Scanning service or DIY?

[jboyce]

I have a set of ~2500 color negatives (in strips of 4) that I would
like to digitize and archive. Basically all of my personal photographs
until ~5 years ago when I went digital. As I see it I have two
choices:

(1) Use a scanning service like Digital Pickle to do it for me, at a
cost of around $0.55 per photo (say $1300 total), or
(2) Buy a scanner and do it myself (say $600 for a lower-end Nikon)

I tend to prefer option (2), since I would be able to control the
scanning settings and quality. However, I am worried about just how
big a job I am signing on for. That's around 650 negative strips to
feed in manually, which sounds like quite an undertaking.

Can anyone advise me on this situation? And for the DIY option, any
tip on what scanner/software to use to optimize the workflow? Many
thanks,

Jack

 

[Roger]

I have a set of ~2500 color negatives (in strips of 4) that I would
like to digitize and archive. Basically all of my personal photographs
until ~5 years ago when I went digital. As I see it I have two
choices:

(1) Use a scanning service like Digital Pickle to do it for me, at a
cost of around $0.55 per photo (say $1300 total), or
(2) Buy a scanner and do it myself (say $600 for a lower-end Nikon)

I tend to prefer option (2), since I would be able to control the
scanning settings and quality. However, I am worried about just how
big a job I am signing on for. That's around 650 negative strips to
feed in manually, which sounds like quite an undertaking.

Can anyone advise me on this situation? And for the DIY option, any
tip on what scanner/software to use to optimize the workflow? Many
thanks,

Feeding the negative strips is the easy part.
There is usually a bit of a learning curve. Depending on the
equipment and software that can sometimes be pretty steep.

As for the 0.55 per photo for scanning, at what resolution is that?
I think the rate around here is close to a $1.00 each but that is at
4000 dpi and they do clean the negatives if they need it.

If you plan on scanning at 4000 dpi you are looking at a lot of
storage. about 65 megs for 8 bit color depth and 128 Megs for 16 bit
color depth. That is a lot of storage (over 162 Gig at 8 bits) and
DVDs. At least 34 at 8 bit and 68 at 16 bit color depth. Multiply
that by two for a back up and put them some where safe at another
location.

You also need a good program to process the images as you will
probably discover you want to "play" with the images a bit. Don't
forget a good naming convention so you can find particular images
later on.

I put my negatives in archival sleeves/pages in a notebook with each
image numbered. I also put the backup DVDs in the front and back of
the note book and another set of DVDs at another location. I now also
use external USB drives for backup, but I've gone through well over
20,000 slides and negatives and still have a ways to go before I even
get to the old prints.

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

 

[Don]

I have a set of ~2500 color negatives (in strips of 4) that I would
like to digitize and archive. Basically all of my personal photographs
until ~5 years ago when I went digital. As I see it I have two
choices:

(1) Use a scanning service like Digital Pickle to do it for me, at a
cost of around $0.55 per photo (say $1300 total), or
(2) Buy a scanner and do it myself (say $600 for a lower-end Nikon)

I tend to prefer option (2), since I would be able to control the
scanning settings and quality. However, I am worried about just how
big a job I am signing on for. That's around 650 negative strips to
feed in manually, which sounds like quite an undertaking.

Can anyone advise me on this situation? And for the DIY option, any
tip on what scanner/software to use to optimize the workflow? Many
thanks,

Yes, DIY certainly gives you more flexibility but it does come at a
price - and I don't mean the scanner price. Nikon V aka Nikon LS-50
will do the negatives wonderfully and ICE4 (automatic cleaning of dust
and scratches) is just fantastic! Considering cost per photo a
scanning service wants, which cost you save by doing it yourself, that
will pay for the scanner and then some (given ~2500 pics).

The cost I'm referring to is time. The initial scanning is actually
not going to take that long, relatively speaking. Once you've played
around a bit and settled on a workflow it should go quite fast.

The key question is what quality are you after and how much image
editing you want to do afterwards. Most people who digitize their
analog film scan at full resolution and bit depth (without any editing
i.e. "scan raw") and then archive such images. In that way you have
"frozen" any further deterioration of film.

After that you edit such images in an external editor (which is
another thing you have to budget for). After that, usually, resolution
is reduced and images are converted to JPG so they can all be put up
on a web page or sent to relatives on a CD. Some people also print. By
having the above unedited archive copy if at a later date (as
technology progresses) you need to create larger JPGs to fill the new
bigger screens you can always do that by going to the unedited archive
version i.e. you don't have to scan again.

