Scanning alot of 35mm slides

[Chris Schomaker]

Will some high quality scanner manufacurer please come up with a
machine and software to meet the archival needs of baby-boomers who
have inherited a few thousand grandparents' and parents' slides, and
also have thousands of their own pre-digital era slides? We need:

1) The ability to scan 24 - 120 cardboard or plastic mounted slides in
a batch, being able to set it up and leave it. No jamming, please.
How about using the Kodak carousels a lot of slides are stored in?
(Kodak has really missed the boat here...) Then again, maybe a
flatbed scanner with multi-slide holder could do the job.

2) Resolution decent enough to make modestly enlarged prints (maybe
11"x17"), occasional blow-ups of interesting details, and, especially,
digital projection quality equal to or better than what we get with
our old home projectors. Is 2700 optical good enough?

3) Scan quality (would that be color depth?) sufficient to provide
color truth and allow the improvement of occasional poor exposures or
faded film using image editing software.

4) Scanning software that doesn't try to do too much. Just digitize
the images as accurately as possible; let us do the rotating,
cropping, and 'sharpening' later.

5) Automatic removal of dust and scratches during the scanning process
is optional. A lot of the slides are Kodachrome anyway, and getting
the images digitized at an efficient speed is more important.
Software to remove dust from a batch of image files afterwards would
be useful. I, for one, don't mind reviewing each image at least once
after it has been scanned, and performing whatever editing I think it
might need. That is the fun part of the job. (But I definitely don't
want to have to preview each image before it is scanned!)

6) A reliable media (CD, DVD,...) on which to record the image files
for posterity.

If the above dream machine already exists, please let us know!

 

[Jim]

Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc., etc., etc. make scanners which can do this...

Will some high quality scanner manufacurer please come up with a
machine and software to meet the archival needs of baby-boomers who
have inherited a few thousand grandparents' and parents' slides, and
also have thousands of their own pre-digital era slides? We need:

1) The ability to scan 24 - 120 cardboard or plastic mounted slides in
a batch, being able to set it up and leave it. No jamming, please.
How about using the Kodak carousels a lot of slides are stored in?
(Kodak has really missed the boat here...) Then again, maybe a
flatbed scanner with multi-slide holder could do the job.

2) Resolution decent enough to make modestly enlarged prints (maybe
11"x17"), occasional blow-ups of interesting details, and, especially,
digital projection quality equal to or better than what we get with
our old home projectors. Is 2700 optical good enough?

Depends on what you consider good enough. I would say it is barely good
enough.

3) Scan quality (would that be color depth?) sufficient to provide
color truth and allow the improvement of occasional poor exposures or
faded film using image editing software.

4) Scanning software that doesn't try to do too much. Just digitize
the images as accurately as possible; let us do the rotating,
cropping, and 'sharpening' later.

5) Automatic removal of dust and scratches during the scanning process
is optional. A lot of the slides are Kodachrome anyway, and getting
the images digitized at an efficient speed is more important.
Software to remove dust from a batch of image files afterwards would
be useful. I, for one, don't mind reviewing each image at least once
after it has been scanned, and performing whatever editing I think it
might need. That is the fun part of the job. (But I definitely don't
want to have to preview each image before it is scanned!)

6) A reliable media (CD, DVD,...) on which to record the image files
for posterity.

Sorry, scanners don't do this. You need a recorder. As for the media, buy
the very best you can. Even those get unreadable from time to time.Jim

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc., etc., etc. make scanners which can do this...

Depends on what you consider good enough. I would say it is barely good
enough.
Sorry, scanners don't do this. You need a recorder. As for the media, buy
the very best you can. Even those get unreadable from time to time.
Jim

Like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=287975&is=REG

 

[George Nuetzel]

Consumer Reports, May 2004, did an article on scanners. It included a
brief write-up on film scanners. They did not mention automatic feeders
but the ones they recommended may have this feature. They tested four
film scanners. Here's their conclusions:


If you want the best results, go with the Nikon. Consider the Minolta if
you want to spend less but still want very good results. The Pacific Image
Prime-Film 1800 Silver is a good budget choice provided you don't need top
quality and won't be greatly enlarging images. The bottom line: A flatbed
scanner with 2,400 or greater dpi and a negative/slide adapter is fine for
casual use and costs less. Serious photographers who want the best scans
from film would do better with a dedicated film scanner.

