Scanning Slides, negatives & family photos

[evilsivan]

<p>I am thinking about starting a new project that would for now will include two things<br>

1) Scanning old negatives and slides<br>

2) Scanning old family photos<br>

I would love to hear what experiences other people have had regarding their process and what kind of equipment/software they have used. I assume I'll need at least two separate scanners? One for slides/negatives and one for prints?<br>

I can imagine the scope of this project widening from my own catalog to that of other family members and other sides of the family (maybe they can pitch in on expenses ;-)</p>

[ljwest]

<p>Many modern flatbed scanners, like those from Canon and Epson can scan 35mm negatives, slides, often medium format negatives and chromes (transparencies), and, of course, prints. And then there are the film/slides only scanners.</p>

<p>Your choice of software to do the scanning can have a great impact on the job. The software that comes with the scanner is usually adequate, but you'll get greater control over the process from a software product like VueScan or SilverFast.</p>

<p>You'll also need to figure out what kind of resolution you want to scan at. That will determine how large the files are, and how much detail you will see.</p>

<p>Lots of discussions on these topics over in the Film forums, and the Digital Darkroom forum. In addition to the replies you get here, you might want to search over in those for more information. Good luck!</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Thanks Larry!<br>

I wasn't sure what forum to post in.</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>I've started a similar project with the old family photos. I have an older Epson Photo scanner that does prints, and has a set up for negatives, and slides. I started off with a pile of photos of my late faters from WW2, and moved on to a pile of family photos from the 40s through the early 60s. The software for the scanner is actualy pretty good for a first shot, and I have an old version of Photo shop, that allows me to fix any major problems with the first scan. One thing that I need to replace is my external HD (since my Seagate went bely up) so I have a back up place to store al the files. You mat want to look into that too. I also have just around 8 to 10 thousand slides to scan, so I know what I'll be doing on the cold winter days, and nights to come. </p><div></div>

[evilsivan]

<p>Thanks Ed!<br>

What a great picture! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Think of all the other people in that picture and their relatives too. If you could put it on the web then they can enjoy it too. It also has historical value.<br>

That looks like a good scan, not knowing how the original looked. Any advice? I suppose one way or the other its just gonna take lots of time.</p>

[User_276104]

<p>A few years ago I started to scan some old family slides with my Nikon Coolscan IV and quickly found that I didn't have the patience for it. </p>

<p>I ended up shooting them on a light box with a 105mm macro lens. If anyone really wanted a good file to print from I could make a better scan, but in the case of photos of old gatherings, etc. just being able to easily view them again was good enough.</p>

<p>I posted an example of a light box copy about 3/4 of the way down in this thread:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00UhFN</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Ofer, I have recently completed a project similar to the one you propose though likely on a smaller scale even though you don't specify the size of your project. I did it with an Epson V500 which will scan prints, MF negs and slides, as well as 35mm negs and slides. It worked well for me. If you want to see some samples (some of my shots included) simply search under 'Gallery' >photo tags> *insert scanner in question* This should provide you with some idea of the quality to be expected. Best, LM.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've done over 50,000 images, probably much more. I've learned a few things, some of them by bitter experience.</p>

<p>1) Scan at the highest resolution you can, so that you end up scanning only once. It takes longer, but not so long as having to hunt down an image and rescan it at a higher resolution later on.<br>

2) Get the very fastest scanner you can afford. Stretch to get a fast one, life is too short to wait around for slower scanners. Speed is not only the scanning time per se, but also the time it takes to punch it through the interface to the computer hard drive.<br>

3) Clean the images very carefully before scanning. Even the best "automatic dirt reduction" routines degrade the image in every example I've ever seen. Turn off the feature, keep the images clean, and manual "spotting" can always be done later, if necessary. Scanning will normally speed up considerably without the dust reduction.<br>

4) Set up batches to scan on a separate computer, one that can be dedicated to scanning alone. Since the scanner and physical interface are usually more important than the computer speed, an older machine can often be dedicated to this.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Think about what you want to do with them afterwards. I've been getting a big kick out of burning DVD's to show on HDTV of slide shows (or Windows Media Videos for computers), adding background music, titles, scenes etc and then giving them to family members. They love them especially if they're in them. Otherwise when you get done scanning you go from a bunch of slides sitting in your closet unseen to a bunch of digital pixels sitting in your computer unseen. By the way, you can do this with your digital camera photos too. Why wait to scan to make your family happy.<br>

