What to do with those old prints and slides
RWilson
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
I hope this is the right forum. If not please redirect me.
I finally decided to do something with all those old photos and slides. I bought a Canon CanoScan 9000F and Silverfast. They arrive today. There are two categories: 1.Most of the photos are snapshots, 2. Some are international travel shots and important family photos. This is my strategy, please comment and help me avoid doing the enonmous amount of work and finding out years later that I screwed up. If I understand Silverfast, I specify the printer dpi, image size, and desired output print; and it calculates the actual scanner dpi
For snapshots:
Scan for 150 dpi printing of 4x6 prints in jpg. Store online at SmugMug where I keep my newer digital images. Store on DVDs at two sites.
For category 2:
Scan for 300 dpi printing of 11x14 prints in RAW and jpg. Store jpg online. Store RAW and jpg to DVDs to be stored a two sites.
I've tried searches on Google and on DGrin. But some of you may have found better guidelines.
I hope to learn what to do.
Thanks,
I finally decided to do something with all those old photos and slides. I bought a Canon CanoScan 9000F and Silverfast. They arrive today. There are two categories: 1.Most of the photos are snapshots, 2. Some are international travel shots and important family photos. This is my strategy, please comment and help me avoid doing the enonmous amount of work and finding out years later that I screwed up. If I understand Silverfast, I specify the printer dpi, image size, and desired output print; and it calculates the actual scanner dpi
For snapshots:
Scan for 150 dpi printing of 4x6 prints in jpg. Store online at SmugMug where I keep my newer digital images. Store on DVDs at two sites.
For category 2:
Scan for 300 dpi printing of 11x14 prints in RAW and jpg. Store jpg online. Store RAW and jpg to DVDs to be stored a two sites.
I've tried searches on Google and on DGrin. But some of you may have found better guidelines.
I hope to learn what to do.
Thanks,
0
Comments
For a really great copy stand... you can use an enlarger stand and baseboard........those are perfect and usually very cheap...check craigslist and such for retired unwanted enlargers........
in lieu of a copu stand if your tripod will allow for reversal of center column you can do it on the floor under the tripod also.....I have done this but working on a copy stand is much easier on back and knees and head does not bang against the tripod when standing up :~}}
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I only have a very rough guestimate:
2000 slides, 70% Kodachrome
7 tubs full of prints, probably have 30% of negatives, 95% 35mm, 5% B&W
I considered the Nikon CoolScan V on eBay but went with the Canon 900F with Silverfast so I could do slides and prints.
My main concern is print dpi, format and media. What is the shelf life of a DVD?
I've done some pro work, there is a very small remote chance that some of the slide images might sell. The primary objective is to archive images for my family.
Thanks
http://www.scancafe.com/
I read good things in most areas. I would like to try it with some old stuff. Mixed media is ok as well.
Z
For index images and snapshots I believe that I would do as you have indicated and scan at lower resolutions at 4" x 6" output but I would recommend using 300dpi as the scan resolution. (1800 x 1200 scan resolution) Save these as JPGs and they won't take up too much disk space. You should see a noticeable improvement using this image resolution versus the 900 x 600 scan resolution you were intending, assuming 4" x 6" prints and minilabs using the latest Fuji Frontier printers, popular at most XMarts and pharmacies in North America. This also assumes glossy prints.
For higher quality images I do recommend scanning at the full optical resolution of the CanoScan 9000F, which is 9600dpi, translating to about 60MB TIFF files from full-frame 35mm. Then process with Photoshop and competent noise reduction and sharpening (and whatever else is required). Once you're done in Photoshop resize to 3000 x 2000 pixels and save, because that resolution is about the maximum detail from a 35mm scanned frame. For images that might sell do keep both a finished 16 bit TIFF and JPG file.
For images that you might want to print larger for whatever reason, feel free to scan at 3000 x 2000 pixels from the scanner, realizing that they will be good for at least an 8" x 12". They just won't have quite the appeal of the higher resolution scans with full Photoshop treatment.
The settings you mentioned of 11" x 14" at 300dpi would require some cropping from the frame (assuming 35mm scans), so I recommend scanning the full frame and cropping later, according to the subject matter and scene and intended print aspect ratio. 12" x 18" at 300dpi would be safer, but again, 3000 x 2000 pixels is about all the detail you will realize from a 35mm frame.
Of course, medium format material has more detail and the sizes should be adjusted accordingly.
For a little better quality from your very best 35mm images you might consider drum scanning. Drum scanning is generally a "wet" process that also fills in some minor scratches. You can realize about 8 MPix worth of detail from drum scans, although it is relatively expensive for any quantity.
Kodachromes and B&W negatives tend to work less well with the IR based dust and scratch reduction automation of some scanners. The Canon FARE Level 3 automation of the CanoScan 9000F is reported to do pretty well with Kodachomes, but you may have to play with settings to get the best quality. It helps to use an anti-static brush to clean the material first before loading into the scanner.
