Strategy for scanning complete 35mm negative collection

[redtag]

Guys,
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and have played succesfully with scanning my
35mm negatives. Works a treat. However I have several years worth of
negatives to get through!
Can someone share practical advise on how to go about this? I was
thinking of using the scanner as a catalogue device and just save a
thumbnail of all negatives, and correlate them to the negatives. I
would scan a negative, save the thumbnail and file the negative.
Then I can go through the thumbnails and select the pictures I want to
scan. More importantly my wife and kids can look at the thumbnails and
pick out individual pictures as well.
Any thoughts on that? Can I save just the thumbnails on the Nikon?
Should I just scan all the negatives first time round - will take a
looonnngggg time
Cheers

 

[CSM1]

Guys,
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and have played succesfully with scanning my
35mm negatives. Works a treat. However I have several years worth of
negatives to get through!
Can someone share practical advise on how to go about this? I was
thinking of using the scanner as a catalogue device and just save a
thumbnail of all negatives, and correlate them to the negatives. I
would scan a negative, save the thumbnail and file the negative.
Then I can go through the thumbnails and select the pictures I want to
scan. More importantly my wife and kids can look at the thumbnails and
pick out individual pictures as well.
Any thoughts on that? Can I save just the thumbnails on the Nikon?
Should I just scan all the negatives first time round - will take a
looonnngggg time
Cheers

There is no one way to do it. It just takes a long time to scan all of the
negatives and slides.

I made a huge mistake, I was thinking that I could catalog all of the film
at a low resolution and then rescan selected images. It did not happen!

I recommend that you scan everything at the best resolution of the scanner,
because good intentions don't always work.

 

[Noons]

I recommend that you scan everything at the best resolution of the scanner,
because good intentions don't always work.

for the same reasons: buy some archival storage sleeves and
keep those negatives and slides in them. Store them in a binder,
vertically instead of stacked on top of each other.

It is a LOT cheaper than buying extra disk space to store
everything at max rez and you'll inevitably find anyway that
today's top rez is tomorrow's crap technology...

 

[romeo]

for the same reasons: buy some archival storage sleeves and
keep those negatives and slides in them. Store them in a binder,
vertically instead of stacked on top of each other.

It is a LOT cheaper than buying extra disk space to store
everything at max rez and you'll inevitably find anyway that
today's top rez is tomorrow's crap technology...

I agree. I have found in my case with forty years of tranys, that you
may as well do them (right), high rez the first time, put them on CD's
or DVD's,make thumnails to look at (many programs will do that).
But save them Hi-rez before they color shift on you. I keep the
original negs stored vertical in file cabinets, but that takes up a
whole 9x12 room. DVD's take up much less room and are available quick.
I'm a pro., most people don't have a room to dedicate, I won't have one
forever either. "As long as we have electricity".

 

[sprimaging]

I would scan in LAB if you can.

Stiv

 

[Noons]

I would scan in LAB if you can.

Pray tell?
I'm keeping mine directly into TIFF uncompressed
(it's what vuescan calls "raw") but I'm interested
on why LAB?

 

[cubilcle281]

It is safe to say that we are at the theoretical limit of 35mm scanning
as far as resolution is concerned. If you are able to resolve more
than 5400dpi then good luck to you!! In my case, 2700dpi was more than
enough, although this was with 400ASA film.

Given that the majority of the time is loading & unloading the film, I
would suggest doing raw scans (including an IR channel if you can) of
everything at max-rez. Disk space and/or offline storage is cheap.

Print contact sheets or create thumbnails from your raw scans, then you
can tidy up whatever you decide which photos are worth the pain. In
the meantime, you have a complete archive of your film which can be
safely stored offsite.

I truly believe if you approach it any other way you will never get
around to finishing. At least this way, you have archivable data from
day 1.

C

 

[Roger]

Guys,
I have a Nikon Coolscan IV and have played succesfully with scanning my
35mm negatives. Works a treat. However I have several years worth of
negatives to get through!

That all? <)
I had the "old family slides" and historical stuff.