Nikon Coolscan V ED $600, 4,000 dpi, color-bit depth 48
Minolta DIMAGE Scan Dual III $300, 2,820 dpi, color-bit depth 48

They also mention that the Minolta will soon to be replaced by 3,200-dpi
Scan Dual IV.

George

 

[Roger Halstead]

Will some high quality scanner manufacurer please come up with a
machine and software to meet the archival needs of baby-boomers who
have inherited a few thousand grandparents' and parents' slides, and
also have thousands of their own pre-digital era slides? We need:

My folks shot a *lot* of slides (mostly Kodachrome 25) There are many
thousands.

1) The ability to scan 24 - 120 cardboard or plastic mounted slides in
a batch, being able to set it up and leave it. No jamming, please.

If you are working with cardboard mounts it's highly unlikely you will
be able to completely avoid jams with bulk feeding. You can reduce
the jamming caused "by the slides" by smoothing the edges of the
openings and the outsides. If they've been through a projector more
than a few times they will have the edges "burred" up and those catch.
I use the back of my thumbnail to smooth those edges, but I have found
a lot of the 40 to 50 year old Kodachromes in paper mounts are
strictly a one-at-a-time proposition.

How about using the Kodak carousels a lot of slides are stored in?
(Kodak has really missed the boat here...) Then again, maybe a
flatbed scanner with multi-slide holder could do the job.

I haven't seen one I'd care to use yet, but I've not seem them all.

2) Resolution decent enough to make modestly enlarged prints (maybe
11"x17"), occasional blow-ups of interesting details, and, especially,
digital projection quality equal to or better than what we get with
our old home projectors. Is 2700 optical good enough?

As was already mentioned, this is kinda marginal, but it "all depends"
on what your want, or what is "good enough" for you.

3) Scan quality (would that be color depth?) sufficient to provide
color truth and allow the improvement of occasional poor exposures or
faded film using image editing software.

The Nikon LS5000 ED and the Minolta 5400 are good ones, but the
Minolta doesn't batch scan.
I've not seen the one in the link, but it lacks Digital Ice for
scratch and dust removal. Neither are good replacements for a good
cleaning, but they latest version of Digital Ice does a fantastic job
on E6 slides. The Restore Original Color (ROC) function on the Nikon
has saved many hours and slides for me.

In the LS5000 the ROC function is worth a lot for faded slides.

4) Scanning software that doesn't try to do too much. Just digitize
the images as accurately as possible; let us do the rotating,
cropping, and 'sharpening' later.

The more the scanner and software can do faithfully the less time you
have to spend later. Retouching can easily double or triple the time
spent in digitizing. (as can cleaning)

The LS5000 Ed is billed at 20 seconds per scan including the preview,
BUT as I use a number of the functions I find a scan to now be
typically on the order of two to three minutes. With the bulk feeder
I can go do something else while it's working.

If at all possible, group your slides according to characteristics.
Then you can set the scanner to take care of things such as faded
slides, or a batch of off color.

5) Automatic removal of dust and scratches during the scanning process
is optional. A lot of the slides are Kodachrome anyway, and getting

When I'm doing thousands I do not call dust removal optional. <)

the images digitized at an efficient speed is more important.
Software to remove dust from a batch of image files afterwards would
be useful. I, for one, don't mind reviewing each image at least once

Digital Ice does it before hand so to speak and does not detract from
the sharpness of the images as does post processing to do the same
function.

Most scanners (or software) provide for a "preview" that lets you
input the settings before scanning the actual slide.

after it has been scanned, and performing whatever editing I think it
might need. That is the fun part of the job. (But I definitely don't
want to have to preview each image before it is scanned!)

You don't have to preview any images when bulk scanning. It'd defeat
the purpose of the bulk feature.

You may think the editing is fun, but after a few months of scanning,
sorting, cataloging, and editing it gets to be old (fast). Editing
for art is a different matter.

Using the LS5000 ED I've scanned about 7000 in the last month. I'd
guess I'm about a third to a quarter of the way through on the slides.
I'd guess there are about half again as many negatives. Maybe twice as
many. As I keep working with the slides my estimates keep going up
and down, but I'm "currently" guessing there are about 20,000 to
30,000 slides.