Data DVDs have different durability ratings and need proper light, temperature and humidity storage conditions for best longevity. Occasionally refreshed data on multiple hard drives may actually offer better long-term data security, but even hard drives are subject to changes in technology which may render them unusable within a couple of decades or less.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'd suggest this file size needs to be re-visited, Ziggy.
A 7D @ 18Mp produces approx 54Mb, with a resolution of 'only' 5900 dpi ... and then there's the difference in area, too ... and if 48 bit gets thrown in as well, I hope someone's got access to a Cray
Interesting that Canon are getting 60% + more sensor sites/inch on the scanner than their 7D?
From my (limited) experience using film scanners (I have a Polaroid 4000dpi one), the issue (as you suggest) was film grain/resolution @ max res ... ie 'empty' magnification.
pp
Flickr
From my same paragraph; "... Once you're done in Photoshop resize to 3000 x 2000 pixels and save, because that resolution is about the maximum detail from a 35mm scanned frame."
If you first scan at the full optical resolution of the scanner, do your noise reduction first (extremely important in dealing with film scans) then do your primary sharpening, and then reduce the image size to 3000 x 2000 pixels image size, I maintain that you will achieve demonstrably better results than by just scanning to the target resolution using the scanner interpolation.
The issue is that at the full rated optical resolution of the scanner you will also manage to avoid some of the "salt and pepper" grain induced from scanning a random structure (the film grain) into an array. You also give the noise reduction algorithms more to work against, and then more control over the primary sharpening process (halo control from USM sharpening and grain control from high-pass filter sharpening).
Ah, I see that you might mean the actual file size in megabytes. That, of course, depends upon the file type and any compression applied. (JPGs versus uncompressed TIFFs versus RLE compressed TIFFs versus ZIP compressed TIFFs, for example, plus any smoothing and bit depth.) The file size will most certainly vary from my guesstimate of a 35mm frame scanned from the CanoScan 9000F at 9600dpi.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My comment was made assuming the same file type was being used / compared - otherwise it'd be a waste of time - all I'm saying is that 60mb is a bit on the small size, compared with the approx 340Mb that I get
Figs I used
34.7mm x 22.7mm @ 9600ppi = 13115 x 8580 pixels.
Compared with a 7D file of 5184 x 3456 @ 18Mp / 54Mb
I get a factor of 6.28 between the two files - assuming I've got the dec. points in the correct places, of course
pp
Edit
I originally wrote 340Mp when I should've written 340Mb - now corrected
Flickr
ScanCafe took longer than ScanDigital. As far as quality I'm not sure what to compare it to, but they were clean (no dust etc). Most were images from the 60's I just wanted in digital form.
It would have been cheaper to scan them myself, but using the service took a lot less of my time.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
From SilverFast, it looks like there is no 16bit TIFF for color. I don't see compressed TIFFs. Options are RGB 24 or 48 bit, corrected or uncorrected; and CMYK 32 or 64 bit. JPEG has same options. There is also DCS, EPSF, or PSD. I will probably have other save options in Photoshop Elements 8. I'll look, and take notes for others that might eventually try the same.
Thanks
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
This was further complicated by the discovery that some had started to fade and even worse, the emulsion was clotting on others.
This is my eventual solution and it works a treat. Here you see it demonstrating all modes, both as a copy stand and with the back lit slide copier in place.
A minute to setup and frame the first slide with a purpose made setup reticule,
Adjust the camera distance so I can just see a white border around the inner line*, then adjust the aperture for maximum depth of field and remote shutter operation. All that's needed then is to push the slides through the guide and hit the release.
My copying rate including pre-cleaning of the slides went from about 15 images/hr to well over 60 images/hr. No straightening or cropping needed.
*If I don't do this, the camera image is actually fractionally larger than that displayed in the viewfinder, leading to the new images having thin black frames which would require further editing.
A view of the slide holder.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I started out wanting a decent copy stand as I do a lot of copying of photos in frames and also documents for our local history group. I was lucky enough to find out that our local technical college was disposing of it's old enlargers as they are no longer running courses in film photography, I immediately thought that with a little cutting and cropping they would make great copy stands. I was so impressed with the way it turned out I decided to try and make it more versatile by adding a slide and negative copying assembly made out of the back light from an old cheap slide scanner that I had in my junk box, and a macro slider so that I could adjust the position of the slides accurately under the lens.
Once it is setup and the slide accurately framed it is just a matter of setting the shutter release to remote and photographing the slides as quickly as I can feed them through and press the remote shutter release. Cleaning the slides beforehand is the most time consuming part of the job as no matter how well they have been stored, they attract dust like crazy.
It is an on going project as I try to keep adding to, and improving it, my latest additions being Manfrotto quick release fittings for both the camera and also the copier assembly. So far it has exceeded all of my expectations and more to the point, it has cost almost nothing.
thanks for any tips
Jase // www.stonesque.com