archiving slides and negatives

[Don]

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.

May very well be, but VueScan listed Minolta 5400 (Mark 1) as
"supported" for over two years while it was clear to all it wasn't!
(The infamous "VueScan stripes").

Indeed, it was complaints from furious Minolta users fed up with the
author's inability to fix this bug for over two years that caused the
author to ran away from here.

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

To paraphrase Roger Rabbit: "Only if it's relevant!" ;o)

Don.

 

[Don]

I am curious about Don's troubles with Vuescan. Which OS & Platform?

Don has absolutely no trouble with VueScan because Don doesn't use
VueScan.

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 don't know what tests you run but using VueScan as "standard" is a
contradiction in terms. There's no baseline to speak of since each new
release reshuffles the deck completely: old bugs reappear, new ones
are introduced, even pedestrian things like cropping or preview are
broken, not to mention some versions can't scan at all, etc.

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.

That's just patently wrong if you look at VueScan's track record.
Don't forget this is version 8 (EIGHT!) if I'm not mistaken! To have
these elementary bugs show up after years of "development" is just
beyond belief! As bad as some native software may be VueScan's bugs
and unreliability are in a category of its own.

Having said all that, if it works for you and it does what you want
then more power to you! But describing VueScan as "standard" or a
"diagnostic tool" is just factually incorrect because VueScan is just
far too buggy and unreliable at the most basic level.

Don.

 

[Don]

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

Which is another way of saying Don doesn't play favorites but just
states the facts, let the chips fall where they may...

Don.

 

[rafe b]

Which is another way of saying Don doesn't play favorites but just
states the facts, let the chips fall where they may...

Then there's the *selective* recitation of certain facts
and dismissal of others. Let it go, Don.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Roger]

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.

Three or four minutes seems a bit excessive, but I've not used a
Coolscan V.

Much of this scanning time depends on your computer and choice of
scanner in addition to processing you choose to do during the scan
operation.

Also a word of caution. Not all Kodachrome is the same. Some is more
scanner friendly that others. You will also find that ICE does not
work with some batches while is does with others. You may or may not
be happy with the results from scanning B&W negatives. With these, ICE
will not work which probably means a bunch of retouching in Photoshop.

I use a Nikon LS 5000 which will do a straight scan at 4000 dpi some
where around 15 seconds. Add ICE for dust and scratch removal and
it'll be between 20 and 30 seconds.

Even with color correction, or restoration and grain removal it still
takes less than a minute. (give or take a tad as I could probably
configure the scan to take several minutes. I've just never seen a
slide or negative that needed that much work.

For scan programs I use both NikonScan and VueScan. Both work well,
both have their detractors and both have their boosters. There are
other scan programs that also work well.

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?

You are trading time spend at one end of the process for time spent at
the other. That may or may not be a good thing. Depending on what
you do, Photoshop can require a *lot* of resources. By that I mean a
*fast* CPU* and at least one, if not two Gigs of RAM. Forget
processing high resolution slides with less than a Gig. It can be
done, but may require freeing up memory that might normally be in use.
Otherwise the system will start "page file swapping" and at that point
it will appear to be stuck in the mud. When the system starts page
file swapping it is really working on images piecemeal. It'll work on
one part, then *swap* it to hard drive for another piece and it'll do
this until the entire image has been processed.

Possibly you might get a few pointers from
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm
While http://www.scantips.com/ does a pretty good job of covering
that actual scanning operations.

Scanning photos, be they slides or negatives can be and often is a
very time consuming process that may take months or even years to
complete a project. It also takes one whale of a lot of storage space
and a lot of planning. Remember too that your original Kodachromes
and negatives will most likely last as long as most digital media.

Were it me, and it's not, I'd do a careful sort of the images with a
bit of culling. OTOH if they are "Old Family Photos" you may want to
scan all at the highest resolution.

I've gone through nigh onto 30,000 slides and negatives now and that
amounts to near a couple hundred DVDs. I also have over 5 Terabytes of
hard drive storage divided between four relatively powerful computers
and I think I have at least another couple thousand negatives left as
well as several hundred pounds of old B&W prints that date back to
near the 1800s.