6) A reliable media (CD, DVD,...) on which to record the image files
for posterity.

That is up to you. What ever you install on your computer.
At 8 bit color depth and 4000 dpi non-cropped images are about 66
megs. At 16 bit color depth they are twice that. (132 megs)
Cropping just to get rid of the round corners will drop the file size
to about 53, or 54 megs for 8 bit color depth..

I scan and then file the slides in holders made for notebooks. I use
inch and a half note books and it takes two DVDs to hold all the (down
sized) images. Without downsizing it could easily take 10 DVDs per
notebook.

If the above dream machine already exists, please let us know!

Unless you go to one of the *really* expensive commercial machines I
don't know of any that have put all those features in one machine and
even then the commercial ones may not be all that capable.

BTW, I've seen a commercial unit that runs the slides through a press
that applies the pressure "face on" to a stack of slides which
compresses them considerably, but helps reduce the jamming.

Scanning "the old family slides" can be a *lot* of very time consuming
work and of course you end up throwing nothing away as most of them
have some meaning or attachment.

OTOH I'm seeing images I'd completely forgotten, or didn't even know
existed. I've even seen some of me when I had hair. Lots of bright
red hair. <sigh>

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

 

[Gary L Hunt]

That is up to you. What ever you install on your computer.
At 8 bit color depth and 4000 dpi non-cropped images are about 66
megs. At 16 bit color depth they are twice that. (132 megs)
Cropping just to get rid of the round corners will drop the file size
to about 53, or 54 megs for 8 bit color depth..
....

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

The other possibility for reducing space demands (at least if they're being
done primarily for archiving) is to convert all those TIFF files to
JPEGs. Photoshop does a pretty good job (especially at a Quality
setting of 10 or so), they can be batch-converted, and at 4000 dpi they're
still capable of making reasonably large prints if required. I usually
get a compression ratio of somewhere between 6 and 10 doing this with very
little degradation visible at 100% view onscreen. I think the latest PS
version even manages to preserve EXIF information. (Not that there is
usually much to preserve in a scanned image--all I see in mine is the
name of the scanner.)

Gary Hunt <[email protected]>

 

[Roger Halstead]

The other possibility for reducing space demands (at least if they're being
done primarily for archiving) is to convert all those TIFF files to
JPEGs. Photoshop does a pretty good job (especially at a Quality

As does Photoshop Elements.Saving the 4000 dpi images of slides
cropped to eliminate the slide borders gives the 53 to 54 meg TIFF s
listed above.

Nikon Scan has the ability to also save them as JPGs and that
downsizes them to between 23 and 28 megs on the Excellent Quality
setting. You have the choice of Excellent Quality, High Quality, Good
Balance, Good Compression, and High Compression. Manipulation in PE
will cause an additional reduction of a bit less than 10%. (They must
use the same algorithm, or something similar) However, doing the same
in Jasic PaintShop Pro will drop them all the way to something like 3
to 2.25 megs... or so. So far that is the best I've managed with PSP.
I'm probably missing a setting some where.

setting of 10 or so), they can be batch-converted, and at 4000 dpi they're
still capable of making reasonably large prints if required. I usually
get a compression ratio of somewhere between 6 and 10 doing this with very
little degradation visible at 100% view onscreen. I think the latest PS

I've not played with PE long enough to know if they can be batch
converted in PE.

With only a slightly more than 2:1 compression the images are good for
some pretty large prints and I notice no degradation..

Many of the old slides are in such poor shape that at their best they
are only good for 4 X 5 prints of screen display. I run 2168 X 1024
and many are not that good. Others could take full advantage of the
4000 dpi capability.

version even manages to preserve EXIF information. (Not that there is
usually much to preserve in a scanned image--all I see in mine is the
name of the scanner.)

As does Nikon Scan, but all that's there is the name of the scanner
and the date. However there is room to put in additional information.
As If I'd remember many of those people from 50 years ago, or where
some of the shots were taken by my folks. As I remarked earlier...
There are some shots in there where I even had hair.

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

 

[Gary L Hunt]

As does Nikon Scan, but all that's there is the name of the scanner
and the date. However there is room to put in additional information.
As If I'd remember many of those people from 50 years ago, or where
some of the shots were taken by my folks. As I remarked earlier...
There are some shots in there where I even had hair.

