JDMvW Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>I have just finished re-re-scanning my actual, physical slides. HOO-BOY! ! !</p><blockquote><p>385.5 GB on disk for 60,469 items in "Slides"-- over half are the new, hi-res files<br>1.44 GB on disk for 2,368 items in "Shell Gorgets" scanned from 4x5 Polaroid Type 72</p></blockquote><p>In addition, I have lots of images now that started out digital, not included. I started years ago scanning them in, but it was taking so long that I foolishly decided to scan at lower resolution (2K rather than 4K ppi).<br>Run the disk ahead to a year or so ago. I discovered that in fact--while 2K was OK for my original purposes-- for a long term archive, it was not adequate. Besides I do a lot of work with these images, both professionally and just for fun (beats knitting, after all). I found I had to track down the slide and rescan it.<br>So I rescanned pretty much all of them.<br>Of course, now that I have finally got all my boxes of slides into 4000 ppi scans, I will surely discover that this is inadequate.<br>Why is 4K inadequate?<br>Not, I think for the density of the scan - higher than 4K seems to show only more detail of the film, rather than the image.<br>However, I have saved most of these new scans as largest jpg files, which comes out to about 13-17 MB per image, as compared to the 1K or less of the older, lores files.</p><p>jpg is "lossy", even at lowest compression and is 8-bit. So do I now go back and rescan all of these for a third or fourth time as tiffs? The individual tiff files (I have in fact done some of the "better" images in this format) come out to about 33MB+ per file.<br>Doing this again does not appeal, so probably I will stop for a while until senile dementia sets in and, benumbed, I will get even larger HDs and do the tiffs. :(</p><p>The carpenter's rule is "measure twice, cut once" - the scanner's rule should be "Scan high, scan once".</p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Cavan Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Good work, JDM. I posted last year after completing a similar task that included my fathers slides and negatives (about 10,000) and about double that number for myself. It took me almost 8 years; and I ended up rescanning a bunch of the earlier items for exactly the same reason as you - I had underestimated my need for detail and wanted them to be better resolution. It feels good to have that available, doesn't it?</p> <p>Did you file everything the way you wanted originally? I ended up redoing a bunch of tagging, file-naming and moving around to different folders as I discovered how I wanted to store them so I could find them again. And then I decided I needed to have the original slides and negatives stored in a similar fashion so I could find them again. It never ends.</p> Dave Cavan https://davecavanphotographics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricklavoie Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>a high quality jpeg should look exactly the same as a tif when open and printed. Only some very specific issue can appear on a very specific type of image: banding in image with a lot of gradient sky.. other than that, i dont think its worth anything to rescan them all.</p> <p>Now, concentrate yourself on shoothing digital and forget this bad scanning adventure ; )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Well done! I find 4000 spi is as much as I need.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>All I can think is.... why?!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Is that 60,000+ slides? Wow. It took me years to scan a bit over 1800, including spotting them. Saved as 5400 dpi, 16 bit rgb, gamma 1.0 tiffs (the raws), cleaned and cropped, plus jpegs.</p> <p>I started out scanning at 5400 and then downsampling to 4000. Got about 1/3 through before I caved in and started again at 5400, for good. That double start was the story with my previous scanning project as well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard__ Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Scan parameters depend largely on how you ever expect to use the files, since they take so long to do. From experience, I found it is best to use the highest resolution available.<br /><br />I had to learn the hard way with a set of b&w 8 bit negative scans, that I needed the full 14 bits to edit & work on the files with Photoshop, so all had to be re-scanned. Additionally it helped to use the finest detail scan setting.<br /><br />I suspect your scan settings depend on how much post processing you need to do on your scans. If you are better technically at exposure in a wide variety of situations you may not need the 14 bits, as it's likely not going to be seen when just directed to a printer.<br /><br />I always though use the full 4K resolution of the scanner and TIF, not jpg since I am of the opinion that disk drives are cheap enough. Although in your situation maybe not quite cheap enough.<br /><br />The easiest way to limit the amount of scanning and filing is to shoot less, and I find film is quite good for that purpose alone.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I do the same thing as Richard: scan with the 'best' settings available, and store in a lossless file format. Storage is cheap, becoming cheaper every day.<br>I only need to rescan if i can lay my hands on a better scanner.<br>However, i limit the amount of scanning by not scanning everything. Only scan what i need when i need it. Those old fashioned boxes of negatives still are very good archives that will keep images until they may need scanning. (Though, per image, not as cheap a way of storing things as digital files on HDs.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_service Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>That is the situation I'm in with tens of thousands of slides going back to the '60's, though I'd only scan those as I need them.<br> My Minolta 5400 got orphaned when I upgraded to Win 7 so I guess I need to check out Hamrick. Anyone with experience about that?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Seaman Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Congratulations JDM. Have a beer. You've earned it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmueller Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Congratulations JDM! I'd be interested to hear a bit about the process - what kind of scanner, what did you do about the inevitable dust - physically clean the slides or just clean the files?</p> <p>I have just spend the last few days scanning some of my slides from the 1980s. Both my Dad and Father in Law have slide collections going back to the 1960s, although not quite the numbers you are talking about. All I have access to is a Minolta Scan Dual II - nice scanner, but no digital ice. Most of my own, and all of my Dad's slides, are in frames with anti-newton glass. It cost a fortune at the time of framing, and framing them manually was always a bear of a job. The glass does a great job keeping dust away from the slides, but fungus is a very real issue :(</p> <p>Jim - the original Minolta software for the Scan Dual II was horrible. I bought Vuescan for $40 shortly after the scanner, and Ed Hamrick still grants free access to the latest update of the software! While at the time of purchase Vuescan was just marginally better than the Minolta software, it is mind-boggling what the current software can get out of my old scanner. I can not say enough good things about it.