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Roger]

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


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 would have thought the 5500 would have HP's Precision Scan bundled
with it. The 5470 did and it works quite well with that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Roger]

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

FWIW: With the Nikon LS 5000 I've found that with a native scan only
taking about 15 seconds, or 20 to 30 with ICE and running film strips
with 5 images at a time (or the bulk slide feeder) there is really
little time saved by scanning at less than full resolution.

Now, were I doing post processing in the scanning software, then I
could see it saving time during the scan operation.

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.

Typically I scan with ICE on most of the time as I can see no
softening of the image even when greatly enlarged. Loading the image
into PS is fairly fast (couple of seconds) and it takes me about 10
seconds to change the image size in pixels (when I'm well organized),
and about another 10 to 30 seconds to save the image.

Normally, I run one of several macros in PS that will resize all the
images from a batch to either screen size 1200 X what ever, or roughly
800 X 600, or 300 X 200 for smaller stuff. I use the same macros on
the images from my digital cameras. These can do large batches of
images unattended.

I then preview the smaller images and delete stuff not worth keeping
for one reason or another. This approach does take quite a bit more
computer time, but it takes a lot less of my time. It also makes
sorting and culling faster and easier.

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

I wouldn't have time to wash my hands <). I normally run the
preview, make sure the frames are aligned and then tell it to scan.
With ICE in NikonScan or the equivalent cleaning in VueScan it only
takes some where between a minute and two minutes for the whole strip
after I hit scan.

OTOH when using the bulk slide feeder I need to be here all the time.
It may feed flawlessly for a couple of 50 slide loads (It has but only
on rare occasion) and it may jam on every couple that go through.
Which ever you can count on it jamming as soon as you turn your back.
I think the darn thing is sentient.

So I typically catch up on my e-mail, or read the news groups while
the scanner is running which is another reason for having lots of RAM
and a fast processor. The next system (coming soon) is going to be a
dual core Athlon with one Terabyte SATA RAID 5

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.

You can set the priority level in Task Manager if that is a problem,
but I can normally run OE, Firefox, Agent, Word, NikonScan (or
VueScan) and Photoshop as well as the AV and firewall software without
having to worry. As the system has three external USB drives totaling
just shy of one Terabyte I do have to watch the I/O to them as the
scanner is also USB.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[tom]

I would have thought the 5500 would have HP's Precision Scan bundled
with it. The 5470 did and it works quite well with that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)

Says HP Photo & Imaging in the "about" prompt but only says HP Scanning
when the about comes up. Don't know that I've seen anything about
"percision" anywhere in the HP software.

 

[Don]

Then there's the *selective* recitation of certain facts
and dismissal of others. Let it go, Don.

State the facts I dismissed as well as the reasons (!) given for their
dismissal.

Otherwise, unsubstantiated accusations are simply name calling and
can't be taken seriously.

You will, of course, note that my assertions are always accompanied by
supporting evidence e.g. the (partial!) VueScan bug list.

Don.

 

[rafe b]

State the facts I dismissed as well as the reasons (!) given for their
dismissal.

Well, let's start with the fact that VueScan has
thousands of users who think it's the cat's meow.

While you, on the other hand, speak only of its flaws.

As I've said on many occasions, I'm indifferent to it.
I own it, and use it occasionally. It is what it is:
a low-cost, "universal" scanner driver, with a klunky,
primitive interface and a very low profile in terms of
OS dependencies, registry, usage, etc.

It's hardly my favorite but comes in handy from
time to time. Well worth the $50, even if I only
use it once in a blue moon. When scanner X is
acting strange, it's useful to have around.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Roger]

Says HP Photo & Imaging in the "about" prompt but only says HP Scanning
when the about comes up. Don't know that I've seen anything about
"percision" anywhere in the HP software.

Try http://welcome.hp.com/country/us/en/welcome.html and follow the
links or search on precision scan for the 5500. If you don't find what
you want, there is a "contact HP" <button> as well.

