Workflow for scanning/archiving project

[james_derose3]

Hi All,

 

Looking for some advice on a workflow for a large scanning project i'm up against. It's been awhile since i've scanned things but am determined to scan and archive all of the family photos I can get my hands on. Some are as new as a decade ago and some are close to 100 years old. I've had my local lab scan some of the prints, but decided to start getting this done all on my own. Since a lot of the older stuff requires restoration work, I may have to go back and adjust the scan anyway if i'm trying pull detail out of a faded photo, etc.

 

For prints, i'll be using an Epson v600. I considered a v800 or v850, but I only have a couple transparencies larger than 35mm. I'm happy to let the lab do it. I just need the flatbed. For slides and film, i've got a Nikon Coolscan V. Software is Vuescan, Lightroom and Photoshop. I think i'm pretty set in the actual scanning and editing workflow, but input is always welcome.

 

Where i'm moving off the rails a bit is going through all of the 35mm and 110 film. I can preview the slides well enough, but the negative film strips are tough to go through and identify people without seeing the positive, enlarged. So I started looking at these cheap, self contained film scanners. This one here shows the preview in realtime and you manually feed the film in:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Jumbl-High-Resolution-Negative-Slide-Scanner/dp/B00ICOB78K

 

I'm thinking with something like that I can quickly preview this film - especially the 110 stuff that I can barely see otherwise. If there's one where I need to call my mother about ("hey, do you know who this is?"), I can hit the button and snap a jpeg "proof" to send along. I also won't need to do this all where my scanner setup will be (at my office) and instead can sort through everything at home. Basically i'll be using it as a digital light box that I can flip negatives to positive in real time with the added bonus of snapping proofs. I see they also have them where you integrate your phone, but i'd rather something self contained.

 

Any thoughts? Anyone who has done a project like this? How did YOU sort through all the negatives?

 

-James

[JDMvW]

I was curious enough to try to figure out what this really is, but no one seems to give real specs for it, and I gave up.

 

be aware that the 22MP figure is meaningless without other data, especially since it seems to be "interpolated"

 

My guess is that it is probably no more than 1600 pixels per inch. which is about the same as the better flatbed film scanners like the Canoscan 9000F.

[james_derose3]

I was curious enough to try to figure out what this really is, but no one seems to give real specs for it, and I gave up.

 

be aware that the 22MP figure is meaningless without other data, especially since it seems to be "interpolated"

 

My guess is that it is probably no more than 1600 pixels per inch. which is about the same as the better flatbed film scanners like the Canoscan 9000F.

 

To be clear, I have no intention of using this to "scan my slides." So as long as it functions the way it is advertised (real time previews on the little LCD, manual feed of film and quick "snaps to small jpegs" if I need them) I think it should do. It's one of the reasons I was looking at this vs something like the Kodak Scanza. May as well go as cheap as possible if i'm not worried about quality. I just want to use it as a glorified digital lightbox and MAYBE to snap some "proofs" if I need to send a snapshot quickly to someone in the family to ask if the picture is worth scanning.

 

I thought about "proofing" on my v600 since I could grab 4 slides or 6 frames of film at a time, but even that would require extra effort - not to mention it would physically tie me to where my scanner is set up as well as a computer.

[JDMvW]

To be clear, I have no intention of using this to "scan my slides."

 

?Huh? I didn't say anything at all about scanning slides, not here anyhow.

[Jochen_S]

I don't see the real edge in the workflow you are sketching here. Instead of the self contained machine I 'd utilize it's USB hooked counterpart that would provide a bigger (live!) preview on some old PC's screenfor a third of the money. I'd even safe everything I am previewing to disk. It 'll be maybe sub 6MP JPEGs, so who cares? One folder per whatever (sheet? bag? roll?) name & file them correspondingly! If you don't want to scann stuff on the real machine later you can at least pass everything to somebody else and tell "thats what we have, have fun."

If possible, I'd love to have the real scanner nearby to hopefully clean the film only once, in case I am spotting a keeper that catches my eye.

I'd run face detection software like Picasa's over my saved previews and use the results to ask other family members who folks might have been.