Can someone share practical advise on how to go about this? I was

Possibly this may help: http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm It
was recently updated, but could use some proof reading. Socially
acceptable suggestions are welcome too.

thinking of using the scanner as a catalogue device and just save a
thumbnail of all negatives, and correlate them to the negatives. I
would scan a negative, save the thumbnail and file the negative.
Then I can go through the thumbnails and select the pictures I want to
scan. More importantly my wife and kids can look at the thumbnails and
pick out individual pictures as well.

I find thumbnails to be a tad small, but what ever works. You can
create a catalog of thumbnails by category, date, subject, or any
other criteria and then link them to the full size scans. I'm not
referring to the thumbnails you get in the directories as those can
take a very long time to load if the directory is large and the images
are large.

Any thoughts on that? Can I save just the thumbnails on the Nikon?
Should I just scan all the negatives first time round - will take a
looonnngggg time

I'm well past a year and a half, the end is still not in site, and I
haven't even started to really old prints. (there are even a few
tintypes in there) That's using a Nikon LS5000 ED with an auto feeder
for slides. It will also scan film strips (negatives or positives)

Don't forget a *good* back up system and a *good* filing system. If
you can't find them they aren't much good.

I store images on DVD as well as on-line. I now have over 3 terabytes
of HD storage and two large stacks (redundant) of DVD archival
storage.

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

 

[Roger]

for the same reasons: buy some archival storage sleeves and
keep those negatives and slides in them. Store them in a binder,
vertically instead of stacked on top of each other.

I store both my negatives and slides this way with a DVD inside the
front and rear cover of the book.

It is a LOT cheaper than buying extra disk space to store
everything at max rez and you'll inevitably find anyway that
today's top rez is tomorrow's crap technology...

If the resolution is good enough today it'll probably be good enough
tomorrow... IF you can find the hard ware and soft ware that will
display it.

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

 

[Noons]

cubilcle281 apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 3:24 PM:

It is safe to say that we are at the theoretical limit of 35mm scanning
as far as resolution is concerned. If you are able to resolve more
than 5400dpi then good luck to you!! In my case, 2700dpi was more than
enough, although this was with 400ASA film.

Not so sure. Yes, I agree: 2700 might be enough for 400 ASA.
But Velvia? I'm scanning some at 4800 and quite frankly,
it could be a lot better. So could some of my old K25 slides.
As well, I'm not convinced that 8 bpp colour is the be all
end all: I think there is an advantage in scanning at 12
or even 16 and STAY there for the image file: by the time
we've done all the compensations for colour levels (still have
to see a scanner that doesn't need some) we've opened BIG holes
in that 8bpp 0-255 range.

As well, I think that most modern scanners - particularly the
flatbed combination ones - do a lousy job of proper focusing.
They all show great depth of field at 300dpi. But at 4800?
My Epson 4990 goes all fuzzy and halo'd if the film emulsion
side is anywhere over 1/32" away from he glass surface. I had
to ditch the provided masks to scan film strips and make my own
to get this thing to focus properly at high rez. Sure: things
like a LS-8000 might do a better job. So would a Tango.
Problem is: both are still waaaaay out of the price range of the
common amateur out there.

So it's still very much a hit and miss affair, no matter how
many zeros makers stick in front of their max rez...

Given that the majority of the time is loading & unloading the film, I
would suggest doing raw scans (including an IR channel if you can) of
everything at max-rez. Disk space and/or offline storage is cheap.

I beg to disagree. Loading and unloading film in a flatbed
is nothing compared to how long it takes to scan the lot.
And as for disk space? Well, a 35mm slide scanned at 4800dpi/16bit
with IR channel is a 170MB "raw" TIFF file. It doesn't take many of
those to fill up how many disks you might want to throw at
it. Four images in a normal CD, tops. And I won't commit long
term images to a DVD: the format doesn't have error correction to
start with like CDs do, too risky.

Particularly if one is scanning an entire collection, I'm not so
sure that digital storage alone is the solution. Yet.

Print contact sheets or create thumbnails from your raw scans, then you
can tidy up whatever you decide which photos are worth the pain. In
the meantime, you have a complete archive of your film which can be
safely stored offsite.