<br />Technically, I use Adobe Photoshop Premiere 8 and/or Elements 8 for the software end. I scan with an Epson V-600 flat bed. Remember you don't need a lot of pixels for HDTV (1200 x 1800 pixels for 35mm equivalent is all you need to more than fill up the 1080 high screen or for a computer monitor). You can see some of the scan results with the V-600 in my portfolio. They're all scans of 120 medium format and 35mm slides except for the last 3 which are regular digitals. Good luck. Alan</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Think about what you want to do with them afterwards. I've been getting a big kick out of burning DVD's to show on HDTV of slide shows (or Windows Media Videos for computers), adding background music, titles, scenes etc and then giving them to family members.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with thinking about what you want to do with them. Scanning to share with others or to get prints is a good idea but in my opinion, scanning everything when you have a large collection is just a waste of time and you will get bored quickly and not dedicate enough effort to each image to get a good scan.<br>

Also the originals are probably going to easily outlast the digital copies so just scan the images you need as and when you need them.</p>

[louis m]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3966899"></a>Ofer,<br>

I have been working on and off on a similar project for the last 4-5 years. I started by using a light box and the macro setting on my Nikon CoolPix 880 to digitize hundreds of 35mm family slides. Later I bought an Epson v700, and with its flatbed was able to scan lots of older, odd sized negatives. As I accumulate more pictures, I post them online and also burn them to disks to distribute to the family. The scan quality of the 35mm negs and slides is not what you'd get from a dedicated film scanner, but these were family snaps to begin with ,so what I get to see on my monitor or TV is still far better than any print versions of the pictures.<br>

Good luck with your project. I'm still having a great time with mine.<br>

Louis</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Scanning to share with others or to get prints is a good idea but in my opinion, scanning everything when you have a large collection is just a waste of time and you will get bored quickly and not dedicate enough effort to each image to get a good scan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve is entitled to his opinion, and may even have a point if your only object is the occasional internet posting or a lo-res CD distribution to the family.</p>

<p>If you actually want to <em>use</em> your images, then what is inefficient and "boring" is to have to go to the same boxes of prints and slides over and over, searching for something you dimly remember to be there. Do it right the first time and that will be the only time. Measure twice, cut once, sort of thing.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I agree Steve. The only variable I would add is for slide shows.</p>

<p>Usually you're trying to tell a story. Like a trip you went on with relatives. Or maybe a birthday party for Aunt Mollie. Then pick the pictures that are decent that tell a story- have a beginning, a middle and an end. Viewers aren't looking at the pictures as we do here on this site or at a fine art museum. The pictures have to go together and should be fairly decent but don't waste a lot of time with editing. Basic cropping, sharpening a little, tones and contrast stuff is good enough. There's not enough time as each picture passes on the screen too quickly for pixel peepers to find fault. And family and friends won't care anyway.</p>

<p>I found that a show of around 5 minutes is more than enough so you don't lose people's interest. Allowing 5 seconds per picture plus disolves between them means around 50-60 pictures. Include a song or two that matches the story (you can download from Amazon any song for around a dollar) and rolling credits to add a little theatrics. Don't go overboard and you might even get people to watch. I have to tell you that background music keeps the show going and holds interest, even for me when I'm watching my own stuff. It imporves the pictures a 1,000%.</p>

<p>The best part is when you see the faces of someone watching who is involved in the original shots. Recently, my cousin's wife lost her 93 old mom. She gave me a picture album of old B/W's from the 1940's of her mom and dad before they got married. I scanned the pictures, put together a DVD to play on HDTV and their computers, added big band songs of the 40's like Glenn Miller, and they were absolutely delighted with it. I also re-printed the pictures together as an album so her sister could insert the pictures in a second album. What a joy.</p>

<p>For those special single shots, photoshop them to the best, do a nice blowup, frame them <em>and give them away to the people who would treasure them</em>. Don't keep them!</p>

<p>I finally figured out how to get the most value and happiness out of photography. <em>Doing it for others!</em></p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Guys,<br>

thanks for all the great opinions and advice. I hope even more people will chime in.<br>

Having not started yet, I assume that a) for prints I would like to scan essentially all of my familiy photos, in a high resolution so I only have to do it once.<br>

b) for slides it will be worthwhile to cull the chaff so to speak then scan the remaining ones, maybe biting the bullet and paying a service like fotobridge.com<br>

-Ofer</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Question re scans<br>

2000 dpi? 4000dpi? What does this mean in a practical way?<br>

Ofer</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree Steve. The only variable I would add is for slide shows.<br /> ....... don't waste a lot of time with editing. Basic cropping, sharpening a little, tones and contrast stuff is good enough. There's not enough time as each picture passes on the screen too quickly for pixel peepers to find fault........</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I do a slide show it will be with a projector.<br /> <br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I found that a show of around 5 minutes is more than enough</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My father's slide shows used to last the best part of an evening with a break for tea and biscuits half way through. I think the problem with a 'slideshow' on a television is that there is no novelty value. It's just like watching T.V.</p>

