the time of processing is the cheapest, but probably worst quality-wise.

I don't shoot much film nowadays, but when I do, I just have it scanned by the lab. It's good enough for proofing and putting on the web. If I needed something in better quality, I'd just have someone like Digital Pickle (I only mention them because I'm in SF...) scan it at 15 megapixels or whatever for $1. A decent film scanner is expensive, so you'd have to have a lot of good shots to make it worth your while. Not to mention the time factor; maybe I lack scan-fu skills, but I find it incredibly time consuming and tedious.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>154795
Canon makes a ~$130 scanner that'll do 35mm and a ~170 scanner that'll do both 35mm and medium format. I'd class that as "cheap".