archiving slides and negatives

[Ted Cody]

I have switched to a digital camera and have 30 years worth of Kodachrome
slides, Kodacolor negatives (or prints), and black and white negatives that
I'd like to archive. It sounds, from what I've read, that a film scanner
(ie Nikon Coolscan V) would do this with the greatest fidelity. I'm
concerned, though, that 3 or 4 minute per slide scan and correction times
may make this impractical.

Is it possible to scan more rapidly, saving all information on the slide for
later correction in Photoshop as needed? If so, how long would this take
per slide?

Ted C

 

[rafe b]

I have switched to a digital camera and have 30 years worth of Kodachrome
slides, Kodacolor negatives (or prints), and black and white negatives that
I'd like to archive. It sounds, from what I've read, that a film scanner
(ie Nikon Coolscan V) would do this with the greatest fidelity. I'm
concerned, though, that 3 or 4 minute per slide scan and correction times
may make this impractical.

Is it possible to scan more rapidly, saving all information on the slide for
later correction in Photoshop as needed? If so, how long would this take
per slide?

Speed and quality are not entirely
compatible. Scan times can be reduced
by scanning at lower resolution, yes.
But that also means that you're not
getting "all the information" on the
slide. I don't think you can really
have it both ways.

One thing to consider though... is
heavily editing the slides, and
scanning only the best -- with the
care they deserve.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Robert Feinman]

I have switched to a digital camera and have 30 years worth of Kodachrome
slides, Kodacolor negatives (or prints), and black and white negatives that
I'd like to archive. It sounds, from what I've read, that a film scanner
(ie Nikon Coolscan V) would do this with the greatest fidelity. I'm
concerned, though, that 3 or 4 minute per slide scan and correction times
may make this impractical.

Is it possible to scan more rapidly, saving all information on the slide for
later correction in Photoshop as needed? If so, how long would this take
per slide?

Ted C

Scanning seems to be the rage these days. If your film is not
deteriorating why scan it? What guarantee do you have that the
digital form will last any longer than the film will?
You can scan with a program such as Vuescan which will capture
all the tones in the film and save as a tiff file. You can then
later open up the ones you are planning to print or show and
fix the contrast, color balance and brightness in Photoshop.
I estimate that with the average film scanner it will take 5-10
minutes per original to load, scan, unload. Then add in the time
to label the files and burn them to disc.

I think you should only scan those images which are fading and
scan others only when you are going to use the digital image for
some immediate purpose.
I have a series of tips on my web site about optimal scanning.
Just follow the tips link on the home page.

 

[theo]

that 3 or 4 minute per slide scan and correction times may make this

impractical.

Is it possible to scan more rapidly, saving all information on the slide
for later correction in Photoshop as needed? If so, how long would this
take per slide?

With your time consider which tasks require your judgment. Selecting: (1
which images to archive and (2 which tools to apply for editing/correction
in post-scan and (3 topics for organizing albums require - judgment.
Feeding the machine requires - only time. Consider using a scanning
service for the tedious time with which you could be applying to some more
personally or socially productive pursuit. Scanning services can give you
images from any machine, at any resolution in any format on any medium,
with any degree of post-processing, you care to request and pay for
(quantity pricings ?~80¢/image), and get it done far quicker than the
catch-as-can nights and weekends I have devoted to my project. Once I
purchased the machines I felt committed or trapped into doing the scanning
myself, and not admitting the folly of disregarding the loss of time for
my wife and other life.
Let those who have ears to hear...

 

[il barbi]

I have switched to a digital camera and have 30 years worth of Kodachrome
slides, Kodacolor negatives (or prints), and black and white negatives that
I'd like to archive. It sounds, from what I've read, that a film scanner
(ie Nikon Coolscan V) would do this with the greatest fidelity. I'm
concerned, though, that 3 or 4 minute per slide scan and correction times
may make this impractical.

Is it possible to scan more rapidly, saving all information on the slide for
later correction in Photoshop as needed? If so, how long would this take
per slide?

