Digital Archiving of 35mm Negs

[brian_raisbeck2]

I purchased a Nikon Coolscan 5000 so I could digitally archive over

65 rolls of negatives I have laying around. I will rarely print

these images larger than 8x10 but do want these to be my backup in

case something (god forbid) happens to the negs. Because of the

volume involved, I've hesitated to make compromises but settled on

scanning everything at 8 bit, 400 DPI, 3600 x 5700 pixels. 16 bit

and dpi of above 400+ just makes the files way too big. Was

wondering if people thought this was appropriate, not enough detail,

too much? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

-B

[brian_raisbeck2]

One thing I forgot to add... I'm scanning the negs as TIFF's.

[don_cooper]

This resolution gives you files about 65mb (3600 X5700 pixels). The DPI figure is meaningless. Just do the math and try to figure out where you're going to put them. That's a lot more info that you need for 8X10 prints.

[ira_wunder]

A good master file for archiving and repurposing should be a 300 or what we like is a 360 DPI 16 bit tif file sized to the largest print you think you will need. I think storage is an important issue these days. With CD's and DVD's in question for longevity except for expansive gold archivial disks, we turn to cheap hard disk storage, file servers, and RAID configurations for secure archiving.

[Robert_Lai]

Hi Brian,<p>I'm in the same process as what you're about to be engaged in. I've got 25 years of negs and slides which I'm archiving via the Coolscan 5000. I just scan at maximum resolution, 16 bit and save as TIFF. Each full frame TIFF gives a 106 - 113 MB file. I bought a portable USB/Firewire Seagate drive from Amazon to hold all of these files. If that one (200MB) fills up, buying another one isn't expensive.<p>This is a big task, so I would aim to do it only once. If you scan at less than the maximum possible quality, someday in the future you'll probably have to rescan again. One way to cut down the work, as always, is to be harsh and discriminating when editing. If you're like me, you'll wonder why some of the slides were kept after all of these years!

[Ed_Ingold]

Robert has hit the mark - do it right the first time! The most expensive part of scanning is time. It will take 4 to 6 minutes per frame regardless of resolution, not counting post processing. Memory is cheap, but you'll need a lot of it. The file size at 4000 ppi and 16-bit is closer to 140MB, so CD-Rs won't do. If you have an external drive, you might want to dedicate one to this project. But don't forget to backup to durable media. In this case, DVD+R would be a good choice.

 

While you're at it, devise a good cataloging scheme for both slides and files so that you can match them up for easy retrieval. I use an inverted date code (yymmdd), but anything will work if it provides a unique, sequential identifier.

[Robert_Lai]

I should make some corrections - that's a 200 GB drive, not MB. I haven't had a drive of that size since my 80486 days.<p>Edward is correct about the file sizes. I'm scanning mounted slides, so there's always some cropping to avoid the borders of the mount. This gives me the variable file size in TIFF.

[daniel_taylor]

"DVD and CD are not durable backup media. For home use nothing beats a set of external hard drives in an aluminum case (not the plasticy cases!"

 

What happens when the drives won't spin up? Or get wet? Or they pass too close to a magnetic field? Or your house burns down? And what difference does the case make for drives which mostly sit unused?

 

I have mirror backups of my computers to external HDs stored in a computer media fireproof safe. I still keep CD/DVD archives of "permanent" files, like photos, stored off site. Nothing beats multiple copies stored in multiple locations, which is a little expensive with HD's. Good media lasts a lot longer than some people claim. And I don't have to worry about losing a DVD to water, magnets, or mechanical failure.

[jprowland]

I've had enough hard drive crashes in my life, plus plenty of "experience" with Zip disks

and floppies back in the day, to be wary of any magnetic media, even rendundant/backup

setups. For my current archiving, yeah, I keep a copy on one of my two external 250 GB

drives, but that's more for convenience than anything else. I place more trust in DVD-R,

but only because I burn MULTIPLE copies. Two at time of initial archiving, one for me and

one to be stored off-site (in my case, at my parent's house.) Every year, burn one or two

more copies of every disk. If one goes bad, there will be several more.