Also try :
http://www.download.com/HP-Precision-Scan/3000-2298-6004255.html
and
http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/HP-Precision-Scan/3000-2298_2-6004255.html
for updates.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Don]

Well, let's start with the fact that VueScan has
thousands of users who think it's the cat's meow.

Two points:

1. How do you know it's thousands? Have you got *independent*
confirmation or are you going by *unsubstantiated boasts* on the
VueScan's site?

2. How does that contradict anything I have said? Quotes, please (in
context!) Indeed, I have even *recommended* VueScan to people who have
*very low requirements*! That alone shows the above impression is
false and based on emotion, not fact!

The key point you're missing is that mere quantity (even if
legitimate) does *not* automatically translate into quality! Would you
call McDonald's burgers "health food" just because billions eat it?

While you, on the other hand, speak only of its flaws.

Again, the mere fact that I have even recommended it shows that to be
patently and factually wrong. It's a kind of self-perpetuating "urban
legend" some people get into and can't get out of.

When someone makes *unsubstantiated* claims about VueScan's alleged
"quality" basing this solely on their feelings, I merely point out how
*factually* false those unsubstantiated assertions are and provide
*factual* evidence to the contrary.

By contrast, my statement "VueScan is notoriously buggy and
unreliable" is a simple fact! You need look no further than then never
ending list of *recurring* bugs.

Unfortunately, many *misread* that as my saying "don't use VueScan" -
period. Of course, I never make a blanket statement like that! It all
depends on the context. Low requirements = use it by all means if it
works for you. High requirements = not compatible!

As I've said on many occasions, I'm indifferent to it.
I own it, and use it occasionally. It is what it is:
a low-cost, "universal" scanner driver, with a klunky,
primitive interface and a very low profile in terms of
OS dependencies, registry, usage, etc.

And I have absolutely nothing against that! Indeed, every time someone
states something like the above I always respond with:
More power to you! Enjoy.

The important difference is, you did *not* say "VueScan is high
quality". You said (quite correctly!) it's low-cost, clunky, etc...
but I like it. Great! I have absolutely no problem with that.

It's hardly my favorite but comes in handy from
time to time. Well worth the $50, even if I only
use it once in a blue moon. When scanner X is
acting strange, it's useful to have around.

Again, you are making no claims of some superior (or any!) "quality"
but merely expressing a personal preference.

The perennial problem is that (some) people don't really read what I
write but have a knee-jerk overreaction based on their feelings
without taking facts into account. And then they spiral into a "fact
free", self-perpetuating feedback loop...

If they remain civil (like you) I calmly respond with facts. Civil and
reasonable people can disagree agreeably.

If they become abusive, I don't respond to abuse, even though many are
desperately trying to pick a fight with blatant provocations. The more
I ignore them, the more their head seem to explode...

Don.

 

[tom]

Says HP Photo & Imaging in the "about" prompt but only says HP Scanning

Try http://welcome.hp.com/country/us/en/welcome.html and follow the
links or search on precision scan for the 5500. If you don't find what
you want, there is a "contact HP" <button> as well.

Tried that and it didn't turn up anything as far as downloadable items
that I saw anyway. One of the pictures of the scanning software, looked
like what I have so I think we're talking about the same thing even
though my software doesn't specifically state "precision scan".

Also try :
http://www.download.com/HP-Precision-Scan/3000-2298-6004255.html
and
http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/HP-Precision-Scan/3000-2298_2-6004255.html
for updates.

Those two appear to link to the same program - precision scan 3.0.1.

 

[tom]

It is presumed that people who buy film scanners are not looking for
quality, but rather for speed and convenience. A Nikon or Cannon
scanner can scan batches of slides automatically. However they are far
from publication quality. A used drum scanner can be had for far less
than these sell for new, and will give a whole f stop more shadow
detail, and much better color balance, particularlly in the shadows. A
PMT scanner will ALWAYS give a better scan than a CCD scanner, because
it has much more capability.
tom robinson

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

tom ([email protected]) wrote in @tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

Those two appear to link to the same program - precision scan 3.0.1.