I also have your problem and I think very many people too - so I think maybe
it would be interesting to ask the gurus in this NG:
- do you think in future the time needed to scan will significatively
decrease, say by a factor of at last 10? And do you think the prices of
scanners for slides and negatives will also decrease significatively? Or
alternatively is it possible that this business will increase by leading to
a price of something like, say, 20 cents per photo?
Angelo Barbieri

 

[CSM1]

I also have your problem and I think very many people too - so I think
maybe
it would be interesting to ask the gurus in this NG:
- do you think in future the time needed to scan will significatively
decrease, say by a factor of at last 10? And do you think the prices of
scanners for slides and negatives will also decrease significatively? Or
alternatively is it possible that this business will increase by leading
to
a price of something like, say, 20 cents per photo?
Angelo Barbieri

Scanning technology is pretty good right now. But the amount of time is
takes to scan a 35 mm slide and get the most you can from the slide or
negative is time consuming. Average is 3 to 5 minutes per slide. The more
features you have turned on increases the time.

If you have more money than you have time, it would be cost effective to pay
a photo lab to do the scanning.

This company charges $0.85 each for 4000 DPI. (I am not recommending that
you choose this company, I am just using this as a price point). I saw one
company that charges as much as $5.00 per slide.
http://www.digitalslides.net/Slide Scanning Prices.htm

As time goes by there will be less demand for scanning film. Digital cameras
are taking over for the everyday pictures for people and travelers.

 

[rafe b]

I also have your problem and I think very many people too - so I think maybe
it would be interesting to ask the gurus in this NG:
- do you think in future the time needed to scan will significatively
decrease, say by a factor of at last 10? And do you think the prices of
scanners for slides and negatives will also decrease significatively? Or
alternatively is it possible that this business will increase by leading to
a price of something like, say, 20 cents per photo?

The time per scan, at any given resolution,
will not improve greatly unless or until CCD
technology changes significantly. Assuming
that your computer itself isn't the bandwidth-
limiter, CCDs still require a certain exposure,
just as film does. Exposure meaning "integral
of light over time."

Who can guess how prices will go? The general
trend is down, or else you get better specs
for the same $$. I don't expect huge drops.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[tom]

Since you have a digital camera, use that to make access copies of your
old images. You can host them on the web or make contact sheets, or
even decent 8x10s. I can make 90 an hour. I use a Bowens Illumitrans,
bought on ebay for practically nothing, with a nikon digital body and
macro lens. Best bang for the buck. When you need a very high
resolution scan, then you can get one. If you have old Kodachrome, a
drum scan would have much better color and shadow detail than any slide
or flatbed. Drum scanners sell used on ebay for less than new slide
scanners and will run circles around them for quality.

Tom Robinson
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/

 

[Don]

Scanning seems to be the rage these days. If your film is not
deteriorating why scan it?

*All* film is deteriorating constantly! This may be slowed down by
proper storage but it can't be stopped.

What guarantee do you have that the
digital form will last any longer than the film will?

The guarantee that digital format (the data) does *not* deteriorate
with time and can be copied *losslessly*, ad infinitum, to overcome
any specific media shortcomings.

Analog (i.e. the data on film) does deteriorate and *can't* be copied
losslessly.

You can scan with a program such as Vuescan which will capture
all the tones in the film and save as a tiff file.

Actually Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable and would be the
worst possible choice for archiving!

Vuescan may be OK for casual use where quality is not important e.g.
small web JPEGs or tiny prints. But it's is totally unsuitable for any
serious scanning.

Don.

 

[Don]

- do you think in future the time needed to scan will significatively
decrease, say by a factor of at last 10?

It is theoretically possible but it's not practical for many reasons.

Also, major film scanner manufacturers are - by and large - getting
out of the business because the market is saturated and shrinking.

And do you think the prices of
scanners for slides and negatives will also decrease significatively?

Again, that's very unlikely as the market shrinks and becomes a niche
market. If anything, niche market products are usually more expensive.

However, when a scanner is discontinued (as the manufacturers leave
the market) it may be possible to get some good deals on "obsolete"
scanners various stores already have in stock and want to get rid if.

Or
alternatively is it possible that this business will increase by leading to
a price of something like, say, 20 cents per photo?

If you are referring to commercial services I believe the price level
has pretty much stabilized as well and I don't see much change.
Although, you may find some specials occasionally.

Don.

 

[rafe b]

Vuescan may be OK for casual use where quality is not important e.g.
small web JPEGs or tiny prints. But it's is totally unsuitable for any
serious scanning.

Don, you sound like a broken record.

