Scanning lots of negatives and slides [Archive]

View Full Version : Scanning lots of negatives and slides

stickyb

23rd May 2006, 14:37

i am facing a rather daunting task of scanning quite a large quantity of slides and negatives. Most are 35mm, but there are a reasobable number (1000+) 127 size as well. (bit like square 35mm). There a quite a lot of single mounted slides as well as negative strips and a few complete rolls.

Does anyone have any recommendations on which scanner to buy for this process?

Ideally, i don't want to have to take the slides out of their mounts.

Any suiggestions/advice gratefully received.

innuendo

23rd May 2006, 15:16

If you decide to buy a scanner make sure it has a dust removal feature otherwise you will not have enough time in this life to do the post processing clean up of the resulting scans. It is enormously time consuming and may not really be all that succesful

If the slides are very important to you consider having the ones that really matter done commercialy, it is not cheap but will probably work out better in the end.
A good scanner is not that cheap and once you have used it it will probably gather dust unless you sell it.

I bought an entry level model and that was a mistake.
Sorry to sound a bit negative (sorry about that :-) ) but I think you will find it a time consuming project.

I thought I would digitize my slides but I ended up actually doing just a small percentage after I got going, the dust and dirt on the slides is a major factor.

marlowe

23rd May 2006, 17:34

Have to agree with Innuendo it is the most time consuming thing you can do i started to digitilise my slides and gave up !!! if you have over a 1000 slides to do i would pick the the ones that mean the most to you and concentrate on those first because you will be bored stupid doing this! proffesional copying may be the way to go, guess depends on how valuable those slides are to you.If you go the slide copier route then i was recomended the Epson range of scanners and have had fantastic results with the one i purchased ,the dust removal feature is a godsend.

innuendo

23rd May 2006, 21:50

I should perhaps have mentioned that the type of scanner I was referring to was the 35mm slide or negative scanner not the flatbed type that have an attachment for slides or negatives. ( I have no experience with those) You may find second hand ones that have fulfilled the requirements of the previous owner at a reasonable price but a caveat, I have read on some forums that some of the older models may not have XP drivers available. I believe there are some older Nikons that are not supported for XP. (I'm assuming you are on a PC.)
The more capable ones can be quite pricey and I would not consider anything without a dust removal capability.

IO540

24th May 2006, 20:28

I had about 5000 slides to scan in. The cheapest commercial quote I had was £2500; the highest £30000!

So I bought a Nikon ED5000 slide scanner with the SF0210 bulk feeder. This lot came to about £1300, so I could have chucked it away at the end and still be quids in.

The quality is very very good. The contrast will never be as good as the raw slide (assuming you used some decent film like Kodachrome 25, or much more recently Fuji Provia) but on 99% of images it is good enough. The best of mine were mostly what I call relatively spectacular landscapes, e.g. Bryce Canyon, and those come out very well.

I scan to 36-bit TIFFs, about 70MB each. Then open up the directory in ACDSEE and rotate any which were shot with the camera on its end. Then open up Photoshop (wouldn't trust any other program for this bit) and run a batch process to convert each image to a 24-bit JPEG, highest quality. This produces files of about 5MB. I can't tell any difference between these and the original TIFFs, not by looking at them. One can tell only by measurement.

There are cheaper slide scanners but they aren't as good. I tried a few, with a specially chosen difficult image containing some colourful (Greek) houses with textures in their white roofs; most scanners lose the texture.

henry crun

25th May 2006, 01:24

stickyb: I asked a friend who knows his stuff when it comes to photography and his recommendation is an Epson 4990.

It won't break the bank and will produce first class results, with the added advantage that will take multiple slides/negs in one pass.

Plenty of good words in reviews if you Google.

Conan the Librarian

25th May 2006, 11:29

PPRuNe Towers

25th May 2006, 12:02

You're getting some particularly good advice here - especially that even the best scanners are effectively worthless without top quality software as speechless ably demonstrates.

The other point to make is careful storage of the originals. The archival properties of stock, especially dye sublimated processes like kodachrome, are astounding. Our family's collective transparency archive goes back 60 years now.

