Economy of Scale - Advice Please
Scott Buel
Registered Users Posts: 134 Major grins
Hello All!
Due to time limitations (my full time job, etc.), I just don't think I can tackle growing my SmugMug galleries in a timely fashion on my own. Having upwards of 40,000 images to scan, SloYerRoll (in this thread: **click click** ), convinced me to seek out an outside party to hire to do my scanning.
I need opinions on this:
Minimum of 1000 slide and/or negative frames (B&W or color) per order
- Scanned at 4000 PPI
- ICE dust and scratch removal applied on color films
- Hand cropping
- Individual color and exposure correction
- Noise and grain reduction if required
- Restoration of faded/shifted colors if required (usually applies to
faded slides more than negatives)
- Printed contact sheets if desired
- TIFF and/or JPEG files to your specification
- File naming according to your specification on a per roll/sheet/
group basis
Prices per frame:
- 35mm negative: $0.95
Is there anything anyone can see that I might be able to ask for that would reduce the cost per frame from $0.95?
.95 X 40,000 = too much for me
The bulk of the collection is B&W and old, which would mean to me that perhaps these don't need to be scanned at 4,000 ppi, but I have more than one goal here.
1.) Perserve these for the long haul (so, DVDs, hard drives, multiple copies in multiple locations)
2.) Filling up my SmugMug galleries so I can concentrate on the fun stuff like promotion and working on my blog.
At almost $1.00 a frame at the above specs, the cost is too prohibitive for me. Am I being a cheapskate? Are the above offerings realistic? Is 4,000 ppi overkill? In your opinion, would a lower scanned ppi be sufficient and still allow me the maximum benefits of being able to edit or modify the images in the future? Would 2,000 ppi be good?
I would do keywording, uploading, and organizing on my own.
Sorry for all the questions, but I wanted to bounce this off all the experts out there.
By the way, here are my SmugMug galleries:
http://sftp.smugmug.com/
Again, I appreicate any and all opinions, advice, questions, etc.
Due to time limitations (my full time job, etc.), I just don't think I can tackle growing my SmugMug galleries in a timely fashion on my own. Having upwards of 40,000 images to scan, SloYerRoll (in this thread: **click click** ), convinced me to seek out an outside party to hire to do my scanning.
I need opinions on this:
Minimum of 1000 slide and/or negative frames (B&W or color) per order
- Scanned at 4000 PPI
- ICE dust and scratch removal applied on color films
- Hand cropping
- Individual color and exposure correction
- Noise and grain reduction if required
- Restoration of faded/shifted colors if required (usually applies to
faded slides more than negatives)
- Printed contact sheets if desired
- TIFF and/or JPEG files to your specification
- File naming according to your specification on a per roll/sheet/
group basis
Prices per frame:
- 35mm negative: $0.95
Is there anything anyone can see that I might be able to ask for that would reduce the cost per frame from $0.95?
.95 X 40,000 = too much for me
The bulk of the collection is B&W and old, which would mean to me that perhaps these don't need to be scanned at 4,000 ppi, but I have more than one goal here.
1.) Perserve these for the long haul (so, DVDs, hard drives, multiple copies in multiple locations)
2.) Filling up my SmugMug galleries so I can concentrate on the fun stuff like promotion and working on my blog.
At almost $1.00 a frame at the above specs, the cost is too prohibitive for me. Am I being a cheapskate? Are the above offerings realistic? Is 4,000 ppi overkill? In your opinion, would a lower scanned ppi be sufficient and still allow me the maximum benefits of being able to edit or modify the images in the future? Would 2,000 ppi be good?
I would do keywording, uploading, and organizing on my own.
Sorry for all the questions, but I wanted to bounce this off all the experts out there.
By the way, here are my SmugMug galleries:
http://sftp.smugmug.com/
Again, I appreicate any and all opinions, advice, questions, etc.
0
Comments
Next, I would check out additional places. I quick search on google and I found a place for as low as $0.33 each with much lower minimums (I haven't used any of these so I can not comment on their quality.
