Scanning Slides...

[Tom Meeks]

You are in error if you think that digitizing your slides is
"preservation". There is no indication that CD's or DVD's will
last as long as the color dyes in well processed, dark stored color
slides. Rather, scanning and digitization are a convenient way to
adjust, retouch and prepare for printing those slides that you wish
to make high-quality prints from.

Also, to even remotely get the full detail present in properly
focused, well exposed color slides you need a dedicated film
scanner with 4000dpi optical resolution.

You may, technically be correct. But, it one took this to mean that they should not scan slides and store them on either hard disk or optical media.. or wait until they can scan them at just the right resolution, it would be a grave mistake.

Fires happen. Floods Happen. Vandals happen. More importantly people generally have more than one children... and, some of those children do NOT have children or care to pass on precess family images.

Scanning, storing AND DISTRIBUTING to a wide array of relatives and children is THE safest way to ensure that future generations can enjoy the photos.

One has to take into account FAR more than simple technical issues when talking preservation.

In the past, photos were split up among the children and each got a small percentage of the total inventory of images. These days, once they are scanned, every child can get every picture. They might not have the original; but, they at least have a decent copy in a form that THEY can duplicate and distribute in turn.

 

[Tom Meeks]

I wouldn't bother scan them unless you need to make a print from a
certain trany.
You'll wear yourself out. Kept dry and at the right temperature the
slides will last a lifetime. And if they don't, will your ancestors
worry as you push up daisies?
Jules

You aren't taking into account potential disastrous events. Ask ANYONE that went through Katrina and I'll bet they would opt to take the time to scan AND widely DISTRIBUTE the copies.

You cannot ensure that the slides can be kept dry or safe from fire.

And, while not all the iamges will be appreciated by future generations, some will be extremely valuable... not only to your childrena nd children's children; but, perhaps, to the towns and localities in which those pictures were taken.

 

[JulesJ]

I have to scan about two or three negs a week which are reprints from old stock because the customer's print has been damaged or lost whatever. It is tedious and a boring job and takes time. I too have books of negs taken over my (hobby side) lifetime of photography and only scan the images that I want to print, which is rare.

You go ahead and scan 30,000 negs, come back and report on this forum when youhave finished.......if you are still sane! Lol.
Good luck. Personally I'd prefer to have a life and get out a bit.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

 

[Coolsiggy]

About two years back I digitized my slides using a light box, tripod and digital camera. I connected my camera via usb to my computer to compose and focus each slide...it still took a long time but was much faster then a scanner. Doing the same job today (on the cheap) I would use a digital camera with slide attachement (fairly cheap on ebay) with a usb to computer. One thing...my slides were all over the place exposure wise due film age etc. Using the usb input to the computer allows you to make exposure corrections as you go.
Have fun!
--
Fred, KM A2 and F30

 

[Dick Lund]

Hello

I was in the same boat also. Last year I bought a Nikon LS5000 scanner and scanned 15000 slides in just a little over three months. I did buy the slide feeder also.

I did review all slides on my light tray and dumped a considerable amount of images, funny why I kept so much junk.

I would never attempt to scan that many slides on a flat bed, unless you were to buy the Epson V700. I may buy that scanner as I have a lot of 645 negatives. I have also scanned 2500 negatives with the Nikon this last three weeks.

I am in the process of digitizing all Neg and slides. As said earlier in this post Kodachromes are difficult because of the thick emulsion layers. Also Nikon will tell you same as I had a lot of communication with the engineers at Nikon regarding Kodachrome and batch scanning.

I use a Mac G5 with 4 gigs of ram and four external sata hard drives never had a ram problem and ran other programs while scanning.

When I scanned all the slides I scanned at a lower res because these were put into DVD slide shows for my children

I scanned at 300 and the slides show great on the TV. I back everthing up to 4 hard drives with two of the four backing up the other two. I would not use cds or DVDs for this type of backup.

****

 

[LesDMess]

. . . can be found in my Film 2 Album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/D163377BD1A059A

These are for the mostly full res scans, albeit highly compressed JPEGs so that I can post as many examples of each of the different films that I have shot and scanned. All scans are made with only auto focus/expose, crop, orientation and ICE and all other settings either OFF or neutral. No tweaks before or during the scan as well post processing applied except for copyright or where stated. ICE works on all film types except for true b&w film only.

The less expensive 'V' takes longer to scan each frame and does not use any of the 5000's accessories but will otherwise provide similar results as the 5000. It also does not have Multi Sampling with the Coolscan software but can be simulated using third party software such as Vuescan. However, in over 4,000 frames that I have scanned, I have yet to see any difference with or without multi sampling mode as I would try this out on various selected frames.