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

I just went through this drill with 1400 of my mother's old prints
that I scanned in December, along with a batch of my parents' old
slides. I don't remember many of the people from my childhood,
and some of these went back so far (100 years) that my mother didn't
even know who they were. The scanning is the easy part--it's the
organizing that's the real killer (and time-waster, if one is not
careful.)

Gary Hunt <[email protected]>

 

[Roger Halstead]

I just went through this drill with 1400 of my mother's old prints
that I scanned in December, along with a batch of my parents' old
slides. I don't remember many of the people from my childhood,
and some of these went back so far (100 years) that my mother didn't
even know who they were. The scanning is the easy part--it's the
organizing that's the real killer (and time-waster, if one is not
careful.)

And this is just with the slides for me ... so far. <sigh>
There are probably half again as many negatives although those are
more recent. THEN there are the old prints<)

I'd guess there are between a 100 and 125 pounds of old prints. When I
say old, I mean really old. Starting with a few "Tintypes" and on up.
There have apparently been professional photographers in the family as
long as photography has been around. There are a couple of very large
boxes of these old prints from each side of the family.

From my mother's side probably 2/3rds to 3/4 of the prints are
labeled, or in albums with notes. From my dad's side I don't think
any of them are labeled. Both my parents have been gone for quite a
few years with my mother being last in 1987. So, I don't have any one
on either side who would recognize the people in many of the prints.

AT the present rate I've used over 64 Gig of HD space and many DVDs
with maybe 2000 *mounted* slides left to scan. There is at least one
notebook full of 35mm film strips at 5 or 6 transparencies per strip.
I figure I'll be getting to the prints this Fall ... IF I'm lucky. I
haven't even started on the negatives (B & W as well as color) yet.

The organization of even the more recent photos (slides, negatives,
and prints) can be a real bear. Naming conventions, grouping,
editing, and manipulation takes far more time than the scanning.

People planing on such a project really need a plan before starting.
Even a flow chart, or a set of statements that state the goals and how
they plan on organizing the results. Even organizing the prints,
negatives, and slides BEFORE starting as well as naming conventions
will go a long way to keep the project going let alone speeding it
along . (The hours required at the computer can grow old fast) Then
there is the *acceptable* resolution, desired format, storage space
available, and the mediums available for both active and long term
storage. (And I didn't even mention the equipment required <G>)

BTW, I find a 2.8 Gig Athlon XP Plus with nearly a quarter terabyte of
HD space AND one of the other computers on the network with a similar
configuration for backup to be barely adequate. Considering the sheer
volume of data using CDs has become impractical with DVDs being the
only logical choice for me.

The slides are scanned pretty much in chronological order numerically
and put in sequentially ordered directories using a prefix followed by
a meaningful name. Then the slides are stored in notebooks (think I
mentioned this earlier in the thread) along with DVDs containing the
images. A second set of DVDs is kept elsewhere.

I'm also using batch conversions (Yes I did find that Photoshop
Elements can do this) to create slide shows of images in jpg format at
screen resolution/size.

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

 

[BobS]

Hi Roger,

I'm thinking about a project similar to what you describe. My dad was a pro
photographer who collected many thousands of photos/negs/slides over about a
50 year period. I have often thought about a similar digitizing project but
it seems somewhat overwhelming and risky. I'm a computer pro and am familiar
with the complications involved in similar projects.

Your discussion is well taken. My greatest concern at this point is
real-world backup and archive, and their long-term viability. In simplest
form, archives require a continuing and nearly ubiquitous technology. I'm
inclined to think CD/DVD are too fragile. Have you thought about publishing
your thoughts and experiences? They could be a real help to those of us that
are about to get our feet wet.

The best in your endeavors,
BobS

 

[Roger Halstead]

Hi Roger,

I'm thinking about a project similar to what you describe. My dad was a pro
photographer who collected many thousands of photos/negs/slides over about a
50 year period. I have often thought about a similar digitizing project but
it seems somewhat overwhelming and risky. I'm a computer pro and am familiar
with the complications involved in similar projects.

Although I've done a lot of photography for hire and I have a minor in
Art, I really don't consider myself a pro as it's been much more of an
avocation, than vocation.