</p> <p>Last but not least, there is a free program called PolaDSR or Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal, which does an amazing job at digitally removing dust and scratch marks. It works as stand-alone or as plugin for older versions of PS - up to CS2 or thereabouts. It's becoming harder to find, but I recently managed to download it again for installation on my new laptop. It might not be digital ice, but I find it is far superior than what comes with PS or GIMP. Does anybody else have experience with it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Cavan Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>I used a Nikon CoolScan IV and V, probably did 30K+ cycles over the past few years. Those models are still available used online, and based on the performance I've gotten out of mine I'd say its worth considering picking up one of those. They are at a premium, unfortunately, which reflects their value. Unfortunately they wouldn't work with the glass-covers, Frank, so those would have to be removed to scan. I tried some flat-bed scanners and just wasn't happy with the results compared to the dedicated slide/negative machines.</p> <p> </p> Dave Cavan https://davecavanphotographics.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>One reason for scanning <em>all</em> of them was that in the end it was simpler to do them all, in order, than to skip and choose. This is especially so in that many of the images are not only photographs, but are also an integral part of documentation of various research projects.</p> <p>Besides, I early on discovered (when I was doing a hop, skip, and scan approach) that what had made the best slides for projection were not necessarily the best scanned images. The ability, just for one example, to bring out shadow detail often made it clear why a slide that "didn't work" was taken in the first place. Kodachrome turns out to hold a lot more shadow detail than would be thought from visual inspection.</p> <p>My contributions to NW forums, and the like, do not reveal the essential character of my photography.<br> Here is an example of the documentary images. It shows one stage in the excavation of a house complex in a prehistoric community. The crew who did it are there for "scale". ;)</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>I shall return later to the topic of <em>how</em> I did this, in all its enticing details. ;)</p> <p>I have told the story before, but</p> <blockquote> <p>My small daughter asked my wife how elevators work.<br /> My wife suggested that she ask me.<br /> My daughter replied, "I don't want to know <em>that much</em> about how elevators work." *</p> </blockquote> <p>Many of you do not want to know <em>that much</em> about scanning. Those who do can persist and come back here later.<br> ____________<br> *This is the down side of having two academic parents. For our sins, our daughter is now studying photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Congrats JDM on huge patience. I scanned my 2 1/4's then the first two 80-slide trays of 35mm and gave up after that due to boredom, impatience and frustration. I might get back to finishing but I'm not rushing.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p><a name="00arRx"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5923513">Jim Service</a>, Sep 25, 2012; 04:15 p.m.</p> <p>That is the situation I'm in with tens of thousands of slides going back to the '60's, though I'd only scan those as I need them. My Minolta 5400 got orphaned when I upgraded to Win 7 so I guess I need to check out Hamrick. Anyone with experience about that?</p> <p>Funny: mine is working ok with Win 7. Except all I've done so far is a single test scan. It's the first gen 5400 fwiw.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Keefer Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Wow! Congrats. I can't imagine the time spent. I have done a few of my negatives and it was so time consuming, I gave up for now except for an occasional need to scan something and will wait till I have faster technology to do my 25 years of film shooting.</p> <p> </p> Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 <p>Impressive project! Do tell the details and share a few gems from your previous photographic efforts.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiang_wang1 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 JDM, I admire your accomplishment. I thought about re-scanning all of my slides in 5400 tiff, it is still just a thought. Please share your process, maybe it will tip me over, get me started. Oh Jim, my Minolta 5400 II works fine too in Win 7, and I have scanned all sorts of films. You need to download the latest software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_6502147 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>I have enough slides to just do this once. The very best ones I may decide to upgrade once every 10yrs on something like Imecon or so. I can spend the time way better than re-scanning old slides.Anyway, the new Plustek may be my ticket.</p> <p>Les</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnilssen Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>JDM, as a person who still is scanning his and his late father's slides, and still have some thousands to scan, I'll say, life is short. Don't waste it on rescanning. I really don't think there is so much difference between jpg and tif files if scanned properly in the first place, so enjoy the scans you have made, and go on shooting today's adventures.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>What scanner di d you use ?<br> Where did you store all those files ?<br> How did you keep yourself from going nuts ? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnilssen Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>Harry, in case you asked me and not JDM:<br> Nikon Coolscan V - LS50<br> external USB harddrives<br> I haven't - just ask my wife! :D :D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>Well done, JDM! I do want to know all the details.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 <p>You're ahead of me by far. I am about three years behind on scans. </p> <p>I would not bother to rescan unless normal size prints show a defect. If you can get an 8 x 10 or similar print that looks as good as you would have gotten years ago from a photo lab, you're probably good enough. </p> <p>I have an old 2900 dpi Nikon scanner, and find that careful scans from this do quite nicely. I do, however, scan to TIFF on the first round. I save a little time by presorting batches by approximate brightness and color, so that I don't have to adjust the scanner every time, and by saving really basic moves like cropping for later. Many slides never get printed or used, so you might as well leave the edges raw when you save them. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now