If you are planning to pass your work down, maybe record some podcast while talking with the previous generation about the images. - Being told who is depicted by an old photograph isn't enough to really feel like "my(!) history / heritage". It takes stories or such too...

[Ed_Ingold]

One of the basic tasks in archiving is to catalog the source material so it can be correlated with the scanned images. You should have a way by which the original can be located. Secondly, you need a cataloging system which assigns a unique, traceable, searchable name for each object and image. That "name" is really a hash tag. Additional details, such as names and locations, can be placed in notes under that tag.

 

A simple relational data base like Microsoft Access is easily configured by a beginner. Spreadsheets, like Microsoft Excel, are extremely difficult to maintain and search, but may be useful for populating a real database. Access is very powerful but slow, particularly when maintained by multiple users. I don't think scalability is a huge issue here, but Microsoft SQL would satisfy that category.

 

I suggest organizing and storing negatives, slides and prints in archival polypropylene pages. You can write or label the pages and store them in a ring binder. You could leave prints in ordinary scrapbooks, but archival pages are better. Scrapbooks get pretty ratty with age, and things fall off the pages. It's not easy to scan pages in a bound scrapbook, except photographically. Even that's not very easy.

 

Just about any flatbed scanner will work well for prints, especially if outside of a scrapbook. An inexpensive flatbed with a transparency attachment (lighted cover) will work well for negatives of any size. I prefer to copy 35 mm slides and film strips with a camera and slide holder (e.g, Nikon ES-2). That would work for 110 film too, which is basicayyl 35 mm film without sprocket holes. Unless grandpa used a Rolleiflex, the flatbed is more than adequate for 120/620 film. An inexpensive copy stand would be a good investment for large photographs and bound pages. Setting up a tripod each time will get old very quickly.

[Jochen_S]

That would work for 110 film too, which is basicayyl 35 mm film without sprocket holes

Sorry, I believe that would be 126 Instamatic. - 110 Pocket had 13 mm × 17 mm negs on narrower stock. I haven't even seen proper holders for the latter and don't know how easily one could do the virtual light table thing with it and a "scanner".

[Ed_Ingold]

I have made "custom" film holders for a flatbed with a sharp knife and black matting board from Hobby Lobby. The film is held flat with a sheet of anti-reflective framing glass. Another way is to make a channel for the film with black photographic tape, cover with glass, and slide the film strip to expose a new frame. Either technique could be used with a light table and a copy camera, except you need clear glass between the film and camera. The anti-reflective glass could go on the bottom. Just about anything is better than the flimsy plastic frames that come with flatbed "film" scanners.

 

I suggest using a camera for small negatives or prints for a couple of reasons - more resolution and much faster operation.

 

You learn to "read" negatives pretty quickly. Even so, wait until you have a positive image before identifying the subjects. You can add those details later in notes attached to the catalog number. Again, each image needs a unique identifier. Aunt Mildred can be in a lot of photos, so you run out of options when the file name reflects the contents, and risk duplication.

[james_derose3]

?Huh? I didn't say anything at all about scanning slides, not here anyhow.

Sorry for the late response. Had some medical emergencies (all is well now!) at home. I didn't mean to imply with my quotes that you said anything about scanning! I was just trying to be clear that I wasn't too concerned with the specs of the machine whatsoever as I wouldn't be using it for any of my real scanning duties. That's what the Coolscan V is for.

 

And thank you, everyone else, for the suggestions as well. Archiving will be a bit difficult as I know most of the people i'm saving, but don't have the foggiest ideas of dates outside of my grandfather in uniform, which I know date somewhere between 1942 (when he was in basic and then a drill sergeant here in the US) to 1945 when he was in Europe. I'm a bit sit with the prints as far as that goes.

 

The negatives are MOSTLY from the 1980s forward with a few sets from the 1970s. My main thing there, and the reason I was looking to weed some out with this solution, is to weed out the people who don't matter (to me). It's a nice suggestion to scan ALL of the negatives in low res just in case, but the reality is that if i have a roll of 24 from a trip to Ft. Henry in 1984 and 6 of them are my family and the rest are other tourists or museum employees, I don't want to bother digitizing those other 18 photos. I'll definitely be putting them in pages as they are digitized, so on those pages i'll have cataloged which ones are family, etc.