In contrast, my digital imaging only goes back to 1994. Everything I shot through a CCD from 1973/4 and for the next 20 years effectively gone due to the radical and constant changes in storage media. Be careful with your originals.

Rob

Loose rivets

25th May 2006, 20:04

The 4990 is excellent. I use a 3170, but my big secret is the software it runs. Silverfast make much more capable scanner software than the OEM stuff and It is worthwhile for anyone thinking of anything other than casual scanning to Google them up. I rate the software as being a solid 11/10
Conan

Now that's interesting. I have mentioned before on the computer forum, that I had a 4990 and returned it because of the ridiculous 35film clip. It looks as though they spent a lot on development, and then ran out of money. I spent some time talking to their feedback folk to let them know that a good product was being ruined. Well, for me anyway. I got a refurbished 3170 off their web-site for $70 no tax and free CAR.

It is not as good of course, but the film holders are perfectly good, and with different software?

I have been very pleased with a lot of my 30 year old slide scans...the best were on the 4990...........................I'm now having a memory failure. I had the lesser priced one at $270 it may have been the 4490. It's their fault! Silly numbering methods. Anyway, they were good, and I never used the ‘digital ice' that came with.

It seems that HP now have a flat scanner that will allow large negative scanning. In fact, full bed I think. It was reviewed in PC World last issue I think. This is important to me, cos I want to scan some MRIs and have some negs that were taken with a concertina type Kodak. Well, two sized of this type actually. An aunt had a bigger version of the one my Mom used, and the pics are markedly more detailed.

This is off a 35mm slide. 1976 at Johnson Space Center.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/SuetheJohnson.jpg

And this is off an old neg. As I have mentioned before, I had never seen this picture before. Me with me mom.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/MSBWRBbetterphotocopy.jpg

EDIT to add. I see both of these have been sharpened and made small, they were much better at full size. Also I realize that the spots will have to be got rid of, but the main thrust is to get the history digitized. Backed up and hopefully safe,then i can relax.

Oh, and BTW has anyone tried clicking away at a good screen with the slides? Forward click, forward click, would be very fast. I also mentioned before that my video was done on wax sandwiched between optical glass sheets. Reversing can be done in Photo Shop of course.

Always with prints, I can get down to the contours of the chemicals on the paper, no point in going further I guess.

Loose rivets

27th May 2006, 07:58

Conan the Librarian

29th May 2006, 13:21

If you look closely at the website, there are many videos showing you how to get to grips with each of the many tools. Silverfast has incredible depth and can be likened to Photoshop in many ways. It may look daunting, but isn't. Those videos can be downloaded should you wish.

I have also bumped into what looks like a novel way of getting slides and film into digital format, though I have not used it and cannot speak for the eventual quality. Mind you, the concept looks simple and it is cheap. if anyone wants more info, then please PM me. It goes something like this...

A lens filter type thingy is attached to the digital camera of your choice and includes some sort of diffuser, with a slit in the filter ring big enough to allow a film strip to pass through, or to hold a slide. Somehow, this arrangement is focussed by the LCD or viewfinder and you simply hit the tit, thus making a digital shot of the slide or film frame Presumably, it is meant to undergo sandard manipulation in editing software.

Like I said, I don't know - haven't used it - unsure of quality -may contain traces of nuts, etc. but a PM will elicit a web address (and for today only) a FREE, yes FREE entry into the Microsoft Lottery.

Regards to all,

Conan

MyData

29th May 2006, 15:35

Interesting points. I can vouch that this is one of the most time consuming tasks ever. My father purchased a scanner perhaps 8 years ago with the intention of getting his slide / negative stock scanned. Thousands of images. He gave up after a couple of hundred as it was simply too tedious.

Also, the scans he made on technology from 8 years ago are no match to what can be achieved today. So what is he to do? Re-scan again? I would expect that today's scanners are up to the job of making scans that will be of sufficient quality for discerning home use so perhaps now is the time for me to get into the market.

One question: does anyone know of a scanner which will handle APS cartridges or opened negatives? I have a dozen or so rolls of these from more recent times that would be useful to have scanned.