Last, I would compare this again to doing it yourself but make sure you have a scanner that will automatically scan a whole stack of slides or strips of negs at a time. You will still do some cropping and corrections afterwards but you could put a stack of slides in before work and just let it go. At $0.95 each x 40,000 then I would hire someone if I couldn't find the time to do it myself. I know pleanty of people that don't make that much in a year, let alone 3 months (which is how long I think the whole project would last for one person full time). Heck, I would even be willing to bid on that project. I worked for a very large lab several years ago doing just that.
Chris
To anybody else, does anyone have any experience with Scan Cafe?
http://scancafe.com/
3000 dpi for 35mm negatives and slides at $0.19
There may be some downsides, but I think the 3000 dpi fits in to the SmugMug specs for printing, right?
I have a call in to their customer service to ask them some questions, so for anyone else who may be in a similar boat, I'll be sure to post my questions and answers as follow up.
If anyone has any specific suggestions for questions, leave a reply or drop me a PM.
One question I am going to ask is which file format are they delivered back to me in. JPEG is what we need for SmugMug, but what if they offer TIFF? (Does it matter? Should I even be concerned?).
In the meantime, I'll consider bids from Dgrinners who may have the skills, equipment, and time. Or, does anyone have specific suggestions for bulk scanning services?
Scan Cafe: let the pros do it
http://scancafe.com/terms_condition.php
9. Certain information concerning Content being optically scanned by the Service is digitally embedded by SCANCAFE into the resulting image files utilizing the Extensible Markup Platform (XMP) standard and EXIF/IPTC standards. This embedded information may include but is not limited to SCANCAFE contact information, a unique order number, a unique Member number, the operator and the time and date of the scan. This embedded information is necessary for SCANCAFE to effectively perform the production and distribution processes of the Service. Because of its nature, this embedded information can also be used to identify the source and history of an image independent of the Service. You acknowledge that you have been informed that this embedded information may (but does not necessarily) exist in every scan performed by the Service and that you have been informed that distributing your images would result in the distribution of this embedded information. You agree to take full responsibility for the distribution of this embedded information should you distribute your images either intentionally or unintentionally.
Scan Cafe: let the pros do it
Chris
To be honest. 3k DPI is insanely large. Rule of thumb for scanning is never scan a higher dpi/ppi than you need to. Your just wasting memory.
Companies try to upsell this like their doing you a service. This is just because their scanners can scan this high so why not utilize it and make some more profit off it....
The best thing at this point in my opinion is to find out the MAXIMUM size you will ever want to print one of these slides getting scanned. Do some math on this (if your not too sure on these numbers, send me a PM w/ any details you want and I'll crunch them for you so you know what your baseline needs to be) I'll post a full reply w/ all the numbers after I look at them.
With numbers this big though. You should not be going through someone's website. You need to be talking to sales reps that can give you solid answers and discounts from economies of scale in writing. A job like this is a big deal to any vendor that does this kind of work. You are in the drivers seat on this one Scott. Drive.
It's a good idea to let them know you are shopping this to make sure any people you are dealing w/ are giving their best shot.
Good luck finding someone to get this done for you.
-Jon
These are rough calculations but close enough to make a judgement call by. I'd say 2000 dpi is not enough to be worth the effort and cost involved. Especially since you mention cropping, dust removal, etc. But this is a subjective call that only you can make.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=45901
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
I have had multiple dealings w/ India. They do a fantastic job at what they are tasked at. Everything I dealt w/ them were in a XMPie and DB environment though.
Just my .02 making this my .04
I guess I don't understand the entire dpi/ppi issue, so thanks. I appreciate all of your input. Thank you all. I am positive I want them scanned as TIFFs so I can archive them for the long haul and edit in Photoshop (I'm learning) at leisure without loss of info. Maybe I don't have the right understanding of file formats, resolution, dpi/ppi, file sizes, etc. I've done hours of Google searches and reading, but I have yet to find explanations that aren't conflicting with each other and that explains it very simply. I understand this stuff is complex, so I just have to keep reading and asking and talking until I do get it.
Soooo....