The actual process of scanning is by far the easiest and fastest of any methods as you simply insert a strip of film - up to 6 frames each unless using the optional whole roll feeder, select the film type and settings to be applied and press scan. Each frame is accurately scanned while resolving most all detail that can be extracted. No tweaking or arcane processes needed. The provided software, albeit a little clunky, has all the features you will need to make optimal scans of every film - well exposed or not, faded or new, so there is no need to purchase any other third party software. If you decide to get or use it, my Coolscan album outlines how to make and save settings to be applied on the film during the scan at http://www.fototime.com/inv/D3ED9DF1C3FB39B . Images 1 - 5 outline how to create settings and 6 - 13 shows how to apply them for batch scans.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[GothtinPowers]

I agree with Tom that it is definately a good idea to scan your slides for safe keeping, but that said, as you mentioned it's definately not a job for the faint hearted, especially 30,000. With an automatic feeder, running it every night for say 4 hours, you're looking at 4+ months..

It's one of those things where it's not an enticing job, but if your house burned down 2 years from now, you might wish you had done it anyway. Guess good things don't always come easy..

 

[Tom Meeks]

I have to scan about two or three negs a week which are reprints
from old stock because the customer's print has been damaged or
lost whatever. It is tedious and a boring job and takes time. I too
have books of negs taken over my (hobby side) lifetime of
photography and only scan the images that I want to print, which is
rare.
You go ahead and scan 30,000 negs, come back and report on this
forum when youhave finished.......if you are still sane! Lol.
Good luck. Personally I'd prefer to have a life and get out a bit.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Just becuase one has shot 30,000 slides doesn't mean that all 30,000 have to be scanned. This is a case for a bit triag and selectivity. Run through 100 shots of the beach and pick one or two to put into the scanner's tray.

Your situation of having to work with a client's photo is also a bit different in that they are paying you to do the absolutely best copy. When scanning simply to disburse for safety's sake one doesn't have to pay such close attention to each slide.

I suspect that different families see the value of family photos very differently. One of my father's legacies to all of his children before he passed away was that he scanned in every photo and notated every person and place that he could identify. It turns out that the people of the town of Glen Echo, Maryland also benefitted becuase so many of the shots had pictures of people and long gone or radically modified houses in the town.

 

[Ed Bigelow]

There are some service bureaus which will do batches of slides - 100 to a CD, for "reasonable" prices - under $.50 per image for a 6 mPixel image scan.

If you have all the bells and whistles (digital ice) your own slide scanner could cost 5-10 minutes per slide...So one way to look at this is 100 slides could take say 40 hours, which would mean your time would be worth just over $1/hour.

I've done both routes, self-scanning and service bureau, and while I think my scans are marginally better, in the final use the difference has been pretty indistinguishable.

Good luck.

Ed

 

[Jan Sobieski]

Buy a dedicated film scanner. There is no substitute. I use the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and it is marvelous. I had a project involving about 30,000 slides. My grandfather, father, father-in-law's and my slides. I felt that the project was going to be impossibly long but undertook it anyway.

First of all, you won't likely scan over 5 - 10 percent of the slides. I culled the slides twice before beginning my project. Secondly, any job worth doing is worth doing well PARTICULARLY one so important as digitizing the labors of those whose slides you are copying. Thirdly, the job is an enjoyable one - a labor of love. I multitasked while scanning my slides. I did not use an automatic slide feeder. Honestly, the project went MUCH faster than I expected.

I disagree that this is not preserving the memories. I am hopeful that before I die a reliable long term solution to digital storage is developed. I also strongly disagree with those above who have suggested improvised scanning methods that do not involve a dedicated scanner.

Giood luck. Go with your instincts and get the Coolscan 5000. You will not regret it.

 

[chuxter]

...I also strongly disagree with those above who have
suggested improvised scanning methods that do not involve a
dedicated scanner.

Giood luck. Go with your instincts and get the Coolscan 5000. You
will not regret it.

The Coolscan 5000 is expensive ($1000). What do you do with it after you scan all your slides? If the goal is simply to distribute the pix to family members as moderate size files on CDs ( I think that was the OPs plan), then other ways may make more sense. A dedicated scanner is clearly better, but it may be more expensive than can be justified?

Do you want to sell yours for 1/2 price? ;-)

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'

 

[RLD]

--

I appreciate this informative discussion since I've also got the problem of 50 year old slides, 100 year old photos, etc. I haven't got into it yet, but I do have an Epson 4870 scanner, and also a NIkon D70 DSLR. This makes the discussion of scanner vs camera very relevant to me. So far my thought is to store the images as JPEG files on the Delkin archival CDs or DVDs.