Well yes, that is assuming I can get all of them scanned in a lifetime.
At well over a thousand slides and a few thousand negatives, and at
the rates it takes me to scan at max rez/max bits, I'll be dead before
the whole thing is done. Sorry, not convinced.

Like I said: this is now. Give it another 5 years and it might start
to be feasible. Meanwhile, I'm scanning very old stuff that is in
risk of flaking off and keeping the rest in as near to archival as
I can get. And happily using film for my current stuff as well,
so it's not getting any smaller...

 

[Noons]

Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:19 PM:

If the resolution is good enough today it'll probably be good enough
tomorrow... IF you can find the hard ware and soft ware that will
display it.

A very gfood point indeed. It's not easy.

 

[Noons]

Roger apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 4:17 PM:

Don't forget a *good* back up system and a *good* filing system. If
you can't find them they aren't much good.

Yup. As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of "if" you'll
lose digital data, it's a matter of "when".

I store images on DVD as well as on-line. I now have over 3 terabytes
of HD storage and two large stacks (redundant) of DVD archival
storage.

Jim Gray, a research scientist for Microsoft, describes
something he calls the "personal Petabyte" as the amount of
storage needed to adequately digitize one's entire life,
including images, text and video. That's 1000 terabytes.
A long way to go, eh?

 

[Wilfred]

cubilcle281 apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 3:24 PM:



Not so sure. Yes, I agree: 2700 might be enough for 400 ASA.
But Velvia? I'm scanning some at 4800 and quite frankly,
it could be a lot better.

That is because you're using a *flatbed* scanner with 4800 ppi optical
resolution. The effective resolution of an Epson 4990 is somewhere
between 1600 and 2000 ppi.

 

[Noons]

Wilfred apparently said,on my timestamp of 6/10/2005 7:55 PM:

That is because you're using a *flatbed* scanner with 4800 ppi optical
resolution. The effective resolution of an Epson 4990 is somewhere
between 1600 and 2000 ppi.

I'm sorry, that sort of relativeness gives me a headache.
I go from what the makers say and 4800 is not enough
to stretch Velvia. If their inch is larger than someone
else, that's completely out of my control. And anyone
else's as well.

 

[Roger]

It is safe to say that we are at the theoretical limit of 35mm scanning
as far as resolution is concerned. If you are able to resolve more
than 5400dpi then good luck to you!! In my case, 2700dpi was more than
enough, although this was with 400ASA film.

Given that the majority of the time is loading & unloading the film, I
would suggest doing raw scans (including an IR channel if you can) of

I don't think you will find scans to be RAW in the sense of RAW from a
camera. Second, it's a very good idea to do any dust and scratch
removal at scan time using ICE which shouldn't degrade the image
quality. I had some problems with early versions, but every thing in
the last year and a half has worked very well. ICE works far better
than any post processing I've seen.

everything at max-rez. Disk space and/or offline storage is cheap.

Tis true it's *relatively* cheap, but at max res those files are
*big*. At 4000 dpi they are 60 some Meg at 8 bit color depth and 128
megs at 16 bit color depth. I now have over 3 terabytes on HD
storage here. The computers are fairly powerful for image processing
and have both internal and external drives. Right now two of the
computers have dual external USB drives. These have the advantage
they don't add any extra load to the computer power supply.

The computer to my right has a pair of 200 Gig SATA drives in a
striped RAID along with a pair of 300 Gig USB drives.

Print contact sheets or create thumbnails from your raw scans, then you
can tidy up whatever you decide which photos are worth the pain. In

I scan at max resolution, then run a macro in Photoshop CS to create
screen size jpgs. This can be done simpler and far cheaper with
Jasc's Paint Shop Pro and without a learning curve as steep as
Photoshop. . This gives me images plenty large enough to evaluate
while running them through the Windows image viewer. From the JPG I
can make the decision as to whether I want to edit, save as it, or
scrap the image. I edit from the TIFF. The computer is a 64 bit 3.4
Gig Athlon XP plus with 2 Gigs of DDR 400 MHz RAM and I still load it
down.

the meantime, you have a complete archive of your film which can be
safely stored offsite.