 

In addition, I back up regularly...weekly or so, I backup my primary hard drive to one of

the externals, which includes my JPG library (but not RAWs). Periodically (monthly?) I

archive my entire JPG library onto DVD-R (takes up 3, right now, I think).

 

It's been my experience that multiple, cheap copies are far more reliable than one or two

expensive, more "reliable" solutions. Nothing is 100% reliable, it's all going to go belly-up

at some point, might as well put yourself in the mindset to expect it with cheaper media

and spread your eggs around.

 

As far as scanning negatives...I was in the market for a Coolscan 5000 myself, for a

collection of negatives and slides about the same size as yours (50-100 rolls, not sure

exactly) but ended up buying a much cheaper RX620 all-in-one that includes a negative/

slide adapter for the scanner and scans at 2400x4800 16-bit (really, I've never understood

the point of a higher resolution in one dimension, to scan at that high you're just wasting

bits in the other dimention -- I stick with 2400x2400). Not exactly sure I'm happy with it,

it lacks of course the Digital ICE which is a big time saver. Plus, the Coolscan probably has

more accurate color management in general. 2400 dpi scans should be adequate, at that

point you're close to the resolution of the grain, but if I had the extra bits of the

Coolscan's 4000 dpi I'd certainly use it, and archive as 4000dpi 16-bit uncompressed

TIFFs (I don't trust the compression, even if the adoption is a little more widespread now)

or PSD (Photoshop isn't exactly going away anytime soon.) Sure, bits aren't exactly free,

and sometimes not even "cheap", to archive, but they're a heck of a lot cheaper than your

memories. As has already been pointed out, do it right the first time, or you'll be doing it

right the second time.

 

In short, I'll probably be getting a Coolscan 5000 soon, if for no other reason than that I'd

otherwise always be blaming bad scans (soft focus, color casts, etc) on an "adequate", not

"great", scanner. After all, once the scans are done, I can turn around and sell it on eBay

for close to the original purchase price.

[dickhilker]

Re: external hard drives

 

When my computer died, I serenely bought another and attempted to load it with all the saved files in my 200 GB Maxtor One-Touch -- up to the point where it kept searching, and searching for a restore point. When I finally read the fine print in the manual, I discovered it could only restore files to the hardware from which they'd been saved.

 

So, be sure that any storage device you use has the flexibility to work with another computer -- just in case!

[daniel_taylor]

Sounds like a backup software or software setting issue. I've used Maxtor One Touch drives before to move data from one PC to another using Retrospect.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>DVD and CD are not durable backup media. For home use nothing beats a set of external hard drives in an aluminum case (not the plasticy cases!). </I><P>

He said <B>"archiving"</B> and that has a specific usage - it implies something that will be stable for the long term. When we refer to inkjet printing with archival quality, for instance, we are referring to using very stable pigment based inks on acid-free paper, preferably tested for stability by a reputable lab such as Wilhelm Research. If making a new copy every few years qualified as "archival" then we wouldn't bother with all that fancy archival media.<P>

 

But making new copies is what you have to do with magnetic media, because magnetic media is not archival. 3M and the National Media Laboratory have published studies showing that magnetic media stored at room temperature cannot reasonably be expected to have a lifespan of much more than 10 years, and much less if stored at warm temperatures. Conversely, the life of magnetic media can be extended if they are stored at artificially low temperature and humidity.<P>

 

Optical media manufacturers claim lifespans of 50-200 years. Reports to the contrary, e.g., "bit rot", have been mainly anecdotal but at the moment there are no published systematic studies regarding the long-term stability of optical storage.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>When my computer died, I serenely bought another and attempted to load it with all the saved files in my 200 GB Maxtor One-Touch -- up to the point where it kept searching, and searching for a restore point. When I finally read the fine print in the manual, I discovered it could only restore files to the hardware from which they'd been saved. </I><P>

When an old computer dies it doesn't really make sense to try to restore a backup image to a new computer with different hardware. Modern installation software is very smart about installing drivers and other things that are specific to the environment of the target system. So when you copy the files from an installation on PC A to PC B you can't be sure of havibng the correct files. Also the Registry entries will be need to be restored to make your new system work, so the backup/reovery software would somehow have to be smart enough to restore just the right Registry entries on the new PC, which is a Quixotic expectation.<P>

 

Therefore, the best backup strategy is to just save DATA files. Also, I keep it simple by doing a full backup every time rather than trying to do incrementals and having to worry about checkpoints and restore points.<P>

 

The other problem with using proprietary back software is that you might not have a compatible copy handy when you go do do the restore, in which case your backup harddrive is a nothing but an expensive paperweight. It's more reliable to do a simple XCOPY.

