Yippee!

[Surfer!]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I don't know how much [the FH-3] is but I do know it's pricey. It's
just Nikon trying to squeeze out every penny. :-/ I think it's
despicable because the film holder is a "must have". As I say they did
include it with the LS-30 but not with LS-50!?

The salesman at my photography shop said pretty much the same thing...
they can ask what they want: if you need it you need it and there's no
way around it! SoNkon can ask whatever they like for the thingy. The
darned thing cost me almost EUR 48! But I guess if you really only scan
slides, you wouldn't need it.

I was thinking it would be an *awful* lot more than EU 48 - 3 figures
were looming! £20.76 on Amazon with free delivery - I won't be bidding
much for one on Ebay at that price. I know I have short bits of
negatives and so on to scan once I start on the films.

 

[Don]

I am scanning them all as it's too hard for me to tell what has some
value of some kind eyeballing the slides - and also since I have an
SF-200 it's easy to scan the whole lot.

I have to do it all manually but I don't mind. Considering how much
film and photos I've lost over the years (moving, etc.) what's left is
really precious regardless of what it may look like at a first glance.

However I am cleaning hem all
with a soft blower brush before scanning - not such an issue with
non-Kodachrome, but where I can't use ICE...

Since most of mine are Kodachromes ICE is not really an option so I'm
very meticulous about cleaning them. First, I wipe them with the
microfiber cloth before putting the film in the holder. Next, I took
the blow brush apart and then use the brush part to "swirl" it around
the film ("rotating" the brush in the corners works miracles!).
Finally, I use the bulb part alone to send jets of air and remove any
remaining dust. I find this works much better than blowing air through
the brush as it seems to dissipate the air. Some people actually use
an air compressor (or air cans) to achieve the same effect.

Certainly some of my slides have an unexpected interest now, given the
changes in the past 30 years. One thing is how free of cars the roads
used to be. Another is my slides of beautiful formations in caves which
are in many cases now damaged to a greater or lesser degree.

That's the thing. Our memory plays tricks, as we all know, and we
often remember things "wrong". I had quite a few surprises too as I
scan not to mention those I-forgot-all-about-that moments.

Also, I always had the tendency to sometimes take pictures of
"boring", mundane, everyday things just "for the record". These days
some of those are quite revealing and I'm really glad I took them.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Since most of mine are Kodachromes ICE is not really an option so I'm
very meticulous about cleaning them. First, I wipe them with the
microfiber cloth before putting the film in the holder. Next, I took
the blow brush apart and then use the brush part to "swirl" it around
the film ("rotating" the brush in the corners works miracles!).
Finally, I use the bulb part alone to send jets of air and remove any
remaining dust. I find this works much better than blowing air through
the brush as it seems to dissipate the air. Some people actually use
an air compressor (or air cans) to achieve the same effect.

Aha. At the store I could choose between a bulb with only an air
"spout" and one with a brush. I chose the one with the soft brush and
coming home I found what I expected: the brush does come off. And it has
a nice, big bulb: just what I wanted. (I have a small one in a little
box "cleaning kit" that I take along on my travels to clean my camera
and lenses but for use at home I like the bigger bulb.)

Thanks for the "cleaning tips".

....

Still busy "getting organized" - putting film strips in those, um,
"ringbinder storage pages for negatives" is boring - unless I *look* at
the negatives and then it becomes distracting! The renumbering of about
half my films - negative sheets, contact prints, prints, notes,
descriptions - is going to be quite a job, too. Sigh.

Got some other "getting organized" stuff today: boxes to store all my
photo "stuff", and a USB 2.0 hub (I only had a 1.0 hub - not the optimal
way to connect the scanner!). Saw some external drives on sale,
including a 1 Terabyte(!) one (firewire 400/800) for EUR 888 - very
tempting... and a 400Gb was EUR 249.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Don

Also, I always had the tendency to sometimes take pictures of
"boring", mundane, everyday things just "for the record". These days
some of those are quite revealing and I'm really glad I took them.

I have read that historians and archivists are not too entranced with
digital, as most people throw so many shots away and images that in 20,
30 or 50 years would have an interest will not exist. Of course there
are also worries as over the long-term storage but that's another
issue...

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Marjolein Katsma

Got some other "getting organized" stuff today: boxes to store all my
photo "stuff", and a USB 2.0 hub (I only had a 1.0 hub - not the optimal
way to connect the scanner!). Saw some external drives on sale,
including a 1 Terabyte(!) one (firewire 400/800) for EUR 888 - very
tempting... and a 400Gb was EUR 249.

