 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / May 2008convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slides to digital
I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to digital 1/ I understand there is a scanner that can do it - but there are too many to do one photo at a time & line them up - so it needs to be designed for the job 2/ I have a scanner, is there anything (software/hardware) i can buy to work with it 3/ Is it better/cheaper just to sent them off - this is a one off job just to convert my old photos once Any clues/ links? xposted to rec.photo.digital > I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to > digital [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any clues/ links? p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or negative? > xposted to rec.photo.digital > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Any clues/ links? > p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or > negative? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>> Any clues/ links? You can easily scan any of them with the proper scanner. You will need a flatbed which has slide/negative capabilities. Only you can decide if you want to do that or 'task it out'. Scanning at decent resolution is a rather time consuming process. >> p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or >> negative? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You can easily scan any of them with the proper scanner. You will need a > flatbed which has slide/negative capabilities. any examples of scanners that would work? can you get slide/negative holders for regular scanner (i already have)? Is it better to scan negatives/slides or photos? >Only you can decide if you > want to do that or 'task it out'. Scanning at decent resolution is a > rather time consuming process. snip >>>>> Any clues/ links? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is it better to scan negatives/slides or photos? A scanner for negs or slides has to have a light source to shine through the neg/slide instead of reflecting off the surface. Some scanners have this light source built into the lid. For other scanners, there may be an accessory light source that replaces the lid. As for which is better, scanning the prints negs, or slides, it depends on the scanner. >>> p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or >>> negative? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > any examples of scanners that would work? I suggest a look at the Epson online store - suitable models will be listed as having slide/negative capabilities > can you get slide/negative holders for regular scanner (i already have)? If you could it would most likely not work very well. The difference is that slide/negative scanners have a light built into the lid to light the media from above so the sensor picks that up - quite different process from reflective scanning of photos, pages, etc. > Is it better to scan negatives/slides or photos? All work acceptably in a suitable scanner. IMHO - the best choice is phots. I've not seen appreciable difference between negatives and slides. >>Only you can decide if you >> want to do that or 'task it out'. Scanning at decent resolution is a >> rather time consuming process. > p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or > negative? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >>> Any clues/ links? I assume the UK in your sig means you are in the United Kingdom. In the US, the decision between scanning them yourself and sending them out can be made very quickly by checking the cost of sending them out vs the value of your own time doing them yourself. If you have very many, you won't get much change back from and arm and a leg if you send them out here in the US, but it might be different in the UK. Most of the flatbed scanner manufacturers have good to excellent models with slide and negative capabilities. If you get a top of the line model, you will have a very good general purpose scanner when you finish--that is, if you ever finish; it a sloooow process, in my experience. The deeper I got into my old slides and negatives, my standards as to which to scan and which to trash grew higher and higher. Good luck, no matter which way you go. Allen >xposted to rec.photo.digital > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>many to do one photo at a time & line them up - so it needs to be >>designed for the job Get yourself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the bulk slide feeder. Expensive, but the cheapest scanner up to the job you describe. >> 2/ I have a scanner, is there anything (software/hardware) i can buy >>to work with it For some scanners you can get a film adapter, which is basically a scanner lid with a light in it. Flatbed scanners can give reasonable results, but compared to the Nikon they are very poor, even those flatbeds designed for film scanning. >> 3/ Is it better/cheaper just to sent them off - this is a one off job >>just to convert my old photos once It is probably better to send them off compared to using a flatbed, but it can work out very expensive depending on how many images you have. From your other post: >p.s. give the choice - is it better to reproduce from photo, slide or >negative? It is ALWAYS better to scan from the original, whether that is a slide or a negative. Scanning from print always results in poorer quality for several reasons: 1. The print only has about 300ppi resolution to begin with, if that, and is typically around 5-6x the negative size. So scanning the negative at anything higher than 1800ppi gives a sharper image. The Nikons scan at 4000ppi. Even at the same ppi, scanning from film gives a much superior result than from print, for reasons too complex to go into here. Some here will, no doubt, argue that film doesn't have that much information - it does, and more! Check the images at the bottom of this page, where left is from print, right is from film - at the same ppi scan: http://www.scantips.com/resolut.html 2. Photo emulsion is inherently non-linear in density reproduction and every step of reproduction results in loss of highlight and shadow definition. There are is far more image content on the original negative than any print ever made from it. So starting from the negative means you have more tonal range to work with than from any print. 