 

You learn to "read" negatives pretty quickly. Even so, wait until you have a positive image before identifying the subjects. You can add those details later in notes attached to the catalog number. Again, each image needs a unique identifier. Aunt Mildred can be in a lot of photos, so you run out of options when the file name reflects the contents, and risk duplication.

 

Agreed - if they are posed pictures or in places i'm familiar with. But in my scenario above, it'll be near impossible to identify my father taking a picture of a canon in the background vs another tourist.

 

Thanks for the help, guys!

 

-James

[Ed_Ingold]

Heard of a loupe?

[james_derose3]

Heard of a loupe?

Indeed! But even that would be tough to identify if there are people or places in a 110 negative are worth saving ;). I was thinking of using that device as my "digital loupe," really - with the advantage of turning the negative to positive.

[Ed_Ingold]

Scanning is a lot of work in terms of preparation, time and organization. I think you will find that scanning film twice, once for identification and again for keeps, is a waste of time because it is a huge duplication of effort. A similar example is to scan at low resolution, then at high resolution for the ones you wish to keep. My recommendation is to set up a process to scan well and consistently at reasonable quality, and stick with it. You can decide which images to print, display or distribute at your leisure.

 

If anything, film scanning on a flatbed is even slower than using a Coolscan V, and both are much slower than "scanning" with a digital camera. It takes less time to scan than to decide whether to scan, so I do 'em all and decide later.

[james_derose3]

Scanning is a lot of work in terms of preparation, time and organization. I think you will find that scanning film twice, once for identification and again for keeps, is a waste of time because it is a huge duplication of effort. A similar example is to scan at low resolution, then at high resolution for the ones you wish to keep. My recommendation is to set up a process to scan well and consistently at reasonable quality, and stick with it. You can decide which images to print, display or distribute at your leisure.

 

If anything, film scanning on a flatbed is even slower than using a Coolscan V, and both are much slower than "scanning" with a digital camera. It takes less time to scan than to decide whether to scan, so I do 'em all and decide later.

 

Thanks Ed,

 

I couldn't agree more. Not only do I not want to scan twice, I suspect I won't even want to scan 80% of it ONCE. That's why I was thinking of something like this as a "digital loupe" so to speak. Pretty much using it for a different purpose than intended. I've got a handheld lightbox that I use for slides that has a loup, and a lightbox built in. I push in the mounted slide, it lights up and I see the slide at about 2x magnification nice and bright on a screen. I'd be using this digitnow device in a similar way for my negatives - especially the 110s. I'm sure I don't have many keepers of those.

 

As for scanning vs deciding what to scan, you're also right there as well. But the deciding what to scan part is also going to be the deciding what to keep and archive part. I've got photomat envelopes upon photomat envelopes of negatives. It's great that my mother saved them...but I know I also don't want to keep all of them.

 

I thought about going the camera scan route. Is that what you do? I might consider that once I get a full frame, but that's not in the cards for a little while. The Coolscan is what I have now - and it's a good scanner.

[Ed_Ingold]

Yes, that's what I do, and I have a Coolscan LS4000 and LS8000. I use a flatbed for documents, covers, photos, etc, but strictly reflected light. A few weeks ago I scanned three carousels full of slides in about 2 hours, using a Nikon ES-2 holder, Sony A7Riii and Nikon 55/2.8 Macro lens.

 

In many respects, a DX camera is easier to use. Since magnification of slices will be less than 1:1, you can use auto focus and less extension.

[otislynch]

I bought an Ivation ($100) about a year ago as an inspection tool and for noncritical scanning - and (much to my surprise!) I love it. Not only can I preview slides and negatives, but it’s actually a pretty fine little scanner as long as I keep everything spotless and solidly still. I was a bit surprised that even the slight vibration of the desktop from two PCs sitting on it visibly degraded sharpness in aggressive crops of detailed scans. But overall, it does a much better job turning emulsion into digits than I ever dreamed it could. And it’s fast. Yes, it’s all plastic - so I’m very careful with it. I’ve already scanned hundreds of old images, more than a few of which have been posted here.