My PC had two USB 2.0 built-in sockets - one each for my scanner, and
the 250GB disk I had to buy. It was about EUR150 - a LaCie. I guess in
time I might find another one tempting, and by then I imaging 500GB will
be the same as 250GB was a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:

My PC had two USB 2.0 built-in sockets - one each for my scanner, and
the 250GB disk I had to buy. It was about EUR150 - a LaCie. I guess
in time I might find another one tempting, and by then I imaging 500GB
will be the same as 250GB was a couple of weeks ago.

Sure, prices always go down... and my grandmother used to say if you
want the very latest of something, buy it one day before your death. ;-)
But 150 for a 250GB drive is good!

Currently I'm running the scanner off my laptop (until I get a new
computer) which has 2 USB 2.0 ports and one Firewire (must be 400 given
the age of the machine); on one port I have an external 150GB drive; on
the other the hub, with a mouse, a micro drive (2GB) and now the
scanner, with room for one extra thing (like the little light I
sometimes use).

While the Terabyte drive (advertised as "Terra Byte" ) sounds
attractive (and wouldn't take up another USB port!), it's pricey. But
400GB for EUR 249 doesn't sound bad. I'll look around a bit before
jumping though.

 

[Don]

That's what I did to start with - it gives me a ballpark approximation,
but I find I have much finer control in PSP with a curves adjustment
layer. I'm already thinking that I'll use analog gain adjustement for
master only - if that.

Yes, an image editor will always give you more control because you can
apply non-linear adjustments, etc. I'd say, in an extreme case such as
this (incorrect development), use AG to get maximum dynamic range and
(possibly) a very rough adjustment. Then use PSP to fine tune it.

Exactly - I'm thinking that on negatives "gain" really is "loss" with
*less* light being used, and thus probably increasing noise. I'll have
to do some controlled tests to check my theory though. ;-) I've already
seen that "gain" on negatives goes the same way as on slides (moving the
master slider to the right makes the preview lighter) - but it *can't*
be the same. And if "gain" on a negative actually means *less* light, I
don't think noise could be reduced - if anything, only increased.

The grain is really a function of film speed. The reasons why you
perceive it more in negatives could be because the image on the
negative is compressed. If you do a raw scan of a negative its
histogram is relatively narrow. By contrast a slide scan has the
histogram stretching from one end to the other (often clipping as
well!). In both cases I'm assuming a properly exposed image.

For me it was a real shock after my first scan with the old LS-30! It
seemed so grainy. But after I examined the film with a magnifying
glass the grain is on the film It's just that paper prints are fuzzy
so the grain is not visible unless you do huge blow ups.

By now I learned to "love the grain"! ;o) To me it means the scan is
in focus. On my curved Kodachrome slides the point of interest is in
focus but as I look towards the corners the image gets fuzzier but
also appears less grainy.

BTW, if grain bothers you there is GEM but I find it gives the image a
"plastic" look. Also, as I say above, by defocusing slightly you can
reduce the appearance of grain.

Don.

 

[Don]

Aha. At the store I could choose between a bulb with only an air
"spout" and one with a brush. I chose the one with the soft brush and
coming home I found what I expected: the brush does come off. And it has
a nice, big bulb: just what I wanted. (I have a small one in a little
box "cleaning kit" that I take along on my travels to clean my camera
and lenses but for use at home I like the bigger bulb.)

Thanks for the "cleaning tips".

Glad it helps! I actually discovered the brush comes off by accident.
It's an old brush I had for a long time, and every now and then it
would just "fall off" as I tried to blow air. This annoyed me a lot
until I discovered this was not a bug but a "feature"! )

Still busy "getting organized" - putting film strips in those, um,
"ringbinder storage pages for negatives" is boring - unless I *look* at
the negatives and then it becomes distracting! The renumbering of about
half my films - negative sheets, contact prints, prints, notes,
descriptions - is going to be quite a job, too. Sigh.

Got some other "getting organized" stuff today: boxes to store all my
photo "stuff", and a USB 2.0 hub (I only had a 1.0 hub - not the optimal
way to connect the scanner!). Saw some external drives on sale,
including a 1 Terabyte(!) one (firewire 400/800) for EUR 888 - very
tempting... and a 400Gb was EUR 249.

I know exactly what you're going through!

I took me quite a while because I also wanted to date all of it.
Mounted slides were easy because they had the date printed on the
mount. Unmounted slides I was also lucky with because I kept them in
original envelopes they came back in and those had the date. The
problem is negatives (some I have developed myself) and others which
were just in plain envelopes. And then, of course, the photos. A few
had a date at the back so I was able to date some negatives but most
didn't. However, some I was able to figure out by comparing to slides
from the same period.

