Does anyone need to scan their 35mm slides?

[Peakbagr]

A friend of mine once mentioned getting a few people together to go in on a 35mm slide scanner. Top of the line model. Each person contributes to the cost, scans their slides, and then the group sells the scanner on Ebay to further reduce the cost to the participants.

Sound feasible to anyone? Any thoughts on what a high resolution scanner for mounted 35mm slides would sell for and how much the output would resemble digitally photographed images ?

There is enough common trust that doing a project like this would not involve the risk by proposing it in a place other than VFTT.

 

[teejay]

I might be interested.

teejay

 

[Grumpy]

As the organization I work for was making the transition from film-based to digital photography not too many years ago, we used a film scanner to digitize our images for pre-press processing. We used a Nikon Coolscan scanner built to handle 35mm film, which worked very well when it worked but had limitations.

A first rate Coolscan scanner for 35mm slides and negatives probably can be had for about $1,000, more or less. I rmention a scanner that accommodates both slides and negatives, since not all of us have shot slides exclusively on our hikes.

The primary limitations in our scanning operation were (a) speed of processing and (b) the array of built-in film “profiles” that would automate color correction during the process. Based on my experience, an adept, well-organized operator could produce maybe 20 high quality scanned images per hour. The latter (b) is a software issue, and probably has been resolved. We also found that the various film carrier devices were less than robust – subject to breakage resulting from the fatigue of use – or otherwise “cranky.”

So …

While I think the concept of a community scanner for digitizing our photo collections is attractive, I suspect it may be impractical.

For example, my own files contain thousands of film images (both slides and negatives) produced over the last 45 years that are candidates for digital archiving, even if I confined my project to hiking photos. Since I am still a working stiff, the editing and scanning of these images would be a multi-week or multi-month project. My suspicion is that others have similar collections. So I am guessing the passaround on a jointly purchased scanner could be rather slow.

Also, I have found that “pool” equipment often does not fare especially well in use. The problem, I think, is dispersed responsibility for its upkeep – when everybody is jointly responsible it often seems that nobody really is responsible.

My apologies if I seem excessively negative (no pun intended) here. Maybe that’s why they call me …

G(rumpy).

 

[Peakbagr]

Grumpy,

I have around 12k to 15k in color slides. Mostly Kodachromes with the balance Ektachromes. I anticipated that maybe 3 folks who knew each other, or willing to get involved as the maximum. In this case, I'm friends with TJ and would trust him completely .
One idea was that each partner got a limited time to work with the scanner and then it was the next person's turn, rotating so that one didn't have it for months on end.
Perhaps the person who placed the order and agreed to handle the Ebay sale gets it first?

I'd have to give a lot of thought to the process. Which do I want to do, all my trips, or start with highlights from each?
Wouldn't it be great if you could lay out 10 slides down by 10 across (100) and scan them in groups at one pass.

A question for Grumpy or others - Does anyone know how much size a scanned slide at high resolution takes in storage space? And maybe the most subjective, how do the hi res slides look? I've seen some slides scanned on more inexpensive scanners that don't look sharp, and where the colors are washed out.

 

[4000'er]

Wouldn't it be great if you could lay out 10 slides down by 10 across (100) and scan them in groups at one pass.

A question for Grumpy or others - Does anyone know how much size a scanned slide at high resolution takes in storage space? And maybe the most subjective, how do the hi res slides look? I've seen some slides scanned on more inexpensive scanners that don't look sharp, and where the colors are washed out.

At least with the Nikon scanner, it's one slide at a time.
Depending on the quality, each image can be 20MB or more.

Image quality is good, but dust seems to be an issue. Lots of post processing.

 

[DougPaul]

I think I generally agree with Grumpy.

There is some useful info high quality slide scanners at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/3000slides.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanrex.htm

Automatic dirt and scratch removal is very desirable: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm#ice

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

Experience ...

I really never paid much attention to data file size when we routinely scanned our negatives for pre-press processing. I do know, however, that they were significantly large files. We usually produced them initially as TIFFs to be worked up for use in the newspaper, but archived them as compressed JPGs.

Right now, it escapes me as to the quality level (dpi) at which we scanned our negs. I am sure it was not the highest, nor was it the lowest. I do know, however, that a scanned 35mm negative easily could be enlarged to the 16” X 20” or even 20” X 24” or beyond without serious image deterioration (especially for our purposes). We could easily reproduce images the size of a broadsheet newspaper page. Our big quality limitation was repro on newsprint.

Scanning speed slows way down as you push the quality up. Producing higher quality scans entails evaluating and perhaps tweaking the image density (brightness), contrast and color characteristics before the actual scan is made. It is not a process that lends itself to high level automation with something like the Nikon Coolscan units. Plus, the scans themselves take longer to run as you increase the quality specs.

As mentioned earlier, we used one of the Nikon Coolscan models, ca 2000-01. Before that, we had used a Polaroid scanner -- not nearly as good. When we changed over from using Ektacolor to Portra neg films – the scanned colors produced by that unit were hideous. That was a scanner software problem. Later, we used Fujicolor films and switched to the Nikon scanner, and produced generally decent color renditions at all ISOs, and even with push-processed high speed films.

Using the Nikon Coolscan, we did eventually have problems with the sharpness of our scanned images – manifested as loss of focus on one or both edges of the frame. This was due to breakage of plastic “springs” that were supposed to pinch and hold the negative carrier solidly in place. Loss of compression on the carrier allowed the negatives to buckle.

The Nikon Coolscan had digital ICE technology. We used it, and found it quite effective. But it is not perfect. Some additional touching-up of dust spots had to be done in Photoshop.

Understand that we were handling selected images. We did not digitize entire shoots. Scanned images were archived on a server hard drive, and periodically batched to be burned on CDs.

G.