I'm no huge fan of VueScan, but your statement
above is objectively false. Lots of folks love it.
Lots of folks (amazingly) prefer it to NikonScan.

Your credibility isn't being enhanced by your
vendetta against VueScan.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[rafe b]

Also, major film scanner manufacturers are - by and large - getting
out of the business because the market is saturated and shrinking.

I think you're wrong about that. Film scanning
is not a "fad," as you have refered to it.

I've seen lots of questions about film scanning on
several forums, in the last few months and weeks --
in fact, I think I see a resurgence in interest.

I'm guessing it's because of digicams. Those who've
finally "mastered" their digicams are having some
thoughts about their piles of old slides.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>,

Drum scanners sell used on ebay for less than new slide
scanners and will run circles around them for quality.

Drum scanners running circles seems somehow so appropriate!

(I'll get my coat...)

 

[rafe b]

In message <[email protected]>,

I wish.

Been hoping to buy a good used drum scanner on
eBay for a couple years now.

Just shipping one of these will set you back a few
hundred bucks. These suckers are big and heavy --
most are in excess of 100 lbs.

If it needs work, of any kind, who's going to fix it?

A new PMT assembly for a ScanMate 5000 is $5000 --
or so I've been told. ColorQuartet software for the
ScanMate is dongle-protected and costs another
grand or two. Most likely the same deal with any
Howtek machine (the software will come from AZTEK
in that case.)

As for quality, here's a comparison of Heideleberg Tango
(a first-rate drum scanner) vs. a Nikon Coolscan 8000:

<http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/index.html>

The Nikon holds its own.

If you see a good used scanner on eBay at a good prince,
and if you can see it working, and take it home yourself --
do it!

FWIW, here's a page from my life with a ScanMate 5000.

<http://terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga/>



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Paul]

I have also struggled with this. The solution that works for me is
based on the fact that at least 80% of my personal film archives are
not really worth preserving at full resolution, and the fact that it
will take a very long time to get caught up if you were to scan at full
resolution.

I have settled on bulk scanning old filmstrips and slides at enough
resolution to be viewed on a slide show on a computer screen. While
monitor resolutions keep climbing, I settled on 1280 pixels on a side
as "good enough" for slide shows and small prints. I turn on just
enough of the quality options to make it look decent while keeping the
process reasonably fast. For most personal photos, this is enough. If
this moderate-quality scanning run reveals a very special image, I'll
turn on all of the best-quality settings, scan that image at full
resolution, and give it the full Photoshop treatment.

This approach depends on you getting real familiar with how your
scanning software works, so you can do these draft scans straight to
high-quality JPEG without having to push every single one through
Photoshop. It took me a long time to figure out how best to use VueScan
controls to achieve this goal.

Despite what one or two in this newsgroup may say, I find VueScan to be
the best software for my bulk scanning purposes, based on its quality,
efficiency, and automatic file naming options. The built-in film
profiles are a great shortcut and the automatic white balance algorithm
covers the rest of the distance well enough. The recent addition of
S-curve control has really cut down the amount of curve manipulation
needed later in Photoshop. NikonScan is OK for one of two images, but
for bulk scanning it drove me up the wall.

Part of what makes this somewhat practical is planning when to scan. I
feed a 4- to 6-frame negative filmstrip into the scanner, walk away and
do something else like wash dishes, then come back to check and if
necessary correct that strip's scans that are buffered in RAM before
doing the final save to disk. You can also switch to other programs and
do other tasks while the scanning software runs, unless you're using
scanning software that likes to take over the system.

 

[Don]

I think you're wrong about that. Film scanning
is not a "fad," as you have refered to it.

The quotes are significant because I was referring to consumers who
just want to convert the contents of their shoe boxes full of family
photos and film i.e. a one-shot deal and then switch to digicams for
good. And since all of their friends and family were putting these old
pictures on their web sites there was a certain amount of peer
pressure.

So "fad" in that sense rather than a long term, serious commitment.

I've seen lots of questions about film scanning on
several forums, in the last few months and weeks --
in fact, I think I see a resurgence in interest.

I'm sure there will always be questions but how many of those people
have the time/money/skill to do the job themselves? That is to say
purchase a film scanner. The overwhelming majority doesn't care for
quality and is happy if they can put their pictures up on the web. And
for that a commercial service is more than adequate as well as more
convenient for most people.