In any case, it was very messy but now at least I have everything in
chronological order. There are still a couple of question marks but
those I will have to figure out by looking at image content. Sort of I
got a "thing" in some year, now let's see on what photos does that
"thing" show up...

Don.

 

[Don]

I have read that historians and archivists are not too entranced with
digital, as most people throw so many shots away and images that in 20,
30 or 50 years would have an interest will not exist.

I read the very same thing! Some say that this period - ironically -
may end up being the least documented period of all time so far. On
the one hand there's the ease of documenting things, and on the other
the ephemeral nature of the media.

The same goes for the Net as a whole, and there are several project to
archive at least some of it. I don't remember the name, but there's
one site which will archive anyone's personal web site on request.

Of course there
are also worries as over the long-term storage but that's another
issue...

Indeed. The one advantage is that it's all digital so one can make
lossless copies. The catch is, most people don't.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I actually discovered the brush comes off by accident.
It's an old brush I had for a long time, and every now and then it
would just "fall off" as I tried to blow air. This annoyed me a lot
until I discovered this was not a bug but a "feature"! )

Hehe. I knew it was a feture, at least of some, since the blow brushes
we had at school when I was doing a photography course were like that.
The new one was just as expected.

I took me quite a while because I also wanted to date all of it.
Mounted slides were easy because they had the date printed on the
mount. Unmounted slides I was also lucky with because I kept them in
original envelopes they came back in and those had the date. The
problem is negatives (some I have developed myself) and others which
were just in plain envelopes. And then, of course, the photos. A few
had a date at the back so I was able to date some negatives but most
didn't. However, some I was able to figure out by comparing to slides
from the same period.

Luckily I'm far more orgnized, though it is still a lot of work...

I've always (at least since 1985 when I started to take color photos)
kept notes of what I took, always using little notebooks in my camera
bag. Sometimes starting a new book for a trip, and then continuing with
the old one coming back, but everything _is_ written down. And it's all
in my big boxes labeled "photography". Most stuff is numbered, too,
though I switched numbering systems twice (I got confused when I started
working with two cameras on one trip ). But it's all sort of mixed up
in the boxes, albums, notes, contact sheets, envelopes with negatives,
some in sheets and some still in the sleeves used to order prints (but I
normally write down the film number on those). It's mostly a matter of
gathering it all, converting to my current numbering system, and putting
all negatives in the same type of negative sheets so they can all go
into the same binders. I've already collected nearly all my little
notebooks, though I still "miss" one or two (must be in one of the other
boxes). Four big "moving" boxes full of stuff, and I've worked my way
through 1.3 of them now. ;-)

But with film numbers on negative sheets and contact sheets, and my
little notebooks, I can track down the date of practically every picture
- which after scanning I'll add in EXIF or IPTC data.

It's harder with prints I ordered from others at various trip reunions -
most don't have a date or location, though I can probably track down an
approximation of soe of them

Some albums I need to redo as well, as nearly all the sticky "photo
corners" have come unglued. But that's for later... (And they'll need to
have everything renumbered as well.)

So that's what I meant with I'm "half organized": everything is written
down - somewhere, but everything is not in the same place together, or
in order, or in the "right" negative sleeves. Getting it all together is
half-boring, half-fun (espcially anticipating making scans of some good
shots I took years ago).

 

[Don]

Luckily I'm far more orgnized, though it is still a lot of work... ....
But with film numbers on negative sheets and contact sheets, and my
little notebooks, I can track down the date of practically every picture
- which after scanning I'll add in EXIF or IPTC data.

You are definitely much better organized. I never made any notes. BTW,
one option you may consider is to scan all those notes on a flatbed
and save them with the images! Sort of, archive them as well.

Some albums I need to redo as well, as nearly all the sticky "photo
corners" have come unglued. But that's for later... (And they'll need to
have everything renumbered as well.)

Most of my photos were bound with rubber bands (I know... shudder...)
but I do have a couple of albums. One I just had to "wrestle to the
ground" by holding each page down with my hands to keep it flat while
it scanned. It was awful - especially around the spine - but still
better than ripping them out and then gluing them back. The other
album I had no choice but to take them out because they were not only
glued but each page was wrapped in foil. That was even worse!
Especially because I then discovered "Newton's rings" on some scans.
So, not only did I have to redo many of them but I also had to come up
with this complicated way of scanning them to avoid Newton's ring.