 

You could do worse :)

[james_derose3]

Yes, that's what I do, and I have a Coolscan LS4000 and LS8000. I use a flatbed for documents, covers, photos, etc, but strictly reflected light. A few weeks ago I scanned three carousels full of slides in about 2 hours, using a Nikon ES-2 holder, Sony A7Riii and Nikon 55/2.8 Macro lens.

 

In many respects, a DX camera is easier to use. Since magnification of slices will be less than 1:1, you can use auto focus and less extension.

Yeah - I definitely wouldn't use the v600 for scanning slides or film. I have one or two transparencies larger than 35mm that I just took to my local lab to do. They get me the raw scan for about a buck a scan. can't beat that. For the rest of my transparencies (35mm and 110), they'll go to my Coolscan. The A7Riii is on my list for the future (I have an a6000 right now), but not today. Maybe when I get that i'll move into that territory. I don't have any autofocus macro lenses at the moment, but will probably do so once I move up to the A7.

 

I bought an Ivation ($100) about a year ago as an inspection tool and for noncritical scanning - and (much to my surprise!) I love it. Not only can I preview slides and negatives, but it’s actually a pretty fine little scanner as long as I keep everything spotless and solidly still. I was a bit surprised that even the slight vibration of the desktop from two PCs sitting on it visibly degraded sharpness in aggressive crops of detailed scans. But overall, it does a much better job turning emulsion into digits than I ever dreamed it could. And it’s fast. Yes, it’s all plastic - so I’m very careful with it. I’ve already scanned hundreds of old images, more than a few of which have been posted here.

 

You could do worse :)

Yeah - I probably could! And with these old family snaps, especially the 110 film, i'll probably spend more time than I should processing after the scan...i'm a tweaker. But it sounds like you got it for the same reasons I did. My workflow will be sorting first, scanning after. And at home (where i'll be sorting), I don't have the space for any kind of scanning or even computer setup to do much.

[greg_nixon2]

You have all you need right there. Vuescan will do a preview that will display negatives as positives. You might need to upgrade to the professional version. Your V600 has a transparency holder that will scan 12x35mm frames at a time. While you have the transparency loaded you would be able to scan using a decent resolution and keep the scan. No point doing a low res scan and then a high res scan.

Adobe Bridge is free and is a good piece of software for tracking photos.

Are you aware that Viewscan is able to scan photos on a flatbed and save each photo as a different file.

If you have a heap of 110 negatives, google around for a 3rd party negative holder.

[don_gallagher]

We have been scanning family photos for awhile now, having inherited my grandparent's photos. We are using a V600 which does fine for prints and have also used it to scan old larger negatives taken in the 1920s from my grandfather's Brownie. The V600 does an ok job with these larger negatives (we humidify and flatten the negatives between optical glass for scanning). The 1920 negatives still provide better scans than the existing prints. For 35 mm negatives, we are spoiled in still having a working Nikon Scan 4, so I just scan the entire roll and keep what is appropriate. For my parent's 35 mm negatives, rolls of family event photos could be taken over two years, so I actually find having the entire roll and order to be useful in assigning dates to the photos. For previewing the 35 mm negs with the V600, you could try to sandwich a couple between optical glass, but it seems like you could only do 2 negative pieces at a time that way: that may be too slow for your needs.

[james_derose3]

You have all you need right there. Vuescan will do a preview that will display negatives as positives. You might need to upgrade to the professional version. Your V600 has a transparency holder that will scan 12x35mm frames at a time. While you have the transparency loaded you would be able to scan using a decent resolution and keep the scan. No point doing a low res scan and then a high res scan.

Adobe Bridge is free and is a good piece of software for tracking photos.

Are you aware that Viewscan is able to scan photos on a flatbed and save each photo as a different file.

If you have a heap of 110 negatives, google around for a 3rd party negative holder.

Thanks, Greg. Actually, the V600 can only hold 4 or 6 slides (I forget which) and 2 6 image film strips. The light source isn't wide enough to accommodate the 12 slide holders that the V800 has.

