otto1

In addition to the processes and suggestions for image capture, it is strongly recommended that you set up a batch processing system in Photoshop or similar to enhance the contrast prior to the OCR process.

I'm not sure of the protocol for self-promotion, but in my Oscans business in Australia we are still using big old Kodak HR500 Plus scanners that have digital ICE cleaning for Kodachrome.

 

We were in the process of considering a Flextight, I wish I had jumped sooner. It is a better scanner in terms of technical quality, though much slower and without a cleaning process.

 

As others are saying, we will keep scanning until we no longer have functional equipment.

 

Sadly, that day will certainly arrive before everything is scanned.

"It is not hard to get into "analysis paralysis" of having the perfect answer."

 

 

I am keeping this snippet of great wisdom.

 

We do high volume commercial photographic scanning in Australia, and this seems to be a common problem with our clients.

 

The answer generally is: just do it, do it in logical sequence such as oldest first, and most issues sort themselves.

 

And as you say, get them distributed sooner, organise them later.

Would have to agree with you here. Despite the great selections in my collection, the Olympus OM-2n is my favorite. Of course the following Zuiko lenses would stay with it:

 

24mm f2.8

35mm f2.8

50mm f1.8 MIJ

135mm f3.5

200mm f4

 

Probably would exchange the 50 and 135 with an 85mm f2, though.

 

And that is my most basic kit, a 24 f2.8 with an 85 f2.

<p>Great comments overall, but this one by <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> floored me:<br /><br />"<strong>I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. </strong>[emphasis added, JDM] I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.<br /><br />Ansel Adams, 1983 <em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company. p.59"<br /><br>

<br>

A great spin-off thread would be to speculate what Ansel would have done in the digital era.</p>

<p>We actually do run a bulk slide scanning business, but the Kodak scanner that we use stopped being supported a few years ago, after ceasing production in 2005.<br /><br />We have been watching technologies, and nothing much has changed in scanners since mid-last decade.<br /><br />There are new machines, but none are speed demons, and quality pretty well plateaued in the desktop machines with the Nikon 9000.<br /><br />You either follow David's passionate involvement (and that's not altogether a bad thing) or outsource the job to someone you can trust.</p>

<p>In today's money, each slide cost you at least a couple of dollars (especially if they weren't all "keepers"), so competently converting to a new medium that is a much more labour intensive process could be envisioned to be about the same.<br>

<br />If you do outsource, test the vendor before commitment.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Norman,<br>

Thanks, that's the kind of tip I was looking for.<br>

I'm still smarting from buying an Epson R290 printer almost solely for printing BW correspondence and direct-onto-disk BW labeling. <br>

I must state clearly that as I had no urgency to start using the device, it was over a year (and well out of warranty) before I tried it, but it had been completely sealed and unopened until I did. <br>

I printed no correspondence and a total of eight simple BW labels direct onto disks before cyan ran out. I replaced that for $45 very begrudgingly and printed another four disks over the next month before two other colours (not BW) ran out and it refused to run, even though there was strictly no colour and all "BW Only" options had been checked. I am aware that the initial cartridges are only part-filled, but the new cyan was now down to 40%. <br>

At an estimated cost of dozens of dollars per label, I parked the printer, went back to hand labelling and said rude things about Epson printers. (Their scanners are OK.)<br>

I will also admit that I needed to clean the heads a couple of times, but the rest were done as per the printer's whims. The only thing that stemmed the hemorrhaging was to leave the printer on all the time, as each on/off/on cycle would clean the heads and visibly deplete the ink content in the status dialog.</p>

 

<p>Looks good, and a great result in resuscitating a very serviceable unit.</p>

<p>The manufacturers' method for cleaning heads is extremely expensive. Something like bleeding to clean a wound. My estimate is somewhere in the order of $10-50 each time.<br /><br />Anyone know of a simple [cheap] way to clean the heads of old printers?</p>

<p>You're planning something, Charles?</p>

<p>I am not familiar with Noritsu equipment.<br>

My guess is that the upgrade included automatic grain minimisation. Probably can be switched off, but the casual operators are locked out from altering such settings.<br>