<p> </p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Ofer, If your desired print size is 8"x12" and your print resolution is 200 pixels per inch (adequate for most prints unless of fine art quality) then you must scan at 1600 ppi. or perhaps a bit higher if any cropping is anticipated. It's always easier to maintain quality by down rezing than by up rezing. So scanning at a higher resolution gives you more options later. (also fills up your storage medium faster - life's a compromise). Best, LM.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>This discussion pops up every few months, and I think it usually leads to a number of opinions firmly held by various readers:<br>

1)digital is not "lasting" - the only lasting thing is the prints/negatives/slides<br>

2)it is a time-consuming project, and many lose interest before it is done<br>

3)you need to scan at as high a resolution as possible, or you will be starting over at some point<br>

I can relate to all of these, but certainly do not believe #1 above - digital is way more timeless and secure than "hard copy"; and allows for far more sharing than lugging around pictures and showing them to hapless family members. I have, over the past decade, just about worn out a Nikon Coolscan IV. Fortunately my father taught me to keep the negatives, and I have all his slides. I have been able to get close to 100% of his stuff done, and have all of mine from 1972 forward digitized. Prior to that I have been able to track down and have scanned family pictures back to the late 1800's - complete with names and relationships. A lot of work, and yes, I started over after being about 50% done when I realized how I'd screwed up on getting high-enough resolution, and not over-doing the automatic dirt clean-up settings. I've missed a lot of bad TV shows in the evenings as a result - so I figure that I've netted out ahead on use of my time.<br>

So what do I have from this admittedly obsessive past-time? Well, I have a pictorial record that I have given to my children, and that they can choose to share with my grandchildren. Those pictures go back to their great-great-great grandparents, and show our migration from the British Isles, and across North America. Everyone of my children has a regularly updated copy (thanks to the rapidly descending prices in the storage world) and I keep the archives updated with the latest pictures, so they have a family record up to this year. I will keep it technically current as long as I can - and then its up to some future member of the family to take this on and keep it current if they wish.<br>

It is by far the most joyful project I have ever taken on, and what's nice about it is that it allows me to wallow in my relatively harmless, although occasionally expensive hobby.</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>Oh yeah Steve. I fondly remember those nights. I also remember the fun of waiting for the Kodachromes to arrive in the mail. It was always great to find that yellow box in the mail box after school. I plan on doing a slide show for my Daughter when she is down for the holidays.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>What is a definition of a slide show that is too long?</p>

<p>Someone else's slide show ;)</p>

<p>Darkened, warm room. The hypnotic "click, click" of the projector. The whirring of the cooling fan. The drone of a voice, "here's the third side of the same building...."<br>

Priceless! :)</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Yes - that hypnotic, dark slide show. One of our family, who will remain nameless, was presenting a slide show one evening many years ago. She fell asleep in her own presentation, holding the remote control for the projector. We all decide to quietly slip out of the room and get on with the rest of the evening - and she was not happy with us when she woke up sometime later. It still creates a laugh in our family when that story is retold.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Darkened, warm room. The hypnotic "click, click" of the projector. The whirring of the cooling fan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My favourite bit was how the beam of light would show up every bit of dust falling in its path. And the occasional upside down slide.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>but certainly do not believe #1 above - digital is way more timeless and secure than "hard copy"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's only true as long as someone is doing the backups, etc. I have no intention of doing it and I'm certain no one would after I am gone.<br>

Without maintenance the files will disappear. And a question I have asked a few times but never had properly answered: If you regularly backup your files, how do you know that the files you are copying are good? You could be making backup copies of already corrupt files - possibly over-writing good files.</p>

 

[David_Cavan]

<p>"Without maintenance the files will disappear"<br>

Steve - sorry, as an IT professional I believe that minimal maintenance is required, and it is not a complex activity. Every one of the 60,000+ scanned and digital pictures cycles through on one of our computers regularly as screen-savers, and I have not had a single file "go bad" in a decade. But we have lost negatives, slides and prints to "bad maintenance" over the years and that will only continue. So although I understand your point, its just not a valid one. But this is not something we will agree on - I've experienced that through a number of these discussions (some with you, I think). I've still got all the hard-copy stuff and have it under as much good management as possible, so its always there for later, barring fires, earthquakes, floods, meteorites...</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>My father's slide shows used to last the best part of an evening with a break for tea and biscuits half way through.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, he would have had a riot on his hands if he skipped the tea and biscuits after all that time!</p>