 

That's all moot, though, as I've got the Coolscan that I want to scan the good 35mm and 110 (if there IS such a thing as good 110? I already have 110 holders coming for both the v600 and the coolscan - so i'm covered) images with. As far as scanning these goes, I want to be once and done with the images that I decide to digitize. They will/may serve several purposes. The main purpose is archiving for the future, but some MAY get printed at the lab no larger than 8x10. This will, of course, all depend on the photos. I have some photo booth/passport photo style photos of my grandfather during the war that I may try to blow up to 3x3 (they are less than 2x2 right now) if they're not horribly out of focus to create an 8x8 image 4 pictures in it. All of the pictures will be stored in several places. I already use lightroom, but will probably export the final jpegs for use in a google photo album. As well as printing in photo books.

 

We have been scanning family photos for awhile now, having inherited my grandparent's photos. We are using a V600 which does fine for prints and have also used it to scan old larger negatives taken in the 1920s from my grandfather's Brownie. The V600 does an ok job with these larger negatives (we humidify and flatten the negatives between optical glass for scanning). The 1920 negatives still provide better scans than the existing prints. For 35 mm negatives, we are spoiled in still having a working Nikon Scan 4, so I just scan the entire roll and keep what is appropriate. For my parent's 35 mm negatives, rolls of family event photos could be taken over two years, so I actually find having the entire roll and order to be useful in assigning dates to the photos. For previewing the 35 mm negs with the V600, you could try to sandwich a couple between optical glass, but it seems like you could only do 2 negative pieces at a time that way: that may be too slow for your needs.

 

Thanks for that, Don. It sounds as if we are doing a similar project. Most of the transparencies I have are from the late 30s and early 40s and have already begun to crack. It's unfortunate. Fortunately, they don't make up the bulk or any significant portion of what I have. One, in fact, is mounted inside a matte and displayed in a scrapbook. You can barely see it, obviously. What's cool is that my lab was able to recover a lot of detail from it. Unfortunately, it's also not anywhere near in focus and has a ton dust spots all over it. The dust is easy to get rid of, but it's diminishing returns when it's nowhere near focus anyway!

 

I like your idea of scanning the whole 35mm role in a batch rather than going through it. I can do that with strips on my Coolscan V as I have the SA-21 strip adapter. I can't do that with 110, though. I went ahead and got a Kodak Scanza for cheaper than the DIGITNOW device i listed above. I'm glad I got it cheap and second hand. What a hunk of junk! I expected the image quality to not be great, but the mechanism is crappy as well. I've been carefully going through the 110 stuff I have and have to say that i'd be PISSED if i spent the time scanning these on the Coolscan (with a custom holder, one frame at a time) or even on the V600 a whole strip at a time. I would say that, out of a whole role, there are maybe 6 keepers. They are all vacation photos from when I was a kid and mostly include destination pictures rather than family.

 

One last thing here - I started scanning some photos on the flatbed last night to try and get a workflow down. I'm pretty solid with transparencies on the Coolscan as I used to scan my own slides I used to take. But with prints, i'm not so solid. I'm having a hard time coming to terms with resolution and filetypes. Conventional wisdom, as far as i'm aware, is to scan at 300dpi if you plan on printing, 600dpi if you plan on enlarging or archiving. I know it varies depending on how large you plan on printing, obviously, but i'm looking for the maximum resolution I should be scanning at for archiving that won't harm my choices down the road. For example, if I scanned at 1200dpi and then outputted 300dpi from lightroom or photoshop when sending to my lab for printing, am I losing anything over scanning at 600dpi or 300dpi and doing the same? I just want to make sure enough data is captured in case I need to edit or adjust the photos. (Also, does the math matter? I'm an audio guy as well and, when we talk about sample rate, sometimes it's easier to sample down when you're working with multiples. So, for example, if my print target is always 300dpi, should I be working with 300, 600, 900, 1200?) I should note that I am not concerned even a little bit about file SIZE. The archived original scans can take up as much room as they want. Storage is cheap.

 

And then as far as file type. I work in Lightroom most of all and am used to camera raw files. I also scan transparencies as raw DNG files as I have much more control when i'm in lightroom. For flatbed photos, should I bother? Or should I do a TIFF and go straight to photoshop for color correction and repair of damage?

Edited February 9, 2020 by james_derose|3

[james_derose3]

(we humidify and flatten the negatives between optical glass for scanning).