Recently I had to stop one of my staff from spending too much time trying to remove "unsightly" graininess from our scans, using Topaz. She is a child of the digital era and had a real problem understanding that traditional photography was tolerant of the artifacts of grain. To modern eyes, it's analogous to digital noise, and as such should be eliminated.<br>

My guess is that the developers at Noritsu have the same problem.<br>

Also, to Japanese eyes/interpretation, any skin artifact is a defect and should be (again) eliminated, not celebrated like westerners do.<br>

I have seen digital cameras apply this sort of effect, and the Japanese ladies go wild for it.</p>

<p>Danny,<br>

John is valid in emphasising this point.<br>

We do photographic scanning on a large scale and nearly all of the bigger jobs get delivered on hard drive, smaller ones on DVD. However, we emphasise to every client that it is not permanent media.<br>

Every electromechanical storage system will fail, without exception. Hard drives are specified with a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) which covers a range that includes the first hour or many years, but it will fail.<br>

My main point to make to you is not to trust the long term market presence of BluRay. We have never had one request for it in the past decade. It is in some computers by special order only. It is used for delivery of movies, but that is being fast supplanted by broadband. (I did some research and talked to several chaps in an associated IT support company with hundreds of clients if they know of anyone who uses BluRay for storage, and there were shaking heads all round.)<br>

BluRay was crippled in the war with DVD-HD, and most markets ignored it.<br>

Hard drives are far cheaper, and much easier to use. In most parts of the world, 1 TB is less than $100.<br>

I have seen standards come and go in my own 35 years in IT, similar to yourself. It is not a question of what will be good in 35 years time, but how will you migrate progressively.<br>

Of course, the only true archival media for photography is film, but Kodachrome is gone. My business scans glass plate negatives and positives that are a hundred years old, and are still great.<br>

If you want permanence, etch platinum plates with the digital information of a TIFF file, along with how to rebuild it to a digital image.</p>

<p>Danny,<br>

John is valid in emphasising this point.<br>

We do photographic scanning on a large scale and nearly all of the bigger jobs get delivered on hard drive, smaller ones on DVD. However, we emphasise to every client that it is not permanent media.<br>

Every electromechanical storage system will fail, without exception. Hard drives are specified with a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) which covers a range that includes the first hour or many years, but it will fail.<br>

My main point to make to you is not to trust the long term market presence of BluRay. We have never had one request for it in the past decade. It is in some computers by special order only. It is used for delivery of movies, but that is being fast supplanted by broadband. (I did some research and talked to several chaps in an associated IT support company with hundreds of clients if they know of anyone who uses BluRay for storage, and there were shaking heads all round.)<br>

BluRay was crippled in the war with DVD-HD, and most markets ignored it.<br>

Hard drives are far cheaper, and much easier to use. In most parts of the world, 1 TB is less than $100.<br>

I have seen standards come and go in my own 35 years in IT, similar to yourself. It is not a question of what will be good in 35 years time, but how will you migrate progressively.<br>

Of course, the only true archival media for photography is film, but Kodachrome is gone. My business scans glass plate negatives and positives that are a hundred years old, and are still great.<br>

If you want permanence, etch platinum plates with the digital information of a TIFF file, along with how to rebuild it to a digital image.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for a response on this topic myself.</p>

<p>At this stage, my suggestion would be to get a an iQsmart that has less usage than yours.</p>

<p>And be careful with it, they won't make them like they used to.</p>

<p>I also see a number of distinct "looks" in his portfolio, you need to be more specific. <br>

He is a very competent photographer and as Stephen and the other posters have said, he demonstrates professional care in preparing the shoot and then in post-production.<br>

The only suggestion I can make is that you go out and spend a lot of time shooting a lot of different types of images of different people under different conditions and spend a lot of time (or hire people) to do lots of post production.<br>

No shortcuts in gaining experience.<br>

BTW, he is better than me.</p>

<p>I've yet to see a well-set up digital projector that can beat film. Please note that I am not being luddite, it is simply resolution.<br>