Conan the Librarian

29th May 2006, 16:45

I think you are right there and you really, really don,t want to have to do this sort of thing every other year, so in my book, it pays to get the best quality you can now, but if you are really keen on being able to do something with the scans in the future, as emerging technology makes possible, then just don't save those scans as JPGs. The format is lossy and prepackaged to the extent where once you have saved as aforesaid, then it is almost a done deal with little further scope for alteration or improvement as time goes by. I personally, would save them in something like Photoshops PSD format or if they were really important, then as a .TIF file. Both of these are much larger than the JPG though. For up to a few hundred files, this isn't so bad - but for thousands?

And then we get into the discussion of how long a DVD image of a file is likely to last and at this point, I am retiring for a cup of tea.

Conan

MyData

29th May 2006, 17:42

how long a DVD image of a file is likely to last

I started with CD backups in about 1996. Since then I've moved to DVD for important stuff.

I now backup the DVDs every year or so, it doesn't take more than an hour on a wet weekend or evening.

Make two copies of really important DVDs, keep one here, post one to the parents house for safekeeping. Job done.

Loose rivets

29th May 2006, 19:59

Point taken on the type of file for stoorage. Yep, I was doing it in Jpg:{

Last night I tried out the new soft on some colur film. My 3170 is not turning out very good pix from the negative colour film. Nor are the slides as good as the 4490. It's strange because the reflective scans are very good. I will indeed download some of the instructional software. B & W negs are good.

Does the demo always mark the scan with their logo? I'm not surprised they would do this, but I just thought that on one occasion, it left the pic unmarked. Also which package would be the best to go for? I gather there is not much difference in price for the top one.

Camera attachment for copying

My son called me from Austin the other day and mentioned that there was such a device for sale there. One of his pals (a D70 owner) had a father that took thousands of slides in Vietnam. He is determined to scan them, but needs an almost automated system.

I mentioned the concept of projecting them and snapping them off the screen, and we thought it was worth a try. My problem is that my projector and screens...and most of my slides are in the UK. ....so, nothing has been done by me.

While packing up my house, we spent an evening with friends. We chilled out looking at shots from 25 years ago, having pulled the screens out of the attic. Some of our guests, saw their young selves...so did one new wife!

The fact is, that a good screen image is stunning, I had forgotten just how good. The slight distortions in the canvas would be a small price to pay for at least getting the stuff backed up. In the future, a more precise system might be used. You could probably ‘snap' at least one every two seconds.

Groundgripper

29th May 2006, 20:01

A lens filter type thingy is attached to the digital camera of your choice and includes some sort of diffuser, with a slit in the filter ring big enough to allow a film strip to pass through, or to hold a slide.

That's a technique that has been around a long time for 35mm slide copying - a firm called Ohnar produced one to fit a wide range of SLR cameras and it was marketed for many years. They've now produced a digital camera variant, not cheap at £70+ Stg, but if it works it should be a darn sight easier than using a scanner. Amongst others, Jessops also market their own version.

GG

Bern Oulli

29th May 2006, 20:16

I am digitising 35mm slides, 120 & 127 black & white negs and some glass negs of strange format taken by my grandmother when she was a girl c.1885. I am using a CanoScan D2400U with the OEM software and getting some very good results. The film carriers are pretty versatile and you could probably make your own to a specific size if necessary. It is, however, as incredibly tedious as others have remarked.

Groundgripper

29th May 2006, 21:49

Last night I tried out the new soft on some colur film. My 3170 is not turning out very good pix from the negative colour film. Nor are the slides as good as the 4490.
I tried copying some slides on my 3170 and was very disappointed with the results but got excellent pictures from some 35-year-old negatives. The slides gave equally bad pictures on a 2700dpi dedicated 35mm film scanner - in both cases muddy, blurred and very poor colour from the same bright and sharp original (and saved as a TIF, not as a JPEG).
I guess it's the software packaged with the scanners that's at fault but I was surprised with the negative material results - they are virtually indistinguishable from the original prints.
I seem to remember from another thread on this subject a few months ago that Conan uses the more expensive Silverfast package, not the SE version, but I may well be wrong.
GG

