scanning underexposed negatives

I have my negatives from my wedding (back in 1999). All the indoor negatives are very dark. Either the photographers flash failed or had a very weak output. He apologized, refunded the money & gave me the negatives (35mm). I took some of the negatives to a lab & they were able to rescue them. Still a tad dark but very acceptable. Because of the disappointment I never really did much with the photos. Now I would like to surprise my wife & make a book for her. Here's my questions:

Can I pull this off with drum scans?

Do I have as much control with a drum scan as the lab did with dodging?

Any cheap places on the internet that will do the scans?

Could I do this with a flat bed?

Any suggestions on cheaply accomplishing this & still have a good result?

Thanks in advance!

-dMR

Depends how underexposed we are talking about here..

Low ISO film hates to be starved of light...you can try scanning yourself..but be prepared for lots of grain/noise when you correct the exposures. Not a huge problem if you fancy smaller prints or b&w...

At a certain point..you lose shadow details.....may or may not be a problem. Note film is most unlike digital...the reverse.

Drum scanning is good..but I really have a feeling your best bet is to go to a well known local lab..and get them to do it for you....

Its up to you if you want them to print direct..I would myself..or you can also get them to put the shots on a cd...but the lab will have better gear than you do...

IMHO for larger prints..you will always get better shot quality from the negative...
--

I'll try a lab. My goal is to get the images into Photoshop & make a coffee table book like the ones from White Glove http://www.wgbooks.com/home.html

Your suggestion about adding grain might be the answer. I guess if I keep it artistic with heavy contrast/saturation and/or B&W I might be able to minimize issues. I have no real deadline so I can take my time with it.
Thanks!
-dMR

Donato M Rondinelli said:

I have my negatives from my wedding (back in 1999). All the indoor
negatives are very dark. Either the photographers flash failed or
had a very weak output. He apologized, refunded the money & gave me
the negatives (35mm). I took some of the negatives to a lab & they
were able to rescue them. Still a tad dark but very acceptable.
Because of the disappointment I never really did much with the
photos. Now I would like to surprise my wife & make a book for her.
Here's my questions:

Can I pull this off with drum scans?

Do I have as much control with a drum scan as the lab did with
dodging?

Any cheap places on the internet that will do the scans?

Could I do this with a flat bed?

Any suggestions on cheaply accomplishing this & still have a good
result?

Thanks in advance!

-dMR

Click to expand...

I had a similar experience many years ago (1951) when my Wife and I were married. The Photographer was using B/W film but had BAD problems with exposure. Focus, etc was good. We believe it was a problem with his Camera since there was plenty (and adequate) flash lighting and those with some natural light also had problems.

Recently, I have been able to recover the images (to digital) using an Epson Flatbed Scanner and VueScan software. Actually, the software was what allowed the results to be good. Also, I "selectively" applied Neat Image for any noise problems.

I have printed a few of them on 13 x 19 Epson Matte photo paper using the Epson 2200. All of the scanned and Photo Shopped images could be printed as 8 x 10 with good results.

I am NOT suggesting the overall results for the final images could be compared to properly exposure images, etc -- however; we are extremely pleased to have the resulting Photos.
--
Vernon...

Drum scanning is likely overkill for 35 mm for personal use (web, printing for albums, etc.). Flatbed is likely inadequate considering the exposure problems.

A decent slide/film scanner can do remarkably well with underexposed slides. I have rescued a few myself.

Vernon D Rainwater said:

I am NOT suggesting the overall results for the final images could
be compared to properly exposure images, etc

Click to expand...

Vernon,
I hear that. I'll be pleased with acceptable images (& so will my wife ).
Thanks!
-dMR

I've never tried color negatives but had success with b&w. Both on film and on good quality flatbed scanners. Essentially you put a levels adjustment layer in PS and you're half way there. Then add a curves layer and you're done. You need to get 16 bit scans though for radical adjustments to give you tolerable quality. Not sure if I would let a lab do it - they would do some autoadjustment, most likely.

If the scanner says it will do millions of colors is that 8 or 16 bit?

Could be just 8, cause it's already millions of colors (but only 256 values on each channel). It should say something about bit depth. It's bits-per-channel, so 16 bit can be called 48 bit (and 8 would be 24). Some older scanners are 14 bits per channel which is also good.

The following article gives some hints on why major adjustments are better done in 16 bits:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms3.htm

klinikl said:

The following article gives some hints on why major adjustments are
better done in 16 bits:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms3.htm

Click to expand...

Look at the last section where he talks about 16 bits...

Donato M Rondinelli said:

If the scanner says it will do millions of colors is that 8 or 16 bit?

Click to expand...

These are really two different types of specifications.

Hopefully this will help. There are basically two bit structures 8 and 16. What this is referring to is that there are either 8 bits per channel (Red, Green, Blue) which is a 24 bit image. The 16 bits (again) is 16 bits per channel resulting in 48 bit images.

The number of colors are really different since of course, the bits (24 or 48) is basically the density or range for the various X millions of colors.

A photo image scanned at 48 bits (16 per channel) will be twice the size as if scanned at 24 bits, however; there are definite advantages for scanning at 48 bits. Almost ALL of my Negate and Slide scans (I use an Epson Flatbed scanner) are using 48 bits. Many adjustments in Photoshop are distructive and the 48 bit images withstand the adjustments, with less problems, and better than 24.
--
Vernon...

Vernon D Rainwater said:

Donato M Rondinelli said:

If the scanner says it will do millions of colors is that 8 or 16 bit?

Click to expand...

These are really two different types of specifications.

Hopefully this will help. There are basically two bit structures 8
and 16. What this is referring to is that there are either 8 bits
per channel (Red, Green, Blue) which is a 24 bit image. The 16
bits (again) is 16 bits per channel resulting in 48 bit images.
The number of colors are really different since of course, the bits
(24 or 48) is basically the density or range for the various X
millions of colors.
A photo image scanned at 48 bits (16 per channel) will be twice the
size as if scanned at 24 bits, however; there are definite
advantages for scanning at 48 bits. Almost ALL of my Negate and

Click to expand...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Negatives

Vernon D Rainwater said:

Slide scans (I use an Epson Flatbed scanner) are using 48 bits.
Many adjustments in Photoshop are distructive and the 48 bit images
withstand the adjustments, with less problems, and better than 24.
--
Vernon...

Click to expand...

--
Vernon...