One question I have is whether the camera mounted slide copiers can be adjusted enough to copy a 35mm slide onto a "DX" size sensor with a 1.5 crop factor. Since the sensor is only 16mm X 24mm vs the standard 35mm frame of 24mm X 36mm can you still capture the entire 35mm slide?

A 2nd question is what is the preferred file format (JPEG, TIFF, etc.) that will receive support long into the future. I don't believe in counting on someone to refresh files every ten years or so. I think the goal is to preserve images and associated info long after we're dead and gone.

RLD

 

[chuxter]

One question I have is whether the camera mounted slide copiers can
be adjusted enough to copy a 35mm slide onto a "DX" size sensor
with a 1.5 crop factor. Since the sensor is only 16mm X 24mm vs the
standard 35mm frame of 24mm X 36mm can you still capture the entire
35mm slide?

It depends on the lens you have. I don't think the common "kit" lens on the D70 will work. Perhaps with a strong CU lens?

A 2nd question is what is the preferred file format (JPEG, TIFF,
etc.) that will receive support long into the future. I don't
believe in counting on someone to refresh files every ten years or
so. I think the goal is to preserve images and associated info long
after we're dead and gone.

I would either save them as very high quality JPEGs or lossless compressed TIFFs.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'

 

[TuckerUK]

One question I have is whether the camera mounted slide copiers can
be adjusted enough to copy a 35mm slide onto a "DX" size sensor
with a 1.5 crop factor. Since the sensor is only 16mm X 24mm vs the
standard 35mm frame of 24mm X 36mm can you still capture the entire
35mm slide?

RLD

In my experience, NO! I have an Ohnar Slide Copier.

The Nikon ES-1 will work mounted on an appropriate lens, but you will require an extra spacer of about 1" 25mm between ES-1 and lens to negate the 1.5x crop factor.

Hope that helps.

--
Geoff

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.' - George Bernard Shaw

WSSA member#68
PBase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuckeruk/

 

[nickoly]

One question I have is whether the camera mounted slide copiers can> be adjusted enough to copy a 35mm slide onto a "DX" size sensor> with a 1.5 crop factor. Since the sensor is only 16mm X 24mm vs the> standard 35mm frame of 24mm X 36mm can you still capture the entire> 35mm slide?

There are two types of slide copiers:

The first that simply scews onto the body and has a built-in lens. This is specifically made to give 1:1 repro on 24x36 film. You are right. It will give you a cropped picture - very cropped.

The second is simply a slide holder that fits on a bellows or extension tube. When using it with a DX sensor, you are magnifying less and thus the lens is closer to the camera. The problem is essentially mechanical and may be as simple a matter as -can the bellows close enough? You may find there is no problem, or it can be fixed using a longer lens, but that may simply move the problem from the back of the lens to the front.

It is likely that you can cobble something. Another alternative is to abandon the slide carrier and use an easel instead. Top pic shows an easel that has been in service for about thirty years. Next shows a standard 35mm slide carrier adapted for use with am Olympus 5060.

A 2nd question is what is the preferred file format (JPEG, TIFF,> etc.) that will receive support long into the future. I don't> believe in counting on someone to refresh files every ten years or> so. I think the goal is to preserve images and associated info long> after we're dead and gone.

There is so much JPG around, you can be prtetty sure smeone will know how to open them for as long as the archive medium lasts.

 

[Tom Meeks]

...I also strongly disagree with those above who have
suggested improvised scanning methods that do not involve a
dedicated scanner.

Giood luck. Go with your instincts and get the Coolscan 5000. You
will not regret it.

The Coolscan 5000 is expensive ($1000). What do you do with it
after you scan all your slides? If the goal is simply to distribute
the pix to family members as moderate size files on CDs ( I think
that was the OPs plan), then other ways may make more sense. A
dedicated scanner is clearly better, but it may be more expensive
than can be justified?

We pay dearly for video cameras and cameras, so why should a film scanner that can be used to help preserve the images captured by those cameras be any less valuable.

There is simply no comparison between the results of a flatbed scanner and that produced by a dedicated slide/film scanner and the labor mismatch is even bigger.

I see some people claiming that slides will outlive the medium onto which they are copied. But, they do not seem to take into account that during the 60's and 70's there were a lot of choices for developing that weren't exactly particular about their chemical composition, strength and purity. SOME slides might live a long time; but, others are already breaking down chemically.

 

[RLD]

--
Thanks for the info, tips, and pictures of copy setups.
RLD

 

[jeffkurtis]

Since you first wrote about saving to your hard drive, then DVD, also exterior hard drives, have you changed your pattern. I'm leery of using CDs. Wouldn't a large exterior hard drive be sufficient. Could you recommend one? Thanks.

Jeff