I too am a computing professional, or was. I retired a few years back
after having been a sys admin, Developmental Analyst (fancy name for
programmer) and finally as a project manager. My degree is in CS with
minors in Art and Math.

So, mixing that sort of background I can give it a try and put my
thoughts together although it may take me a while to finish.
I think I'll just put it up on one of my pages rather than a huge
post.

Your discussion is well taken. My greatest concern at this point is
Thanks.

real-world backup and archive, and their long-term viability. In simplest
form, archives require a continuing and nearly ubiquitous technology. I'm
inclined to think CD/DVD are too fragile. Have you thought about publishing

Those are pretty much my thoughts as well, but they are pretty much
the only practical options available to the average user. Using the
on-line storage scares me as it leaves the customers data (photos) up
to the viability of the service provider. Most internet providers
live a tenuous existence and if they disappear what happens to the
data they stored?

your thoughts and experiences? They could be a real help to those of us that
are about to get our feet wet.

I'll see what I can put together. I seem to have less time now than
before I retired.

Lots of irons in the fire.

Thanks again,

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

 

[BobS]

Roger,

I would really appreciate your project insights. I'm sure others on this NG
would find them helpful, too. This and other NG has some discussion about
creating TV shows or cataloging pictures on CD to send to family but little
discussion of true archiving. I'll check your web site in a couple days ;-)

For my project, I'm still trying to define my expectations and goals. As I
mentioned, backup/archive are my greatest concern. I want something that can
_replace_ deteriorating visual media (that also implies restoration) but I
don't think that exists. It doesn't seem possible to replace a simple photo
archive with a CD/DVD. Sure, it is easy to create a photo display with
digital media but the media lacks permanence and endurance as does the
technology. Eventual failure is almost guaranteed. Eyes are the only tool
necessary to view a paper archive. Current media available to the non-pro is
entertainment-oriented and not archival.

Another issue: databases are neat, but I'm also leary of tools that hide
content internally. I'd prefer a db that uses a text (or maybe xml) file
that can be read by simple available tools if necessary.

I know what you mean about time and irons, etc. I'm still a couple years
away from retirement but definitely looking forward to that day.

Regards,
BobS

 

[Roger Halstead]

Roger,

I would really appreciate your project insights. I'm sure others on this NG
would find them helpful, too. This and other NG has some discussion about
creating TV shows or cataloging pictures on CD to send to family but little
discussion of true archiving. I'll check your web site in a couple days ;-)

Here's a preliminary of what I have put together.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm
I'm open to corrections, criticism (constructive please <G>), and
changes.

I do still have more to put in, but the essence is there.

For my project, I'm still trying to define my expectations and goals. As I
mentioned, backup/archive are my greatest concern. I want something that can
_replace_ deteriorating visual media (that also implies restoration) but I
don't think that exists. It doesn't seem possible to replace a simple photo
archive with a CD/DVD. Sure, it is easy to create a photo display with
digital media but the media lacks permanence and endurance as does the
technology. Eventual failure is almost guaranteed. Eyes are the only tool
necessary to view a paper archive. Current media available to the non-pro is
entertainment-oriented and not archival.

Some of the CDs have very long projected lifetimes as far as data
storage, but they are fragile and require careful handeling.

There were some gold CDs by Kodak that were very good, but they are no
longer available as far as I can determine. There are others out
there as well that should last a long time, but the media is changing
rapidly and not always for the best.

Now that the CDs have become a relatively inexpensive commodity and
DVDs are nearing the same, it's difficult or impossible for the really
good ones to compete on a price basis. Unfortunately the demand for
cheap is much higher than the demand for high quality and long life.

Another issue: databases are neat, but I'm also leary of tools that hide
content internally. I'd prefer a db that uses a text (or maybe xml) file
that can be read by simple available tools if necessary.

If you are handy with Visual Basic, Visual C++, or Delphi it's easy to
write a program to read space, comma, or column delimited files.
I'm not sure though how this applies to photo archiving.

Those same files can easily be imported into a spreadsheet and
exported back out.

I know what you mean about time and irons, etc. I'm still a couple years
away from retirement but definitely looking forward to that day.

Let me know what you think of the article so far.