[brian_raisbeck2]

Thank you all for the great responses! It's greatly appreciated! I've got one more question but will post a new thread.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<i>Optical media manufacturers claim lifespans of 50-200 years. Reports to the contrary, e.g., "bit rot", have been mainly anecdotal but at the moment there are no published systematic studies regarding the long-term stability of optical storage.</I><BR><BR>This sounds like somebody who has not had a CD fail; one that was burned on a 5 dollar gold archival disc and stored in a controled environment. A statement like this is like saying a condom doesnt fail, a tire never gets a flat, a tornado never hits a house. <BR><BR>When you scan a mess of negatives at a high resolution, you should also keep some lower res files too. When a disc on a CD goes south, a giant file often gets line wrapped with its start header lost. With 8 to 5 year old CD's that are some have "rotted" the larger files have a greater chance of a sync problem due to a defect that appeared. You really should check your library every year to see if all is ok, and create duplicates for the more valuable stuff. The media makers really can state any bull dung statement they want, their liablity is only a free disc. <BR><BR>Keep you data backed up. Programs can be rebought, reloaded. New computers can be bought. Keep programs and data separate, data is many times not replaceable, programs usually are.<BR><BR>With a B&W negative, the live can exceed a CD. You can cut off 1/3 the negative, and somebody still has 2/3rds the image. With a corrupted rotted CD, a small file has a great chance of not being goofed up. A giant file has a greater risk. This is based on my own collection of CD's; with actual failures on a few, and not some jackass lame spinless marketing chaps soap box BS claims, with no actual tests. <BR><BR>With all the trouble and time it takes to do a scan, here I use a "4000dpi setting" with 35mm for special slides and negatives; and manytimes just a "2720 dpi setting" or a "2000dpi setting" with my scans of iso 800 color print films. If the image really dosent hold any more info, there is no reason to make a giant file full of gas and BS pixels.<BR><BR>Here I still sometimes scan negatives for the general public. Usually the lay public has this weird Jame Bond, Mission Impossible, Star Trek, SG-1 like feeling; that their crappy soccer shots with expired Kodak Max zoom 800 with a F5.6 zoom require a monster high resolution in scanning. Many times only a "1000dpi setting" on a 35mm film scanner is all she wrote; ie abit less than a 1000x1500 pixel scan. <BR><BR>With a CD; you REALLY NEED to ALSO place a dumb as sliced bread text file on who you, what and where these images are of, and also have some simple dinky photos that are a Blurb on what is on this CD. The CD might actually too last 100 years, and get sold in an estate sale of crap. The auction junk dealer might not chuck the CD if it has some cool images of your town. <BR><BR>At the summer house in Katrina land I had some CD's go under water, you can see right thru them, the Katrina juice and salt water ate them up. The salt water also makes an old C22 or C41 negative a mess, image gone and a stinky bunch of goo. With some old late 1960's early RC prints, many went under salt water and survived, but the artsy so called archivally processed fiber stuff completely had their images gone. What is bizzare is the RC stuff was suppose to not last long, but it radically beat out the fine non RC B&W prints. I had some images destroyed both negative and CD too, but I had a duplicate CD in the California home; or on a remote a server, or more bizzare just a jpeg on a gmail account.<BR><BR>Try archiving color stuff first, ie stuff that fades more than B&W negatives. A 36 exp roll of negatives doesnt take up much space in volume. Scan this roll at a "4000dpi" setting at 16 bits and you now have several CD's, more volume!<BR><BR>