3. The density range of film is vastly superior to prints. Typically, slides with have maximum densities of 3.2, while the best prints have maximum densities of 2, which corresponds to darker blacks and much more detail in the shadows of slides. Density is measured logarithmically, so 3.2 is much higher than 2.0. Combined with the linearity issues above, the resulting tonal range from film is vastly superior to print. You can get acceptable results from scanning prints, but slides and negatives are always superior results unless the source images are pretty poor to begin with. Take a look at www.scantips.com  SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) The current crop of higher end flatbed scanners, Epson V700, Microtek M1, are getting very close to dedicated slide scanners. I put away an older Nikon LS2000 after I discovered my V700 was as sharp and had beter dynamic range. The LS5000 the latest Nikon 35mm scanner should be better, but I get good grain structure and edges on the V700. The V700 does require some set up to get to this point, but that is covered in the set up instructions. Kennedy is right scanning from negs or slides is preferrable to scanning from prints, especially if the prints have a textured paper. Small prints especially don't have enough information to do a high res scan. I recently had an 11x14 scanned and that gave me excellent res, but if I had the neg I would have used it instead of the print, having to find a tabloid scanner was the first hassle. Trying to scan negs or slides on your scanner makes a tough job even tougher as you need a light source above the film and find a way to turn off the light on the scanning element. I work in a hospital environment and get asked all the time what scanner a doc should buy to scan their old slides. I used to recommend a med level Epson (4490) but several people have said they can't get the results from that scanner that I am getting from the V700, so I'm just recommending the V700. In the US it goes for $499 at B&H. ZTom > In article <vxXXj.40020$66.27...@newsfe20.ams2>, JethroUK© > <re...@the.board> writes>xposted to rec.photo.digital [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. > Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>xposted to rec.photo.digital >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Get yourself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the bulk slide feeder. Expensive, >but the cheapest scanner up to the job you describe. Wow! £700-800. >>>xposted to rec.photo.digital >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Wow! £700-800. Half the price it was a couple of years ago, and even then it was considerably cheaper than scanning just 300 slides at commercial rates, and you will get a job as good as the best of them and better than most these days - the Nikon ICE is unsurpassed by any other scanner at dirt and scratch removal due to the unique illumination system they use. After that, you can probably sell it for £500 on Ebay or hire it out to others, with or without your own expertise, to do the same job. There are a lot of folk with loads of 35mm slides they want converted to digital. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>xposted to rec.photo.digital >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >are a lot of folk with loads of 35mm slides they want converted to >digital. Indeed, I have ~500 slides myself to digitize. I appreciate the recommendation. When's Christmas? ;-) > I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to digital > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any clues/ links? People buy them just to do old slides and sell them on ebay cheap, buy one on ebay, then sell it on ebay, be sure it does your size film, my canon wont. >> I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to >> digital [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > one on ebay, then sell it on ebay, be sure it does your size film, my > canon wont. I'm thinking that i can buy one on Ebay - scan my photos - then sell it straight back for same ish price - that way it won't really cost me anything I'm looking at Epson Perfection V100 - seem to do all i would need >>> I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to >>> digital [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I'm looking at Epson Perfection V100 - seem to do all i would need I have one of those. It'll do a six-frame strip and/or 4 slides at one time. It's a hundred-dollar printer, though -- I don't know how much quality it would provide for film, or how much you desire. (I got mine free with an inexpensie {$800US} laptop.) I've never done film with it; my scanner needs aren't demanding. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se >>>> I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to >>>> digital [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > inexpensie {$800US} laptop.) I've never done film with it; my scanner > needs aren't demanding. Checking specs the V100 has 3200 x 9600 dpi, which is better than ness for scanning negatives which is very demanding - and better than most domestic scanners (i'm struggling to find anything else with resolution even close for the money) >>>>> I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to >>>>> digital [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> It's a hundred-dollar printer, though -- I don't know how much quality it Uh...scanner, not printer, of course. Damned fins. >> would provide for film, or how much you desire. (I got mine free with >> an inexpensie {$800US} laptop.) I've never done film with it; my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > domestic scanners (i'm struggling to find anything else with resolution > even close for the money) Real or "interpolated"? SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se >> Checking specs the V100 has 3200 x 9600 dpi, which is better than ness >> for scanning negatives which is very demanding - and better than most >> domestic scanners (i'm struggling to find anything else with resolution >> even close for the money) > > Real or "interpolated"? Pretty sure it's real res - interpolated would be near 10 times that >>> Checking specs the V100 has 3200 x 9600 dpi, which is better than ness >>> for scanning negatives which is very demanding - and better than most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pretty sure it's real res - interpolated would be near 10 times that <clickety> <q Epson> Optical Resolution * 3200 dpi Hardware Resolution * 3200 x 9600 dpi Maximum Resolution * 12,800 x 12,800 dpi </q> I wonder what optical versus hardware resolution is. I'd think optical would be a hardware parameter. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se > I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to digital > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any clues/ links? Tomorrow is "Take Your Pictures To Work Day". Put then on your photocopier and scan them to your hard drive. My copier will scan pictures as fast as you can swap the photos -- I don't use the feeder because I don't know if it would scratch a picture or not, but if I did use it, it would do 50 pages a minute. You can scan pictures FAST like that. >> I want to convert a lot (100's) old 35 mm photos/negatives/slide to >> digital [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > did use it, it would do 50 pages a minute. You can scan pictures FAST > like that. Though about that - but whilst our copier is really fast, it's only 600 x 600 & i'm not sure it good enough really |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.