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

 

[Mr. Grinch]

Here's a preliminary of what I have put together.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm
I'm open to corrections, criticism (constructive please <G>), and
changes.

I do still have more to put in, but the essence is there.

Thank you for the link. It's a good starting point for people who are
deciding to digitize their photos.

You might spend a section or two on scanner selection and resolution
selection.

As far as archiving for longest possible storage goes, I've been doing
some thinking on this. The main point which you share, and which can't
be stressed enough, is that all storage formats have their limitations,
so the user in the end has to be aware of the care of their particular
format. The lifetime of a given format can actually be two different
things. It might be limited by deterioration. But it can also be
limited by obsolescence of the hardware or format, even if it has not
deteriorated.

To some degree, deterioration of any of the digital formats can be
managed by use of error correction in the archiving process. Some
formats have built-in error correction, but you can add more with various
data formats. You can add a lot of redundancy this way.

Obsolescense of a format can't be helped though, other than keeping
around redundant hardware to read that format.

My own thoughts are that out of the various digital formats available,
the common ones are optical disk (dvd, cd), magneto optical, magnetic
tape, and magnetic disk. Of those formats that are easy to obtain, I
would lean towards magnetic disk as being the most stable that I've used
in practice, but maybe some people have thoughts as to other digital
formats that are more stable. Of magnetic disks, SCSI seems to be a
format that's survived and will continue to be around for some time.

Also, if it comes down to data recovery, in my experience the best
recovery resources (like Ontrack) and best results are had for recovering
data off drives vs tape or optical. So if I had to pick something today,
I'd use RAR or PAR to archive the images with recovery data to an
enterprise class SCSI drive. If I was really serious about being able to
get the data off 20 years from now, I'd get two PCs with SCSI to make
sure I could read the data off, and duplicate the drives. If I
experienced SCSI drive failure, I feel my best bet would be to get the
recovery services of someone like Ontrack. I'd be tempted to call them
and ask in more detail what their expected ability to recover various
formats over time might be.

Take it all with a grain of salt. I do. This topic just got me thinking
and I appreciate the info shared and the link.

 

[BobS]

Roger,

Great start and a lot of food for thought. I see "best seller" here. And the
comments of Mr. Grinch point to some of the issues with digital media. I'm
inclined to agree that hard drives are the best storage but I'm not sure
about SCSI but RAID may be helpful. I'm almost convinced that putting pics
on digital media will inevitably result in eventual loss. But there are a
lot of advantages, too.

My comments about database comes from the way ancillary data is stored. Of
course putting more than a few pics on any drive results in identification
and naming issues. And then there is also EXIF data, tech notes, and perhaps
family notes from the back of a photo or an album page. I saw a posting
recently where the project included scanning the reverse side, too. That can
be a good idea if the pics (front and reverse) can be linked.

Several programs (I use ACDSee and Irfanview most often) allow you to create
a database of thumbs, EXIF data, and notes linked to the image.
Unfortunately, all is lost except the image when the db crashes (as they all
do sooner or later). The ancillary data would not be lost if kept in a
linked, text format external to the database. The DB would be more of a
management tool to link various files. I don't know of any such program. Of
course the downside is such a program adds more artificial structure and
failure potential but at least the text format insures easie recovery.
Anyone agree or want to take a whack at the program?

Cheers,
BobS

 

[CSM1]

Roger,

Great start and a lot of food for thought. I see "best seller" here. And the
comments of Mr. Grinch point to some of the issues with digital media. I'm
inclined to agree that hard drives are the best storage but I'm not sure
about SCSI but RAID may be helpful. I'm almost convinced that putting pics
on digital media will inevitably result in eventual loss. But there are a
lot of advantages, too.

My comments about database comes from the way ancillary data is stored. Of
course putting more than a few pics on any drive results in identification
and naming issues. And then there is also EXIF data, tech notes, and perhaps
family notes from the back of a photo or an album page. I saw a posting
recently where the project included scanning the reverse side, too. That can
be a good idea if the pics (front and reverse) can be linked.

Several programs (I use ACDSee and Irfanview most often) allow you to create
a database of thumbs, EXIF data, and notes linked to the image.
Unfortunately, all is lost except the image when the db crashes (as they all
do sooner or later). The ancillary data would not be lost if kept in a
linked, text format external to the database. The DB would be more of a
management tool to link various files. I don't know of any such program. Of
course the downside is such a program adds more artificial structure and
failure potential but at least the text format insures easie recovery.
Anyone agree or want to take a whack at the program?