One problem with a service is that you are stuck with the edits they
perform. You may be able to get them to provide two images per scan (a
"raw" and an "edited" one) but it will probably come at a price.

And last, but not least, a service will not provide the "love and
affection" you will. For them it's a conveyer belt process using the
lowest common denominator. They will not agonize over individual
images in order to squeeze out every pixel as you may if that image
has a particular meaning to you. On the other hand, they do have the
expertise and experience.

Don.

 

[Robert Feinman]

I have a set of ~2500 color negatives (in strips of 4) that I would
like to digitize and archive. Basically all of my personal photographs
until ~5 years ago when I went digital. As I see it I have two
choices:

(1) Use a scanning service like Digital Pickle to do it for me, at a
cost of around $0.55 per photo (say $1300 total), or
(2) Buy a scanner and do it myself (say $600 for a lower-end Nikon)

I tend to prefer option (2), since I would be able to control the
scanning settings and quality. However, I am worried about just how
big a job I am signing on for. That's around 650 negative strips to
feed in manually, which sounds like quite an undertaking.

Can anyone advise me on this situation? And for the DIY option, any
tip on what scanner/software to use to optimize the workflow? Many
thanks,

Jack

Why do you want to do this? Do you think the digital copies will last
better than the film?
I suggest storing your existing film in an archival fashion and only
scanning images when you have an immediate use for a specific one.
If you are thinking of creating a searchable index from the scanned
images you will need to tag each one, also not a short term project.

 

[Roger]

Why do you want to do this? Do you think the digital copies will last
better than the film?
I suggest storing your existing film in an archival fashion and only
scanning images when you have an immediate use for a specific one.
If you are thinking of creating a searchable index from the scanned
images you will need to tag each one, also not a short term project.

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm Will give an idea as to
what is involved, storage concerns, indexing, ... etc...

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

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Roger ([email protected]) wrote in

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm Will give an idea as to
what is involved, storage concerns, indexing, ... etc...

An excellent resource. I'd already started to make a few "back of the
envelope" calculations for what I'd need but this saves a lot of figuring
that out. Thanks!

 

[Don]

Do you think the digital copies will last
better than the film?

Digital images last forever while analog images deteriorate over time.

Don't confuse images with media. The media will eventually
disintegrate whether it's analog or digital.

However, the advantage of digital media is that one can make a
*lossless* and *identical* copy before the media self-destructs. This
can't be done with analog media. Each analog copy reduces quality.

Therefore, once in the digital domain the image will last forever
without further deterioration which alone is a good reason to scan.

Don.

 

[John]

Digital images last forever while analog images deteriorate over time.

Don't confuse images with media. The media will eventually
disintegrate whether it's analog or digital.

However, the advantage of digital media is that one can make a
*lossless* and *identical* copy before the media self-destructs. This
can't be done with analog media. Each analog copy reduces quality.

Therefore, once in the digital domain the image will last forever
without further deterioration which alone is a good reason to scan.

Don.

As always, that's the theory. However, in my experience, the only way to
absolutely ensure that backups get done is if they are mechanised and are
done automatically. If it requires someone to think 'Oh, I think it's time I
did a backup', you can bet that it won't get done, because it will be
followed by 'I'll do it tomorrow'

The problem with digital media is that it is so convenient and yet so
volatile. If I scratch a neg or a tranny, at worst it is one shot lost; at
best, I can repair it when I print it. With a CD or DVD, one scratch
destroys 100's of images, unrecoverable, lost forever, the lot! Of course,
you'll have your backup disc - the one you were going to make tomorrow

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Digital images last forever

Long, maybe. But certainly not "forever".

 

[Roger]

Roger ([email protected]) wrote in


An excellent resource. I'd already started to make a few "back of the
envelope" calculations for what I'd need but this saves a lot of figuring
that out. Thanks!

You're quite welcome.

Doing "the old family slides" and prints, and negatives, and
antique...stuff I decided to write down what I was doing and then
figured maybe some one else might find it useful or at least hoped so.

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

 

[TJ]

As far as the backing up issue and issues surrounding permanent
storage, I would suggest a reputable online file storage site.
Specifically, a photo storage site such as Flickr.

 

[Don]

As always, that's the theory. However, in my experience, the only way to
absolutely ensure that backups get done is if they are mechanised and are
done automatically. If it requires someone to think 'Oh, I think it's time I
did a backup', you can bet that it won't get done, because it will be
followed by 'I'll do it tomorrow'

I know! It does require some self-discipline. Another thing is
that all the longevity predictions the industry is telling us are, at
best, circumstantial guesses or, at worst, wishful thinking/rumors
spread by advertising departments.