The key indicator is how many units are actually sold? And if the
business were brisk (and thereby profitable) new manufacturers would
be jumping in. Instead, as we know, many are getting out.

As I mentioned before, even if we look at the more horizontal market
of flatbeds (which are used for other things besides pictures) even
that market has shrunk incredibly as a visit to a consumer electronics
store will reveal. There are only a few on display where there used to
be dozens.

That goes even more for a vertical market film scanner (with a price
tag to match). I used to see them regularly advertised in various
flyers but for over a year I haven't seen a single one.

I'm guessing it's because of digicams. Those who've
finally "mastered" their digicams are having some
thoughts about their piles of old slides.

That is very true but I believe that has peaked already and is behind
us.

Don.

 

[Don]

Don, you sound like a broken record.

No, Rafe, it's *recurring VueScan's bugs* which sound like a broken
record. (See below!)

Don't shoot the messenger!

I'm no huge fan of VueScan, but your statement
above is objectively false.

See below!

Or just read today's messages!

Lots of folks love it.

Come on, Rafe, you as an engineer know very well that this (alleged!)
"popularity" is no proof of quality.

Lots of folks (amazingly) prefer it to NikonScan.

First, define "lots"! Second, define the level of knowledge of those
"lots" of folks!

As I have always maintained, (some) casual users who only want a quick
and dirty web jpeg may be happy with Vuescan (if they can find a
version that pretends to work).

Your credibility isn't being enhanced by your
vendetta against VueScan.

No vendetta, just facts! Like these:

Don.

--- arbitrary start ---

Tried that. It doesn't help.
I tried all the avenues that Vuescan allowed and no combination of features
provided a good scan. Your suggestion even made things worse.

So this bug has survived through two subsequent versions to 8.1.13,
rendering Vuescan more-or-less useless, if you use scan-from-disk
workflow.

ICE manages to clean my problematic slides very well, doing a much more
complete job, and much more "seamlessly". Vuescan leaves so much, and
leaves obviously softened areas.

I'm really getting tired of even
trying new releases, it's a time consuming waste of time.

Somewhere around recent version .20 "something bad happened" to Vuescan
speed. Since then, several new version descriptions have promised
greatly improved speed etc. Atleast as of .23, my personal experience
is it's still very pokey.

About a couple of weeks ago I bought Vuescan to use with my brand new
Minolta. I was worried about reports of lines but was told that has
been fixed. IT HASN'T!! The damn lines are everywhere! Vuescan is total
CRAP! I wrote two emails but got no reply and I'm really fed up and
pissed off! I WANT MY MONEY BACK! What a ripoff! It's Vue-SCAM! That's
what it is!

I'm using VueScan with Canon FS4000US over SCSI connection. Just
upgraded from 8.1.32 to 8.1.36 and noticed a problem with "Preview"
command. In version 36 it takes forever, compared to version 32.
Apparently, version 36 does preview at full resolution (4000dpi) even
though the "Input | Preview resolution" is manually set to mere 500dpi.

I just updated to 8.2.03, and I'm getting "double" images side by side
of the SAME scans in the preview OR scan window..

Eddie Wiseman

...After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don
will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
Upgrade at your peril!

Would if I could. I'm on his black list, since venting here regarding
Vuescan's undocumented feature of assigning icc profiles to raw file if
scan-from-disk outputting new raw file is done "at save".

Do you know for certain that you are blacklisted and that it is a result of
your posts to this NG? I don't remember any of your posts regarding the
above as being particularly damning.

The thread titled:

"Vuescan raw files saved "at save" have altered color balance"

prompted Ed Hamrick to email me with the good news. He mentioned his
action was in light of my recent Usenet posting.

Well I just tried the latest version, 8.3.03, and I'm seeing the same
exact effects. ....
the appearance of dust spots and imperfections actually look WORSE on
the "light" setting than they do with "none". And since the "medium"
setting begins to blur, it basically makes the dust removal almost
unusable.

The curves control feature is implemented a bit differently compared
to most photo editors. The adjustment is applied to linear gamma data
after setting black/whitepoints, but before Gamma adjustment. So don't
expect to use the same settings as one would use in Photoshop. The
Preview/Scan tab will show the effect after all (including gamma and
colorspace) adjustments, so go by that.