I need to find that sweet spot to make this worth the effort and expense. It has taken my Grandpa 40-50 years to build this collection and I need to do something to perserve it. It's important to me. The size of this collection means I can't do much of the scanning and processing on my own. Maybe I could if I didn't have a fulltime job, too.
In your opinion(s), what would be the ideal cost for services offered. If 2000 dpi isn't worth it, what would be? (For me the ideal cost would be "free/zero", but let's be realistic).
If you were me, what exactly would you be looking for to do this right? What would you ask them for? I want to do the right thing here so years from now when my Grandpa is gone, his collection still "lives".
Sorry if it seems like I am being thick skulled here. I guess it is frustrating because although I have a love of the images, I am not approaching this as a photographer. I know y'all are photographers. I guess I want to be the steward of my Grandpa's collection because of my love of the history in the pictures.
Thanks for the patience and all the input so far.
Scan Cafe: let the pros do it
I can do the numbers though to shed some light on this.
I took the numbers up to 20 x 30 since that seems to be the largest SmugMug offers prints at. (Once again from a previous post. If you need bigger/better than this. You need to get w/ the pros and pay them to tell you what you need to know.)
NOTE: as you can see after doing the numbers my 3kdpi statement earlier was a little off. Not used to scanning slides this small
2000 DPI Scan Resolution
3 x 5 - Great
4 x 6 - Great
5 x 7 - Great
8 x 10 - Good
11 x 14 - Fair
16 x 20 - Bad
20 x 30 - Bad
3000 DPI Scan Resolution
3 x 5 - Great
4 x 6 - Great
5 x 7 - Great
8 x 10 - Great
11 x 14 - Good
16 x 20 - Fair
20 x 30 - Bad
4000 DPI Scan Resolution
3 x 5 - Great
4 x 6 - Great
5 x 7 - Great
8 x 10 - Great
11 x 14 - Great
16 x 20 - Good
20 x 30 - Fair
From an Archival standpoint, bigger is not always better. There comes a certain point where all you are capturing is imperfections and there is no more tonal range on the image to capture. Below is a summary of how high you should scan if you know what the ISO of the on the slides are:
Scan Resolution
Film Type
4000 DPI - Most All Films
3000 DPI - Most Print Films and Slide Films 200 ISO or faster
2000 DPI - Films of 800 ISO or faster
If you don't know what type of film you have but want to ensure all it's detail is recorded in digital form then 4000 DPI scans are a safe bet.
Please remember that the recommendations above assume your original film or print is of good quality, clarity, and sharpness.
I personally recommend using SmugMug for all you printing needs. Their track record speaks for itself. Besides having an account w/ them, I have no formal affiliation w/ them. Here is a link to some of the other printing services they provide.
http://wwww.smugmug.com/prints/catalog2.mg
They actually do not do the printing. They outsource to a place called EZ prints out of GA. But don't worry about that. Both companies look to be rock solid, and believe one of the keys to successful business relationships is customer service.
If you don't have an account w/ them yet and you get one. Go here to get an account. Please note this is a registration page though. You only need to go to it unless you are going to get an account. (which I recommend)
The forums at the bottom of the dgrin site are packed w/ people and knowledge that can answer the easiest to the most complicated questions.
Thanks for all the awesome info, SYR! I've talked to my Gramps, and the size he usually sells in his stands at several local antique malls is 8X10s. They sell the best for him. Maybe I should just stick with what works. I was just trying to open the possibilities, but since I will have access to the negatives forever (as long as they last, anyway, without degrading), I can always personally scan if someone has a need for a print at a bigger size.
So, anyway, I guess this is going to require more consideration and planning on my part. Thanks for the break down on resolution and quality; and thanks for wording it in a way that is easy for my non-photog's mind to grasp.
If I can get the price down low enough, I'll go with the 4000 dpi, but may have to settle for the 3000 dpi.
Scan Cafe: let the pros do it
Please keep us posted if you do this.
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
I was reading this thread and thought I'd throw in some ideas.