A "perfect" 35 film image can show about 35 megapixels worth of information (5000 x 7500 pixel equivalent). <br>

The Epson EH-TW 5500 mentioned before can show about 2 megapixels. That means you are throwing away about 95% of the detail. <br>

As that applies to a "perfect" film which means superb lenses, optimal exposure and processing and a great projector lens.<br>

But if we say that the end result is only a quarter of "perfect" due to less than optimal circumstances, that still means you're throwing away about 70% of the detail compared to an all film projection system.<br>

If your images are not very detailed (as would be architectural or historical) then you would not notice this, and colour/contrast will be the key features.<br>

Please note that I am not criticising digital cameras, but digital projectors, and I am only discussing resolving detail. In fact, I only realised this situation after seeing the results of an EOS 1d being projected.<br>

Question: do current projectors still show the pixels discretely, with a visible gap between each pixel?</p>

<p>That ghosting is due to a "ghost", or more accurately, a real live human who moved through the image during the exposure. <br>

My advice is to go back at a suitable "ungodly" hour, but preferably even later with fewer people. It is my favourite time for photography.<br>

You will spend a lot more time trying to do an inadequate repair and you can also clean the lens prior to exposure - unless you like the soft lights, not a bad thing.</p>

Much ado about nothing.

<p>Robin, how do you deal with dust on the film surface?</p>

It will take you several hundred scans to get the hang of it.

 

Any acceptable scanner is at least several hundred dollars.

 

If you use a camera you will not be able to apply dust reduction technology such as Digital ICE.

 

I suggest that you find a service. They should have better scanners than you may be able to afford.

 

Test them first with a few slides.

Still not clear to me what the problem is, sorry.

 

It looks like scanner artifacts, try perhaps a non all-in-one scanner? I have never got good results with one.

 

In my opinion, the descreening facility of scanning software is meant to be used for scanning newspaper and

magazine photos only. But try it here, may have some benefit.

My vote is also emphatically that most of the work was done "in camera", and that could have been using film, slightly

more likely to be negative.

 

Given the time of year or other conditions such as makeup and materials, this result could have been obtained without

any significant post production. (Some is required because of the variances of presentation platforms and media.)

 

I'll sound like a snob, but have to say that it's most likely simply just competent photography.

 

We used to be trained to produce slides like this for slide shows; post-production was not possible.

Depending on the age and specific quality of the print, you should be aiming for 1200 ppi. The difference of this to 600

ppi with old prints is astonishing, however most services offer 600 (sometimes only 300) ppi maximum. Modern prints (post

1960 typically) have only 600 ppi resolution.

 

Using a camera can produce good results, but the variation in print size will need constant adjustment, and in our

opinion at Oscans.com we feel that scanners produce a better result, even with prints sometimes realizing 2400 ppi. There are some special conditions where cameras are advantageous, but scanners usually produce better results, and may be more effective at batching.

Amazing level of assistance by the community! I am impressed!

 

I am curious as to how the lettering appeared. Was a protection film left in the camera? I presume it was the first roll.

Olympus SLRs had these to allow the through the lens real time metering off the film to work without film being loaded.

 

The coolest solution would be to create a mask using Japanese and English text. You would have to find the right font

and space and position precisely. It's the sort of thing I would do, no rude comments please.

 

The neat thing about this idea is that the same mask could be used to fix every image on the roll.

We have used our V700s a bit for film scanning, but this is unusual.

 

The only advice I will give for now is that 2500 is not one of the "default" or "detente" or pre-defined settings. I would

try 2400 ppi.

 

Judging by tests of scanning times, the detente settings are as per those that the scanner actually works at. Other

settings you type are really only interpolations.

Expressly stating "Public Domain" for copyright will make any reasonable person think that it is "in the Public Domain."

Just like Beethoven's symphony scores, no royalty will be paid to the estate.

The key term in legalities is what a "reasonable person" would do or believe.

I am not a legal person by any means.

But if you were to see "Public Domain" what else could it mean?

Oscans marks the metadata of all scans as copyright to the person who has brought the photomedia for scanning. I

don't know what other scanning companies do.