The graph seems to serve no particular purpose beyond entertainment,
but time will tell...maybe someone will find a use.

I downloaded 8.3.16 and was not too impressed.

Have others had problems with the IR cleaning? There was a new and
interesting artifact I'd never seen before with my Canon FS4000US which
looked like a bunch of multicolor circles landed on part of my image.
Novel and yet disturbing. Saving the non-cleaned file confirmed this
was an IR artifact. ....
After this I went back to 8.3.01 which works except that it chopps off
5% off of mounted slides if you change the cropping.

Same here with PS CS. It used to be that the 1st image wouldn't open but
subsequent images would. Now none of the scanned images do ....
Maris


I was using version 8.3.24 of Vuescan with the Minolta 5400 and
found an issue with IR cleaning. ....
Since part of the film is scanned twice (the overlap), and the
IR defects only appear the second time, the problem lies with
the software.

I'm using the Linux version of 8.3.26 with the Minolta 5400. I can't
reproduce your streaks, but I find the IR cleaning does not work at all
now.

With the IR clean set to None, the IR channel shows some dust on a grey
background. With the IR Clean set to Medium the dust remains on the RGB
view, but the IR channel shows pure white. The pixel colours display
doesn't show any IR.

Reverting to 8.3.10 with the same slide it all works correctly.

So there is clearly something wrong.

Another problem I found was when the 'number of samples' is set to 4 or
more the scanner skips, and strips of the picture are repeated. Has
anyone else seen that?

John

Same here. Streaks in shades, visible only with IR switched on. ....
Yes, 3.25 and 3.26 do not have streaks but IR cleaning seems to be
(mostly?) gone. ....
In all honesty I am getting tired of this hit and miss game.


....
You can try different version of Vuescan, I believe that 8.3.30
is seriously broken. I have installed it and it broke _everything_.
Had to return to the previous version (8.3.25) which works OK for me.

Andy.

Second the notion of rolling back to a prior working version of VueScan. I
was OK with 8.3.25 also. Version 8.3.30 stuffed my K-M DSM into an endless
"calibrate" state.
Regards,
Theo

I'm seeing a similar issue with an HP Scanjet 5500c. Scanner works
with other programs but once VueScan (8.3.30) is run then I have to
reboot the computer to get the scanner recognized again by the other
programs.

--- no end... ---

 

[tom]

Don wrote:
Quoting this (e-mail address removed) guy (that's me)

--- no end... ---

Please note that the HP 5500c is NOT listed AS SUPPORTED. So what I was
seeing is not really to be taken as a shortcoming of the program from my
viewpoint.

I do have it working with two other supported scanners and like the way
it works and am happy overall with the software. Guess I'm one of the
lesser experienced that only want a picture for their web site. (not the
case, thanks)

My hope is that Don never quotes us all the maladies of
Windows...servers would run out of space ASAP. <g>

Tom

 

[tom]

I am curious about Don's troubles with Vuescan. Which OS & Platform?
I know that Vuescan has problems, i use it on at least four different
operating systems with perhaps six different model and brand scanners.
It has its problems, but to put it in perspective it has fewer problems
than Silverfast and Scanwizard and Magicscan. Although the results are
different in each operating system (mac 9, X, Widowz ...) . Each
scanner and driver has its own problems. I can tell you this: when I
get lines in a microtek scanner, the first thing that I do is a test
scan using VS to see if the lines are caused by Scanwizard or by the
scanner itself. If Silverfast is short of shadow detail, same test.
Now whenever possible i try to use the native driver to run the
scanner, it is so much faster than VS. But having said that, when the
native driver starts to screw up, VS is the standard by which I judge
whether the problems are driver or hardware. I am experienced at
dismantling the carriages of flatbed and slide scanners to clean all
the mirrors and do the maintenance, so i am familiar with what is going
wrong here. Vuescan has saved me hours of time in diagnostics many
times; if you were to use VS purely as a diagnostic tool it is well
worth the money. The recent improvements make it the swiss army knife
of scanner drivers. In my experience it is not any more faulty than any
other scanner driver. Thomas Robinson

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, tom

My hope is that Don never quotes us all the maladies of
Windows...servers would run out of space ASAP. <g>

We've had a bit of that, thanks. There's a thread that started out
about the Nikon FDutility that degenerated...