For an archive you normally want full resolution and the film will
likely last as long as any digital media, or rather the means to
easily read the media. I store on line on two different computers and
archive onto DVDs with one set here and another elsewhere. Remember,
there are all kinds of claims for CDs and DVDs and some of them might
be right, but no one knows for sure.

I truly believe if you approach it any other way you will never get
around to finishing. At least this way, you have archivable data from
day 1.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I keep my negatives and slides in notebooks
with DVDs in the front and back of those notebooks. They are indexed
and cataloged. I have 18 inch and a half thick notebooks full of
slides and film strips. So far... <) I have over 2000 negatives
to go and over 200# of old prints I haven't even started on.

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

C

Roger

 

[CSM1]

That all? <)
I had the "old family slides" and historical stuff.


Possibly this may help: http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm It
was recently updated, but could use some proof reading. Socially
acceptable suggestions are welcome too.


I find thumbnails to be a tad small, but what ever works. You can
create a catalog of thumbnails by category, date, subject, or any
other criteria and then link them to the full size scans. I'm not
referring to the thumbnails you get in the directories as those can
take a very long time to load if the directory is large and the images
are large.


I'm well past a year and a half, the end is still not in site, and I
haven't even started to really old prints. (there are even a few
tintypes in there) That's using a Nikon LS5000 ED with an auto feeder
for slides. It will also scan film strips (negatives or positives)

Don't forget a *good* back up system and a *good* filing system. If
you can't find them they aren't much good.

I store images on DVD as well as on-line. I now have over 3 terabytes
of HD storage and two large stacks (redundant) of DVD archival
storage.

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

A good Cataloging/Thumbnailing Database is ThumbsPlus.
Thumbnail size is adjustable on creation of database.

For large databases (over 2 GB), ThumbsPlus can use a SQL database engine.
Such as Mysql.

http://www.cerious.com/

 

[redtag]

Thanks everyone.

So, I think you are all saying "do the best full scan that you can, and
stop moaning"

If I want thumbnails, then buy some software and create those
afterwards from the FULL scans.

Final question, should I use the standard supplied Nikon software, or
are there any great time advantages in using Vuescan? Would it be
quicker? Could I then use post scan processing - so saving time?

Cheers

 

[Don]

Pray tell?
I'm keeping mine directly into TIFF uncompressed
(it's what vuescan calls "raw") but I'm interested
on why LAB?

Probably because of gamut. LAB is much wider than all flavors of RGB.

Don.

 

[Don]

And I won't commit long
term images to a DVD: the format doesn't have error correction to
start with like CDs do, too risky.

Actually, DVDs *do* have error correction. Indeed, much more than CDs!
About 10 times more which is way beyond increased relative capacity!

So, taking into account the increase in capacity vs increase in error
correction, DVDs are actually *much safer* than CDs.

Don.

 

[Don]

Second, it's a very good idea to do any dust and scratch
removal at scan time using ICE which shouldn't degrade the image
quality.

Not much, although there will be some softening. To my eyes
(subjectively), and as an unexpected positive side effect, this also
acts as mild "grain reduction" without the "plastic" look of various
grain reduction programs out there.

ICE works far better than any post processing I've seen.

I'd second that! ICE 4 on my LS-50 is very, very good!

For an archive you normally want full resolution and the film will
likely last as long as any digital media, or rather the means to
easily read the media.

The key here is not the literal longevity of digital media but the
ability to copy this media *losslessly* ad infinitum!

So, once the media approaches the end of its life, simply back it up
before the media disintegrates. (This will be done anyway for other
reasons - see below.)

In the meantime, film will continue to deteriorate steadily.

I see digitizing, or scanning, as basically freezing this film
deterioration. Once "frozen" it can be maintained virtually forever.

This will involve making occasional copies (as indicated above) but
that's not really a problem as new archiving media with increased
capacity leapfrogs the previous generation. So, we're likely to copy
it *anyway* long before the original media deteriorates simply for
practical reasons i.e. 10 DVDs take less physical space than 60 CDs
and pretty soon they will be replaced by a single (Blue Ray) HD DVD!

Don.