The problem with digital media is that it is so convenient and yet so
volatile. If I scratch a neg or a tranny, at worst it is one shot lost; at
best, I can repair it when I print it. With a CD or DVD, one scratch
destroys 100's of images, unrecoverable, lost forever, the lot! Of course,
you'll have your backup disc - the one you were going to make tomorrow

Or, in my, case 2 backup copies! So in case of a corruption I can
do "best of 3". Not as good as NASA, though, which does "best of 5"
with their 5 onboard computers for each system.

But you're right. Digital media is very flimsy compared to things like
stone tablets or even paper (which is actually a very good backup
medium).

That's why I never use compression. Even if one bit is off in a ZIP
file the whole file is (virtually) unrecoverable. On the other hand,
an uncompressed file can sustain quite a lot of abuse and I treat
those lost bits as "digital dust" to coin a phrase - actually I like
that! ) Officially it's called "digital rust" but in case of images
"dust" sounds much better! )

What's worse is that with each new generation of media data density
increases which only makes matters worse in case of damage. A spec on
a floppy may nuke a sector or two. The same spec on a DVD will
probably obliterate several files.

Don.

 

[Don]

Long, maybe. But certainly not "forever".

Actually they do last forever because a digital image is a concept,
not a tangible thing. The key is that a digital image is totally
divorced from the media which is what makes it virtually
indestructible regardless of how volatile the media is.

Now, you may say, an image on film is also a concept. And that's true
but the problem is there's no (easy) way to replicate that image
losslessly. The key is that an image on film is inextricably bound to
the media and that makes it as vulnerable as the media.

Don.

 

[Don]

As far as the backing up issue and issues surrounding permanent
storage, I would suggest a reputable online file storage site.
Specifically, a photo storage site such as Flickr.

Yes, that's a very good option for a number of reasons (offsite
storage, for one) although there are problems as well.

It does have to be a reputable site but also one needs a fast
connection and the data should be encoded before uploading.

Don.

 

[theo]

Roger offers good words on the procedural, dollar, and hardware
considerations for DIY < http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm >.
However, I find large limitations and opportunity costs of diverting my
time, my life's chances to enjoy the company of my wife, my family, my
other interests outside of wage-slave time. Jack, how old are your
parents, your wife's parents, your children? Do you hope to share these
digitized images as a nostalgia or family-building tool before they pass
on to grave or teenage-dom? Then, as several have suggested already,
building the text descriptions to attach the significance to each image
will be as tedious and time-intensive as the [feeding the film strips]
chapter to this epic. For the same time I sit next to my scanners I am
discarding possible moments of family/community trust time.
YMMV: I'm working in mixed media spanning 100+ years.
Regards,
Theo

 

[Roger]

Roger offers good words on the procedural, dollar, and hardware
considerations for DIY < http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm >.
However, I find large limitations and opportunity costs of diverting my
time, my life's chances to enjoy the company of my wife, my family, my
other interests outside of wage-slave time. Jack, how old are your
parents, your wife's parents, your children? Do you hope to share these
digitized images as a nostalgia or family-building tool before they pass
on to grave or teenage-dom? Then, as several have suggested already,
building the text descriptions to attach the significance to each image
will be as tedious and time-intensive as the [feeding the film strips]
chapter to this epic. For the same time I sit next to my scanners I am
discarding possible moments of family/community trust time.
YMMV: I'm working in mixed media spanning 100+ years.

Theo is speaking the truth. It takes hundreds of hours to scan much
volume. As I mentioned earlier I'm past 20,000 and more likely 30,000
scans. I probably have closer to a 1000 hours total and most still
need descriptions added. Unfortunately those who know who was in what
photo when it comes to the older ones have long since departed.

I'd liken a scanning project to that of Genealogy and the family tree.
You only need add a bio along with the position on the family tree and
you are there.

Me? I not only do a lot of photography and scanning, I'm an
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/#IN (lots of links to photos)
instrument rated pilot who loves to fly, I'm building an airplane
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/G3_files/GIII_Diary.htm
which is a two seat 335 MPH aerobatic hot rod and as I am required to
keep a construction diary I keep it on line. I'm an Amateur radio
operator with a large antenna system which I installed my self
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/tower.htm
including all the climbing. Although rusty, my code proficiency is
still above 20 words per minute. I'm restoring a few very old and
heavy amateur stations out in the shop. Computers are another hobby
and I have 4 with more on-line storage than many corporations. They
average over 4 large hard drives each. (over a terabyte each) They
are in a constant state of upgrade with the oldest representing year
old technology.
I also take care of several Internet sites and on-line monthly news
letters. I probably spend *about* 6 hours a day, 7 days a week on
the computers excluding photography. They were my profession and I
just seem to have stuck to them.

