Scan Service vs DIY

[john_odonnell1]

I have about 13,000 images to scan (about 12,000 35mm negs and 1,000 35mm slides ). This is for

archiving purposes. I looked online for decent scan services and the cheapest I could find is about $.39/

scan. This works out to more than $5,000 for the whole project. I think I could probably get a Nikon Super

Coolscan 5000 for about $1,000, but then I'm looking at one heck of a lot of time to do it myself.

 

I would really appreciate any suggestions or perspectives on the best way to accomplish this task.

 

 

Thanks in advance,

 

John

[ronald_moravec1]

The best archive is film in a sealed container in a freezer.

 

People have film images made from digi to archive. There is no permanent digi medium right now unless you believe Delkins claim on gold CD. Then you need a CD player that may not exist.

 

I would not want to scan all that stuff. Pick a few and digitize just that. As a do it yourself, you will be at it for years. Pro scans can be low or high rezolution. Be sure of what you buy.

[robert lee]

"This is for archiving purposes ... about $.39/ scan."

 

This sounds low.

 

I went through a similar exercise a few years ago. I bought a Nikon CS5000 for this. Looking back, it took probably about a year to do, off and on. If you really want to get archival results, I'm not aware of another way without spending much more money.

 

You might want to look into the bulk slide feeder attachment for the 5000.

 

Done correctly, digitization is the best way to archive. Film's good for maybe 35 years. If you can ensure that the images are transferred to current media every few years, a digital archive remains pristine for as long as you care about it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

You can always do alot of tasks yourself cheaper than farming the job out; whether using a toiler plunger; cutting ones hair; cutting the lawn; scanning a mess of images; washing clothes; making scrambled eggs; retouching images; sewing on a button. The equation is easy if ones time is worthless; you do everything yourself. Or maybe you own an oil well and have a butler and maid and you just play golf all day. The lowest cost parachute, condom, haircut, brake job is not what most folks choose; but with scanning folks seem to always find a lower cost bulk scanning service. Scanning 10,000 + images might be considered a form of hell. You as the iamge owner KNOW what each image is about; which image is important for the next generation. Try a little of both; some home scanning; some farming out.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Consider cooking; many folks cook at home and eat out too.

[steven_clark]

Above all else: cull. Even a few hundred images is an incredible timesink.

[robert goldstein]

First, ask yourself whether you really need all 13,000 images in digital form. If the answer is

yes, then ask the same question again and again until the answer changes. Unless you are

doing this for professional or scholarly reasons, then you almost certainly can eliminate many

photos that are of mediocre quality and middling importance.

 

Rob

[Ed_Ingold]

A decent scan costs from $25 to over $100 per image. At that rate, you don't have to scan much to justify the purchase of a decent film scanner like a Nikon LS-4000. Even with culling, you would probably benefit from an automatic slide feeder.

 

I think Ronald is old enough to have faded film in his collection. So much for the "archival" film theory. Even B&W is subject to attack by atmospheric pollution (e.g., sulfur). Optical media is durable enough, although the technology to read it may be obsolete in the forseeable future.

[robert_martin5]

I suspect the $0.39 scan is a low resolution unadjusted scan saved in JPG format that is adequate for a 4x6 inch print (1200 x 1800 pixels). High quality, high resolution scans will cost $20 to $100 per image.

 

I am archiving my medium format and 35mm color negatives using a Nikon 9000. I have only scanned 3000 images to date and have a lot more to go. I also have 35mm slides and a few medium format slides that I plan to do after I complete the color negatives.

 

You have a lot of decisions to make before you start the project. These include scan resolution, bit depth, color space, file format, and image corrections. I find that Digital ICE saves a lot of time since it fixes almost all dust problems - I would not purchase a film scanner without Digital ICE. I output all files from the scanner as 16 bit TIFF files with Adobe RGB profile. I make final corrections using Photoshop and save the file as an 8 bit TIFF file for my master. The resolution you select for scanning determines you file sizes - if you scan at maximum resolution expect 70 to 150 meg file for TIFF format. I only scan at maximum resolution for special images.

 

Good luck if you decide to pruchase a scanner.

[ronald_moravec1]

Color film fades if left in a drawer. Hermetically seal and freeze it.

 

 

I have faded film that was stored in a drawer.

[roger_smith4]

I would reassess the purpose of your project.

 

For $1 or so you can get a 4000dpi 8 bit scan on a Coolscan 5000 type machine from places like digitalslides.net. However, that's unretouched and you would then need to spend time and have expertise to turn it into a good looking image (with skill and experience expect 5-20 min per file for well-exposed slides).

[jtk]

Unless you're Edward Weston or your images are of profound historic importance, let 90% of them go. You'll still be left with too many.

 

Be confident in digital storage. It's easy to backup in multiple modes and it's easy to store backup-backups in bank vaults. Digital being what it is, it's easy to backup an old medium (eg. hard disc) into a new medium (eg DVD, or whatever's next).

 

Bad things happen to things stored in freezers, such as power outages, package leaks, condensation...

 

The notion of sealing them "hermetically" is amusing...to avoid condensation you'd need to replace air with a dry gas (eg nitrogen) and you'd need to avoid opening the packages for occasional inspection.

[robert lee]

"You have a lot of decisions to make before you start the project ... I make final corrections using Photoshop and save the file as an 8 bit TIFF file for my master."

 

I disagree with this workflow. A prime rule for image conservation is to do no harm.

 

If using a Nikon, scan and save at 4000dpi and 16bit TIFF. Archive these and do further edits, e.g. for print, on copies. As a gesture toward practicality, really the only automated correction you might want to leave turned on is light ICE.

[brian_ellis19]

I think your best bet is to cull your images down to a more manageable number. The idea of paying someone else to scan 13,000 slides or negatives is no more appealing than doing it yourself and doing it yourself sounds like a lifetime sentence in solitary confinement. Surely you don't really need to archive 13,000 images of whatever it is you're archiving. When I converted my family photo albums (snapshot prints, not the original negatives) to digital I eliminated most of the ones that just documented the places we went to - e.g. all the pictures of mountains from ski lifts, all the pictures of sunsets from beaches, etc. - and kept only those that had family members in them, then culled those further to eliminate the ones that weren't very good of which there were plenty. I didn't keep track of numbers but I'd guess that reduced maybe 2,000 snapshots to about 500 digitized prints which I was able to easily do myself over a period of time. Maybe that wouldn't work for your purposes since you haven't told us the reason for your project but it's hard for me to imagine that you really need to archive 13,000 images of anything.

[john_odonnell1]

Thanks for all the insights.

 

I got my first SLR, a Canon FTb, in August of 1977. A decade later I switched to a Nikon

which I used until 2003 when I finally went digital. Over almost 30 years my photos have

chronicled the births, weddings, anniversaries, birthdays and all the other events that were

my famiy's life. They now sit in archive sleeves in 3 binders, and in boxes of slides.

 

A few years ago I took my family's old snapshots from the turn of the century into the 70's

and scanned them with an Epson flatbed. It was aproject that took the better part of a

year, but in the end I was able to present my siblings with digital copies of alll the

snapshots which they can keep for posterity.

 

What I'm attempting to do now is for the same purpose, except I have the acual negatives

and many more times the number of images. It would be difficult for me to cull images as

the purpose is to preserve as much as possible. It certainly seems all agree to have this

done professionally is cost prohibitive. Therefore, I'll need to consider investment in a

Nikon film scanner and the time committment.

 

Thanks again.

John

[robert goldstein]

Life is short, John. I sincerely hope that you will get much pleasure from the time you will

spend with your scanner.

 

Rob