 

Forgot to ask you about this, Don. Have you done this with prints? I have plenty of old B&W prints that have curled plenty. Also some color prints from the 60s. I'm deathly afraid of trying any humidifying experiment to flatten them out!

[Jochen_S]

Not only do I not want to scan twice, I suspect I won't even want to scan 80% of it ONCE. That's why I was thinking of something like this as a "digital loupe" so to speak. Pretty much using it for a different purpose than intended. I've got a handheld lightbox that I use for slides that has a loup, and a lightbox built in. I push in the mounted slide, it lights up and I see the slide at about 2x magnification nice and bright on a screen. I'd be using this digitnow device in a similar way for my negatives - especially the 110s. I'm sure I don't have many keepers of those.

I'll stick to my suggestion: Take your chance to toy-snap every negative you already have in your negative snapping toy! You'll at least get "something" individual results wise and more importantly an overview about what you have. Saving is one click per file.

Camera scanning? - If you have a DX body and clicks to waste why not go ahead? its a sufficient compromize surely overkill for 110 film and most likely fair enough for a whole lot of 35mm work.

I am primary lazy. I own 2 negative snapping toys (due to supermarket sale out), one old 35mm scanner and do the rest with digital cameras. If i was still doing film, I wouldn't fancy going beyond 2 rolls = one real scan.

[james_derose3]

"toy-snap" - I like that!

[don_gallagher]

Forgot to ask you about this, Don. Have you done this with prints? I have plenty of old B&W prints that have curled plenty. Also some color prints from the 60s. I'm deathly afraid of trying any humidifying experiment to flatten them out!

 

Hi James, yes we often have to "loosen" prints and curled negatives. What I do is create a little humidity chamber using a plastic storage container, a plastic table of about the same size as the container, a warm mist humidifier, and care. What I do is get the humidifier going, then drag the inverted container off the edge of the table to allow the humidity to rise into the chamber. It doesn't take much to deposit a thin coating of water on the walls of the container: you don't want too much or else it will start to "rain" drops on the photos. When the correct amount of humidity is in, then I drag the container back into place on the table, sealing the humidity in. It takes a little practice to get it right so I would test the technique on some less precious photos.

[hectorroldan]

Looking for some advice on a workflow for a large scanning project i'm up against.

Ben involved on that before, as a reference: setting it up, creating the workflow, feeding the system, organizing/tagging and also creating a custom solution from zero (software) for picture cataloging and documents.

 

Reading your initial descriptions I didn't see a clear direction but I'm familiar with this kind of job. Being practical and thinking long term, my advice to you goes as follows:

 

- Ideally a flatbed scanner with slide adapter. This way you can scan printed pictures and also the slides in batches. I wouldn't engage on "one by one", it becomes a pain eventually. SOME old scanners and some new ones come with a nice feature detecting the individual prints and slides from the whole scan, meaning you can scan once and get 10 or 12 individual scans right away. I don't remember specific models but yes we had some of those at some work places. At home/office found that some Canon scanners and some Brother multi function printers had this feature, but no slide scanning. We had two slide scanners at the office in the past that could take care of 6 (as I remember) slides at once, but finding specific equipment (old one) is difficult unless you navigate on online ads, people sell all sort of stuff there.

 

Before you engage on a common discussion about quality and how the distance of the slide adapters affects whatever, try to stay realistic and practical, most of the pictures won't ever get printed again, most will end up on digital devices as phones, tvs, etc.

 

- Try to set at least 3 automated fixes. I wouldn't look for more, try to figure 3 scripts (photoshop or whatever program you enjoy) to fix the pictures in batches, remove dust, enhance color, CROP and sharpen a bit (in that order). You can use photoshop for that, or XNVIEW (way better for this kind of job if you ask me) and you can also create custom scripts with more advanced tools like immagemagick, that's too much for this project.

 

- Define and select a fixed size. Really, forget about scanning at max res and keeping max res files. Scan at the maximum resolution you can, yes, but crop and resize to a practical size, let's say 2048 max horizontal or vertical. I would stay with TIFF and JPG as second option.

 

- Focus on scanning and archiving, THEN feeding a system. We used different tools for diff cases (and budgets), I don't remember all the names like portfolio or cumulus, you can get some of those for cheap or even for free. I wouldn't use online tools for this.