Cheers,
BobS

There is a very good program that is a database and manages thumbnails very
well.
http://www.cerious.com/
The name of the program is ThumbsPlus 6.0 Pro.
It uses a Microsoft 2000 Access Database format. (A REAL database).

Information about each thumbnail is kept within the database and text
information can be stored within the Image file.
EXIF and IPTC information can be written into the image files.

 

[Hecate]

There is a very good program that is a database and manages thumbnails very
well.
http://www.cerious.com/
The name of the program is ThumbsPlus 6.0 Pro.
It uses a Microsoft 2000 Access Database format. (A REAL database).

Information about each thumbnail is kept within the database and text
information can be stored within the Image file.
EXIF and IPTC information can be written into the image files.

Exactly what I was going to say so I'll just add that TP databases can
also be copied and accessed by several database products including
Access (of course) SQL Server and MySQL. And I'm just in the process
of trying it with the new Filemaker Pro 7.

 

[BobS]

Hi CSM1,

I agree there are several databases that can functionally manage a large
number of images and associated data. However, the greater question for this
discussion is whether they are useful for long term archiving and retrieval.
And thumbs are not a real issue since they can always be recreated by any
number of available tools.

My concern is the other information that cannot be easily recreated. For
example, I would really be pissed if I spent hundreds of hours cataloging my
dad's photos including data entry of notes on album pages and photo backs,
my own thoughts, etc., and then the database crashed, or the program became
unavailable, or any number of disasters occurred and I lost it all. My
thought was that at least with a text-based database, I can retrieve all or
most of the data. And it is highly likely that 50 years from now someone can
do the same without (or at least fewer) special tools.

Cheers,
BobS

 

[Mr. Grinch]

Hi CSM1,

I agree there are several databases that can functionally manage a
large number of images and associated data. However, the greater
question for this discussion is whether they are useful for long term
archiving and retrieval. And thumbs are not a real issue since they
can always be recreated by any number of available tools.

My concern is the other information that cannot be easily recreated.
For example, I would really be pissed if I spent hundreds of hours
cataloging my dad's photos including data entry of notes on album
pages and photo backs, my own thoughts, etc., and then the database
crashed, or the program became unavailable, or any number of disasters
occurred and I lost it all. My thought was that at least with a
text-based database, I can retrieve all or most of the data. And it is
highly likely that 50 years from now someone can do the same without
(or at least fewer) special tools.

The range of solutions, both in price and complexity, varies greatly too.
So far, most of the discussion here has been on single-user applications to
archive photos. The example commonly used is a home user who wants some
way to archive their images and still have it in a useable, stable format
10 or 20 years or more from now.

The other range of solutions can be found in corporate document management
solutions. Some examples might be something as simple as scanning and
automating invoices, but at the extremes we have scans of very critical or
sensitive data, such as medical imaging or passport photo security. In
many cases there are legal requirements for keeping the data a certain
number of years. They tend to be very expensive solutions and even then
sometimes don't meet some of the basic requirements and end up being
scrapped or replaced.

They're not something that's cost effective for the single user who wants
to archive their images for as long as possible, but still they are
interesting to research, if only to get ideas and see what works and what
doesn't.

When someone mentioned a text based database with images, the first thing
that came to my mind was HTML. Easy to search, easy to copy, and it's safe
to say there will be software around to support it for quite some time to
come.

 

[CSM1]

Hello BobS,

ThumbsPlus, like all computer based data systems must be regularly backed
up.
If you want a text file backup of ThumbsPlus, you can export the database to
a text file.

ThumbsPlus uses a single Access database file to store most of its
information. You can store some information within the image files such as
IPTC information and Comments, which ThumbPlus can read. Images made with
Digital cameras have EXIF information within the image file. With User
Fields the EXIF information can be stored in the ThumbsPlus Database also.

ThumbsPlus' best feature is the Searchable Keywords. The next good feature
is the Galleries.

Go to www.cerious.com and read, read.

You may want to read the Cerious news archives.
Add an account to your News reader.
news.cerious.com