The above is just a part of the things with which I am involved so you
can see why I agree with Theo.

Good luck,

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

 

[Roger]

As far as the backing up issue and issues surrounding permanent
storage, I would suggest a reputable online file storage site.
Specifically, a photo storage site such as Flickr.

I guess I'm just paranoid, but having worked in industry a good many
years, I don't trust any one else with my data even if keeping it up
(and backed up) is a lot of time and effort.

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

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I know! It does require some self-discipline.

And more than that. Some time before I went on my latest "big trip" I
set up my laptop (mostly my "development machine") to do weekly complete
backups to an external drive.

When I came back from my trip it took a while to realize that after the
initial set of backups, nothing had been done - not *until* I left, and
certainly not after I came back (the machines were switched off while I
was away).

It took another (considerable) while to find that not weekly backups had
been happeneing because (fore reasons I can't remember) I had disabled
the scheduler service.

Regular backups require more than a quick setting-them-up-and-go-away.
Testing over a period *longer* than you have scheduled for is essential,
too.

 

[Roger]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in


And more than that. Some time before I went on my latest "big trip" I
set up my laptop (mostly my "development machine") to do weekly complete
backups to an external drive.

Ain't computers wonderful. They do *exactly* as we tell them when they
are working, and whether what we asked for was really what we
wanted<) When they are not working it gets interesting. I had one
on the network get confused this week. There were two directories on
another machine. They were installed as virtual drives on this
machine. However this computer thought drive X was actually drive Y
and drive Y was actually Drive X. It did this while showing you the
directory you *thought* you were using. So, when going to the other
machine I couldn't find the data. So I did a search and found the
data in the wrong drive. It took a reboot of both machines to
"unconfuse" them.

When I came back from my trip it took a while to realize that after the
initial set of backups, nothing had been done - not *until* I left, and
certainly not after I came back (the machines were switched off while I
was away).

I've had the same problem. I guess I can tell my wife ours is not the
only home where some one snuck in and turned off all the computers. Is
this a new form of crime?

It took another (considerable) while to find that not weekly backups had
been happeneing because (fore reasons I can't remember) I had disabled
the scheduler service.

Strange device that scheduler. It does what you tell it, not what you
wanted. <)

Regular backups require more than a quick setting-them-up-and-go-away.
Testing over a period *longer* than you have scheduled for is essential,
too.

*Thorough testing* and some form of verifying what you have now is
the same as what you had when you started.

I was the project manager for an FDA validated Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS). As it was used in the medical industry,
validation was far different that what most engineers call project
validation. We had to test every function of the system and every
line of code. As an example when ready to log in you did a print
screen. Then you entered the name and PW and did a print screen. Then
you pressed <enter> and did a print screen to show the result. Then
we had to do the whole thing over with a valid account name plus one
character and again minus one character. The same was done for the PW.
So you can imagine how much work this was AFTER we logged in and
stated data entry.

We started with a one inch hi stack of instructions. The printouts
created a stack between three and four feet high.

On top of that was the data retention AND records retention policies
and requirements ..<sigh>. I don't think I want to go there<)

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

 

[Peter D]

As always, that's the theory.

It's also true for all those who practice good practices. I think a lot of
people miss a perfectly simple way of creating multiple and restorable
digital copies -- give them away! For example, if Uncle John makes digital
copies of all his family photos, enough to store on 10 DVDs and then gives
all 14 members of his family a set for their own use, he greatly increases
the possibility that a full set can be recreated form all the others --
especially if those family members make duplicate sets and give them away to
other family members.

It's sort of similar to the way Usenet works. Not all servers have all parts
of all messages, but most servers have most parts of most messages. That
makes it possible to reconstruct a message from multiple parts of different
servers located in different parts of the planet, creating a whole.

The problem with digital media is that it is so convenient and yet so
volatile. If I scratch a neg or a tranny, at worst it is one shot lost; at
best, I can repair it when I print it. With a CD or DVD, one scratch
destroys 100's of images, unrecoverable, lost forever, the lot!

True in part. Depending on the length, direction, and depth of the scratch,
a little as none and as many as more than that will be lost. However, it
doesn't matter if you shared. See, sharing is good.