Conan the Librarian

29th May 2006, 23:50

SE is the bundled package on many mainstream, but top end scanners. Sadly, you have to go and examine the ever so confusing and user unfriendly list to see what works for you. I use AI, but dread updating for the same reasons. I think they have got the same people from the British Telecom PsyOps dept. to do the marketing - but stay with it! It is magnificent and the peeps backing it (who oddly look aviation aware folks) are good eggs, and have a sense of humour, even if they are German. This is very like Photoshop in depth and isn't a one click answer, but the time it will save you, once you get more familiar with it, is incalculable. What you have to think of is the amount of work and sheer processing that is does, before saving your works for history. A word of warning for those that want to press one button or click - Don't. The vids referred to earlier are well worht downloading and will show you exactly how to improve your work and your workflow. The results can be epic and the effort is well worth the time, because once you can do one well, you then know how to do a thousand.

I thought I would hate this - but it became oddly satisfying and when you see a scan "Pop" into life, you will be amazed. I was staggered by how I looked in 1960 toddling with a fully loaded nappy.

Conan

innuendo

30th May 2006, 01:17

Gripper, I seem to recall reading somewhere that some Kodachrome does not scan well due to some of the layering that makes up the colours. Not sure where to find the info and I also think it was more of a problem with some Nikon scanners. May be a reason.

stickyb

31st May 2006, 02:33

Has anyone had any experience with this scanner?

Reflecta DigitDia 4000

Groundgripper

31st May 2006, 15:25

I tried copying some slides on my 3170
Sitting here browsing through the threads, I just glanced at my Epson 3170 scanner - it's a 3490..................:uhoh: !! That shows you how often I use it!
The slides I was trying to scan were Ektachrome which uses E6 processing unlike Kodachrome which has its own special process, I think. In fact the software with the dedicated slide scanner (as opposed to the "3170 that turned out to be a 3490") allows you to select from a range of film manufacturers and film speeds. It's a PrimeFilm PF2700 made Pacific Image Electronics and marketed by Jessops. I think I tried altering the film make to see if there was any difference to the result, but didn't notice any. I don't think the software with the 3490 had that option.
GG

Loose rivets

31st May 2006, 20:58

I'm glad that I'm not the only one to transpose these model numbers!!

Just to keep the thing on the boil, my main need is to scan some MRIs, and I had given up trying to use the small window in the 3170's mask. Without the white dots on the mask it does not know what to do. So making a mask is dificult, and it may only have three options on the scan area as there are only three masks with the unit. I doubt that it could be 'ordered' to go outside the normal areas.

However, I tried my own idea of snapping the $1,000 piece of plasic, and it's the best copy I've ever got. I used the light in the lid as a light table, and held the camera. I'm now setting about getting the tripod set up and a large light source. When I've done this I'll try some of the more fun items.

Conan the Librarian

31st May 2006, 21:39

You know Rivets, that is a damned good idea. I would be tempted to use manual focus rather than AF though. Can see that getting a bit confused, somehow. Great idea - I like it!

Conan

i.dingbat

3rd Jun 2006, 13:35

Very interesting thread. I'm also the owner of a collection of about 10,000 slides going back to the 1960s, and I'd particularly like to scan the slides taken from a 3-month trip through India and Asia in 1987.

I've tried the slide attachment on my Canon flatbed scanner and it was very disappointing - basically out of focus. It seems the options are:

1. Buy the latest available model and, as one poster said, have it gather dust when I've finished with it (or died in the attempt)

2. Buy an older model that someone else has used

3. Find a slide attachment for a digital camera

4. Project the slides and photograph them!

5. Pay someone else to do it

Here's an example of option 5 - that's bonny Scotland in about 1966.

http://www.iainhosking.com/images/1966/beach_1966_1_s.jpg

Would anyone like to suggest the best option?

Thanks

Iain

Loose rivets

4th Jun 2006, 05:35

The sample is 27k, what was the size of the original file? and, were you satisfied with the results?