BTW, that's another thing to watch for! If you have any glossy
photographs chances are they will generate Newton's rings when
scanned. This is another case of "not-always-easy-to-see" but the
rings are there all right!

So that's what I meant with I'm "half organized": everything is written
down - somewhere, but everything is not in the same place together, or
in order, or in the "right" negative sleeves. Getting it all together is
half-boring, half-fun (espcially anticipating making scans of some good
shots I took years ago).

But at least you have all the information which is very important!

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I then discovered "Newton's rings" on some scans.
So, not only did I have to redo many of them but I also had to come up
with this complicated way of scanning them to avoid Newton's ring.

BTW, that's another thing to watch for! If you have any glossy
photographs chances are they will generate Newton's rings when
scanned. This is another case of "not-always-easy-to-see" but the
rings are there all right!

What do you do about those then?

I have some prints from others I want to scan.

But at least you have all the information which is very important!

Hmm - I *hope*! After unpacking two boxes I still miss one important
notebook: Viet Nam 1994 - no way will I be able to reproduce when all
teh pictures were taken or which tribe the people I photographed are
from. It has to be somewhere but I sure wish I'd found it by now.

Then again, I found diaries from trips I don't even remember I kept a
diary from! (Certainly not all, which I regret now.)

 

[Don]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in


What do you do about those then?

I have some prints from others I want to scan.

First, I got a piece of thick Plexiglas but any straight, flat and
*inflexible* surface will do. I then attach the photograph with 4-5
pieces of double-sided sticky tape. Larger photos need more, smaller
photos need less. The point is when you turn this over to place it on
the scanner the photo should be flat and not "hang" from the
Plexiglas.

Next, I cut out a piece of cardboard to fit around the photograph.
Finally, I carefully place the photo so it's over the hole in that
piece of cardboard. You may need to vary the thickness of the
cardboard depending on the thickness of the photo. Also, another idea
is to cut out two "L" shaped pieces instead of a fixed size hole and
then move these pieces depending on the size of the photo.

The bottom line is that the photo does not touch the glass (so there
are no Newton's rings) but it "floats" above the glass. The idea is to
get it as close to the glass (without touching) as possible. If it
gets too close then you risk Newton's rings, if it's too far away it
will appear dark and you'll get some loss of contrast. If it's really
far away the focus will suffer too.

It's very finicky and I'm really glad it's all over!

One other, more drastic idea, is to remove the scanner glass
completely and just place the Plexiglas directly on the scanner. You
just have to be very careful that - as the head assembly travels down
the scanner - it doesn't catch the photo or it may damage the scanner
irreparably!

BTW, that's known as "glassless scanning" and some people use it when
they scan film on a flatbed. I haven't heard of anyone doing it with
photos but is seems like a good idea.

Hmm - I *hope*! After unpacking two boxes I still miss one important
notebook: Viet Nam 1994 - no way will I be able to reproduce when all
teh pictures were taken or which tribe the people I photographed are
from. It has to be somewhere but I sure wish I'd found it by now.

Then again, I found diaries from trips I don't even remember I kept a
diary from! (Certainly not all, which I regret now.)

As I mentioned before, I'm now going through all my "junk" doing a
mega-spring-cleaning (which has lasted for a couple of years now
because life keeps getting in the way). I also found things I forgot
all about and yet I just can't find other things I was sure I kept!?

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

The bottom line is that the photo does not touch the glass (so there
are no Newton's rings) but it "floats" above the glass. The idea is to
get it as close to the glass (without touching) as possible. If it
gets too close then you risk Newton's rings, if it's too far away it
will appear dark and you'll get some loss of contrast. If it's really
far away the focus will suffer too.

Got it. Thanks, that makes sense, too!

One other, more drastic idea, is to remove the scanner glass
completely and just place the Plexiglas directly on the scanner.

I'm not sure I can. When I was following tehthreads about cleaning
flatbed glass I had a peak at my machine but could not see any obvious
way to *get at* the glass. Taking it apart must be possible, of course,
but not easy. And there's the risk of dust getting into the optics...

....

Off to do another batch of negative filing...

 

[Don]

I'm not sure I can. When I was following tehthreads about cleaning
flatbed glass I had a peak at my machine but could not see any obvious
way to *get at* the glass. Taking it apart must be possible, of course,
but not easy. And there's the risk of dust getting into the optics...

Some of them can be quite tricky. Mine was attached with two screws
hiding behind rubber pads on which the lid is resting (next to the
hinge). But others have plastic bits which snap together without any
screws.

Off to do another batch of negative filing...

Don.