Scanning old Negs; Batch, or Single Process

[roamingstudio]

<p>This might be a frequently asked question - but various searches on keywords brought up ambiguous results.<br>

I used a Pentax K1000 for a few years, and built up a collection of negatives and photos but never scanned any of them in, published or indeed sorted the negatives other than put them (safely) into a box marked storage. Last time I looked there were >2000.<br>

A few years ago I moved into digital with Canon 20D and more, and use a lightroom based workflow to process the photos. However i would also like to work with some of my older negatives but face an uncertain next step. Some advice / costing would be useful.</p>

<p>1) Send all the negatives to a cheap scanning facility, get most processed to jpg (or 16 bit tif) and process / release those I like (for critique). I would then sort through the negatives, select the best ones and reprocess them professionally. Pro: only spend $$ for the most expensive items. Cons: takes a lot of time, and could lose negatives in post?</p>

<p>2) Send all the negatives to an expensive scanning facility, getting 16bit tif, DNG or somesuch (recommendations)? Post processing if necessary in lightroom / photoshop etc. Pros: it is a 'oneshot' processing. Cons: It costs much more etc.</p>

<p>3) Purchase my own Nikon Coolscan 4000 (refurbished?, or 5000 now), link it up to my Lenovo X200 with HDMI / DVI external monitor (Dell 2000FPW), colour calibrate using my old Monaco Optix Pro, and process the negatives slowly over time. Pros: I only ever process the good negatives, and can always repeat with different scanning parameters. Cons: cost? Scanner only used for (relatively short) time, before being passed onto someone else.</p>

<p>In many ways option 3 is probably the best, perhaps even finding a rental service (near Zurich). However is it realistic (in terms of expectations, price, learning)? Can refurbished / well looked after Coolscans be found at reasonable prices. (flatbeds could also be used, but I plan to scan my fiancees slides as well). General comments would be most useful.<br>

I would also say I am not professional by any means - but have had many positive comments from colleagues in the past, and would like to break out a bit more (portfolio, obtain critiques, improve techniques etc).<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Marc</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Marc,<br>

I bought a Coolscan V a few years ago, and my intention was to scan all of my old slides and negs. Please be warned, that this is a veeeeery time consuming task, and you have to spend a lot of time in front of the computer, time that could be spent otherwise.</p>

<p>Not to discourage you, because I also find it fun, but it has taken far more time than I originally anticipated.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>I've been scanning negatives for the past 15 years. It is a time consuming, tedious task even with the best scanners and lots of experience. I've probably scanned on the order of five to six thousand negatives in this time.</p>

<p>I recently did a small film camera project ... scanning 40 negatives and getting useful results with a Nikon Coolscan IV ED, even given my extensive experience doing it, took the better part of a day and was basically all I did that day. It's "for fun and pleasure" ... not something I'd want to do for 2000 negatives! </p>

<p>For 2000 negatives, if you can get it done by a service cheaply enough, it's worth having them do it and then forgetting about the film entirely. Several friends have used ScanCafe.com to do a bulk load of 35mm negatives like this. You can option up to whichever quality and service level makes sense to you. </p>

<p>Since a good scanner is going to cost you $300-400 and scanning 2000 negatives is going to cost you 30-40 days labor to do, $500 or so to scan your library through a service like this isn't out of the ballpark price-wise. And you can be doing other things while the scanning is being done that are much more fun and possibly profitable instead. </p>

<p>Highest resolution JPEGs will net 99% of everything you need. I'd reserve going high-rez, 16 bit TIFF scans for only the very best of the best, the "hero" images that might actually be valuable. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'd say if you're going to the expense and effort get 16 bit, red/green/blue tiffs of all. On the face it might seem extravagant, but research the file sizes and I think you will see it does not take a lot of space, and storage is always getting bigger and cheaper. I would suggest to get both raw, unadjusted files and fine-tuned jpegs, if you like.<br>

If you get your own scanner, look into Vuescan. It may not suit all your needs, but will likely supplement where the OEM software falls short. IMHO, the best scanner hands-down for 35mm is the Minolta Scan Elite 5400, the first model, with the hardware Grain Dissolver. It is particularly advantageous with silver oxide emulsion black and white, and Kodachrome. Either the Coolscan V or 5000 are decent, in particular for scanning relatively grainy color negative film, and work well with Vuescan in that regard.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>Les, I use the Coolscan IV which has the same speed and film holders as the Coolscan V. It's still a slow process.</p>

[robert_martin5]

<p>Les, are you using Nikon Scan software for scanning? If yes, how do you have it setup? I have a Nikon 9000 and use Nikon Scan. I am scanning color negatives now and plan to scan slides later. </p>

[jtk]

<p>The relative ease/hassle of scanning has mostly to do with film-handling and the condition of the film.</p>

<p>My own B&W negatives, going back to the Sixties, turn out to be in 99.9% good condition (thanks to Savage and Agfa glassine sleeves rather than plastic)..virtually all were well exposed and developed, allowing default scanning. I've been surprised how reliably I could rely on Nikonscan or Vuescan defaults (they're equally good imo).</p>

<p>I scan only to print and I invariably post-process. I find it easy to match silver prints with inkjet (first 2200 with QTR and now 3800 with Lightroom).</p>

<p>Assuming your negs are in strips of 6 or less, you'll find the Nikon V just as fast in practice as the 5000, though 5000 has multi-pass advantages if you're dealing with extreme shadow detail issues, as typical with Velvia.</p>

[roamingstudio]

<p>Thanks to everyone for their response above; I was travelling around Sicily & UK and did not get an opportunity to reply.<br>

Based on the early replies the 'easy' solution would be to get a company to do the batch scan. But the Coolscan approach does seem nice especially if I end up learning more! Just need to find a low priced one, any tips? (Switzerland can be really expensive).</p>