More precisely, an *update* to update HP PrecisionScan *Pro* 1.4.1 and
1.4.2 to version 3.0.1.

If you don't have HP PrecisionScan *Pro* this isn't going to do anythinbg
for you.

(My HP 3300c scanner came with HP PrecisionScan LT - not "Pro" - and that
software is horrible... no other option either that I know of (though I'm
not looking at Silverblast))

 

[rafe b]

It is presumed that people who buy film scanners are not looking for
quality, but rather for speed and convenience. A Nikon or Cannon
scanner can scan batches of slides automatically. However they are far
from publication quality. A used drum scanner can be had for far less
than these sell for new, and will give a whole f stop more shadow
detail, and much better color balance, particularlly in the shadows. A
PMT scanner will ALWAYS give a better scan than a CCD scanner, because
it has much more capability.
tom robinson

So prove it. You can't.

On the contrary, I have plenty of evidence
to the contrary, right here:

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis>
<http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/>

Show me a good, used drum scanner, with
software, for under $1000, and I'll take
it off your hands -- if you can get it
to me, intact, for less than $200 freight.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[tom]

tom ([email protected]) wrote in @tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:


More precisely, an *update* to update HP PrecisionScan *Pro* 1.4.1 and
1.4.2 to version 3.0.1.

Looks like that lets me out...only version numbering I can find says
1.3.0 so looks like I predate the PercisionScan (pro or otherwise).

 

[Don]

Actually, it's exactly the opposite! It's much more convenient and
faster to have a service scan your film.

It is precisely people who are not satisfied with that quick-and-dirty
job who buy scanners and do it themselves in order to get higher
quality.

Don.

 

[tom]

Hello Rafe, I don't know if you have experience with drum scanners and
the new Nikons, and i read your post that "i cant prove it" with
interest. I don't know what is wrong with the Tango in that example,
and i would not want one myself. And i think that the entire question
of resolution misses the boat with what really matters, which is shadow
detail in high-gamma films like Velvia, Kodachrome, and vintage
thick-emulsion B&W. I did my comparative scans last summer and i was
knocked out by the difference. One web page that has these comparisons
you can see is here, check the Howtek 4500 vs the Nikon:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ You will see the night
photograph has about a half stop more shadow detail on the Howtek. I
had lurked on the Scan Hi End group for about six months before making
the decision which to buy, so i was gravitating on the Howtek. I have
no regrets. About the cost, I have followed all the Howtek auctions on
ebay for the last six months, and several have sold for less than a
thousand, although to be fair when all is said and done you will
probably want to pay a bit more. After spending $1600 on mine, plus
software, plus spare drum, expendables, etc, i was in to it $3500.
Which is still cheaper than a new Nikon with the Aztek film holder for
it. To put this in perspective, this is a $47,000 machine that will
still be working long after a Nikon wears out from daily use. This
machine paid for itself in one month, and i am going to buy a second
(since one dongle will run two machines, the next one will be only half
the price). I have to say that i compared Kodachrome scans that I made
personally on both types of machines and there is simply no comparison.
And i tried glass mounting the Nikon, i know that the results with
that are very soft without a glass carrier. You may want to check the
Aztek site for the comparitive scans of Nikon using their film holder
vs the stock Nikon. Or my site, with comparative scans of a Polaroid
slide scanner, modified with glass, it is here:
http://historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html

So, in summary, if you want then I will offer to compare any slide
scanner that you want to use to scan one of your slides, send me the
film and i will scan it on a Howtek 4500 at 4000ppi 48bit RGB and send
it to you and you can see the difference. Give me a really tough one,
like a underexposed Velvia. And compare the raw scans. I don't let the
scanner driver do any adjustments at all, and this goes for all the
scanners that i have, i just let the scanner driver run the motor and
the light and do all my processing in Photoshop. I bought the Howtek
because the Nikon couldn't do the work. If you are shooting color
negative or Ektachrome then you would probably never notice the
difference. But with any high-gamma film it is like the difference
between night and day! Best regards, Tom Robinson

 

[rafe b]

Hello Rafe, I don't know if you have experience with drum scanners and
the new Nikons, and i read your post that "i cant prove it" with
interest. I don't know what is wrong with the Tango in that example,
and i would not want one myself. And i think that the entire question
of resolution misses the boat with what really matters, which is shadow
detail in high-gamma films like Velvia, Kodachrome, and vintage
thick-emulsion B&W. I did my comparative scans last summer and i was
knocked out by the difference. One web page that has these comparisons
you can see is here, check the Howtek 4500 vs the Nikon:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Funny. That's my site.