My company scans a lot of photos for families. We typically recommend 2000 dpi for slides and negatgives of family photos. 4000 dpi is generally overkill and is often greater than the resolution of the film we see from the 70's. That higher resolution tends to make the image look grainer. The higher the ASA of the film the grainer the images will look. Usually we recommend scanning everyday consumer grade film, grainier film or high ASA film at 2000 dpi which can print well at up to 8x10 uncropped. If you need to print larger or do some cropping, using a good interpolation algorithm in photoshop or other edit program will produce better results than scanning at a higher dpi and you'll get a less grainy, more pleasant image. depending on the image, too, you may want to sharpen it after interpolation.
I wrote the following article on our website about resolution and compression and how to calculate it: http://www.digmypics.com/resolutions.asp
I hope it helps.
-Scott
When I started the project I took great pains to make every image "perfect" which proved to be futile. However as I got deeper into the project I would peg the images that I thought were worthy and after scanning would then post process them and even print them out for him.
Granted I did these at 4000 dpi on a Nikon Coolscan 5ED with no processing (ICE, etc.) it was a painstaking process, doing one image at a time. Given that it was family and many of the images were priceless family images I didn't mind expending the time and effort.
That said, if you feel comfortable using one of the services mentioned in previous posts, by all means go for it. However at 40k images by roughly $1 a shot it may be worth purchasing a scanner that can bulk scan slides or negatives at a high rate of speed and doing it on your own in your spare time.
Chris V.
www.cavalierphotographic.com
Facebook , Google+
Hey Scott,
Thanks for the great article. You did a nice job of simplifying the DPI/PPI subject.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out what the optimal DPI/PPI to have my 35mm (mostly) B&W negatives scanned to would be so that I can offer the full gamut of print sizes that SmugMug offers. I need to offer 8X10s all the way up. At 3000 DPI, does SmugMug's printer (EzPrints, right?), do a good enough job of "using a good interpolation algorithm " to get the best results?
Thanks,
Scott
Scan Cafe: let the pros do it
I can’t speak for ezprint’s interpolation algorithm quality, but I’d imagine it’s pretty good. They have to do that all the time and a bad algorithm for interpolation would make their printing look bad.
Here are the problems you’ll face with b&w film; dust, scratches, and grain.
Silver halide b&w film, which is what almost all b&w film is, is not compatible with Digital ICE. You can’t use it at all. That means you have to fix up dust and scratches by hand. The higher the resolution you scan at, the bigger and more predominant dust and scratches appear. Dust and scratches are unavoidable – dust is everywhere and film scratches easily during its use, storage and processing. Even scratches and dust not visible to the naked eye become huge rays and blotches in a scanned image. Then there’s grain. B&W film is grainy. When you start scanning at high resolutions, you can exceed the film’s resolution to the point where you see the film’s chemistry in the form of grain. Surprisingly, scanning at a lower resolution hides some of these problems. We’ve tried experimenting with some scans to see if we could scan at 4000 dpi, then reduce the image down to a 2000 dpi equivalent using software and maybe achieve the best of both worlds giving us both the benefit of having the highest resolution and the benefit of less dust, scratches and grain being visible of a lower resolution scan, but it just doesn’t work out as well as just scanning at a lower resolution. Unfortunately, there’s not a one size fits all solution to your situation. What we usually do is run a few tests on the film at three different resolutions and then decide, or present the results to the customer, and based on those results scan the rest of the film accordingly. Anyone who’s spent anytime with film understands the nuances. There are a million variables to consider from ASA to chemistry to lighting to exposure settings, etc. I know there are some other scanning companies that try to tell you that resolution equates to quality and high resolution means high quality, but it’s simply not true. Resolution is only one part of much more complicated formula that leads to a high quality image. Here is a link to a page on smugmug’s site that tells you what they like to see for resolution when making prints: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality
Their numbers are really low in what they expect. They only suggest 1200x1600 to print a 30x40. A 35mm negative scanned at 2000 dpi gives you roughly 2000x2600 pixels. Well within the recommendations of smugmug for printing a 30x40 poster.
Hope that helps some.
Regards,
Scott
www.digmypics.com