 

- Why not online. For long term don't trust online platforms, specially free ones. Many went out of business, that's why. The first catalog I was involved with happened 1999 approx, the last one (for a corporation) around 2007. Many promising solutions we found and research at the moment, no longer exist. That's why, go offline, choose a software that allows you to run offline.

 

- Folders, tags. Try to forget about folders and organizing things right away, just focus on feeding the system and THEN later sort and catalog the images using TAGS, define a limited but practical set of tags like 12 max and that's it, the software will do the rest.

 

If you ask me, after working on that several times, the most time consuming task is cataloging and tagging the images (or feeding the descriptions if that's the case), the rest is easy.

 

Good luck.

[james_derose3]

Thanks for the extremely detailed response!

 

- Ideally a flatbed scanner with slide adapter. This way you can scan printed pictures and also the slides in batches. I wouldn't engage on "one by one", it becomes a pain eventually. SOME old scanners and some new ones come with a nice feature detecting the individual prints and slides from the whole scan, meaning you can scan once and get 10 or 12 individual scans right away. I don't remember specific models but yes we had some of those at some work places. At home/office found that some Canon scanners and some Brother multi function printers had this feature, but no slide scanning. We had two slide scanners at the office in the past that could take care of 6 (as I remember) slides at once, but finding specific equipment (old one) is difficult unless you navigate on online ads, people sell all sort of stuff there.

 

Before you engage on a common discussion about quality and how the distance of the slide adapters affects whatever, try to stay realistic and practical, most of the pictures won't ever get printed again, most will end up on digital devices as phones, tvs, etc.

I'll be splitting this up between my flatbed for prints and my Nikon Coolscan for slides and negatives. I probably have a total of 100 slides in this project and they're easy to go through. The negatives are a little more tricky, but i've worked out a system for identifying what I need to scan right now and what I don't need to bother with. I'm going roll by roll, previewing on a Kodak Scanza and then putting them in archival pages. Photos with family get a blue dot on the outside of the page, other noteworthy slides get a yellow dot. Once they are scanned with the Coolscan (haven't gotten that far yet), they get a green dot. This was the part of the workflow most daunting to me - reviewing envelopes and envelopes of negatives!

 

- Try to set at least 3 automated fixes. I wouldn't look for more, try to figure 3 scripts (photoshop or whatever program you enjoy) to fix the pictures in batches, remove dust, enhance color, CROP and sharpen a bit (in that order). You can use photoshop for that, or XNVIEW (way better for this kind of job if you ask me) and you can also create custom scripts with more advanced tools like immagemagick, that's too much for this project.

 

- Define and select a fixed size. Really, forget about scanning at max res and keeping max res files. Scan at the maximum resolution you can, yes, but crop and resize to a practical size, let's say 2048 max horizontal or vertical. I would stay with TIFF and JPG as second option.

 

- Focus on scanning and archiving, THEN feeding a system. We used different tools for diff cases (and budgets), I don't remember all the names like portfolio or cumulus, you can get some of those for cheap or even for free. I wouldn't use online tools for this.

 

- Why not online. For long term don't trust online platforms, specially free ones. Many went out of business, that's why. The first catalog I was involved with happened 1999 approx, the last one (for a corporation) around 2007. Many promising solutions we found and research at the moment, no longer exist. That's why, go offline, choose a software that allows you to run offline.

 

- Folders, tags. Try to forget about folders and organizing things right away, just focus on feeding the system and THEN later sort and catalog the images using TAGS, define a limited but practical set of tags like 12 max and that's it, the software will do the rest.

 

If you ask me, after working on that several times, the most time consuming task is cataloging and tagging the images (or feeding the descriptions if that's the case), the rest is easy.

 

Good luck.

 

One step at a time. I'm working on getting everything scanned in and then I will work on any restoration, color correction, cropping and resizing. For the transparencies, i'll be using RAW dng files from vuescan and then converting them in lightroom with negative lab pro. I want to get all of the raw scans FIRST, though, and then i'll work on that portion. Once i'm there, i'll be working on what you've listed above (fixed sizes, tagging, fixes, etc.). I've tagged this post for followup when I get there.

 

Thanks!

-James