My experience with drum scanners is limited to a few
months with a ScanMate 5000. If you check my site
again and look at the two scans by Dave King -- the
one made on the ScanMate was done on the machine that
I got from Dave.

You will see the night
photograph has about a half stop more shadow detail on the Howtek.

I don't agree with that conclusion. What I see
from Lawrence Smith's two scans is that the Nikon
scan is not in proper focus. This is ISO 100
film pushed two stops. The grain should be clear
in both scans. I know that Lawrence bought his
LS-8000 about the same time as I did and never
liked it very much. He then evaluated an LS-120
and didn't like that much, either. After that,
he got the Howtek 4500.

The better comparisons of dynamic range are near
the bottom of my scan-snippets site, arranged in
the table labeled, "One Perfect Chrome...."
Most of those scans were arranged by Neil Snape,
whom you may know from the Scan Hi-End group.

I will grant you that drum scanners can have better
dynamic range than the Nikons. Even so, I think
the LS-8000 does pretty well in that comparison.

For what I do it's a non-issue, since most of what
I scan is C41 film. On most slides, the dynamic
range is quite adequate.

I have
no regrets. About the cost, I have followed all the Howtek auctions on
ebay for the last six months, and several have sold for less than a
thousand, although to be fair when all is said and done you will
probably want to pay a bit more. After spending $1600 on mine, plus
software, plus spare drum, expendables, etc, i was in to it $3500.
Which is still cheaper than a new Nikon with the Aztek film holder for
it.

The LS-9000 is $1800 new, and I'm not convinced that the
Grecco (Aztek) carrier is a requirement. By all accounts
the LS-9000 is even sharper than its predecessor. (See
Max Perl's scans on my site.)

I've used my LS-8000 for nearly five years now with just
the glassless carrier.

To put this in perspective, this is a $47,000 machine that will
still be working long after a Nikon wears out from daily use.

We'll see about that. My LS-8000 has been working
its little butt off since June 2001. Me, I'd be
wary of owning any machine that could only be
serviced by Aztek.

This
machine paid for itself in one month, and i am going to buy a second
(since one dongle will run two machines, the next one will be only half
the price). I have to say that i compared Kodachrome scans that I made
personally on both types of machines and there is simply no comparison.
And i tried glass mounting the Nikon, i know that the results with
that are very soft without a glass carrier. You may want to check the
Aztek site for the comparitive scans of Nikon using their film holder
vs the stock Nikon.

Aw, c'mon. I've seen that little snippet on the Aztek
site and it's silly as hell. All of the LS-8000 scans
that you see on my snippets site are from my scanner,
with the stock glassless carrier, and with Digital ICE
turned on.

Again, I'll grant drum scanners an edge in dynamic range,
though not enough (for my work or budget) to justify the
huge bother and expense. No drum scanner (to my knowledge)
has digital ICE. If you haven't seen dICE in action, you
don't know what you're missing. And at this point, I
couldn't imagine scanning MF or LF film without it.

Tell you what, if you've got any scan snippets sharper
than what's already posted on my site, send them my way,
and I'll be happy to post them.

In another couple of years I suspect this discussion --
for me at least -- will be totally moot. I figure that's
how long it will take for an affordable DSLR to match
scanned 6x7 format MF film. And when that happens, the
Nikon won't matter much any more.

I do maintain a low-level interest in drum scanners
because I still shoot a bit of LF film. So I watch
the eBay auctions...



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
scan snippets
www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis