Slide scanners

[Peakbagr]

I'm slowing converting all my photography from film to digital. Over 25 years of hiking all over the US, I've got around 13,000 Kodachrome slides stored in slide archive boxes. They were taken with a pair of OM-1 and OM-3's with a series of Zuiko lenses.

I've been waiting for the technology and cost to intersect on slide scanners so I could afford to get one good enough that the scans would look like they were digitals, fast enough so I don't need 30 seconds to a minute for each, and at a cost that I can afford.

A friend of mine was discussing 3 of us going in on a really expensive scanner, high resolution, each of us use it to scan our slides, and then recoup as much of the cost as possible by reselling it someplace like eBay.

Are there any scanners that fit the features I mentioned, and what are people's experience with top quality slide images turned into digitals?

Thanks

 

[darren]

I owned a mid-level (at the time) film scanner. I scanned tons of my slides very successfully. I could make good prints up to 16x24. There were several slides that no matter what I did I just could not get a good scan. They were mostly sunset shots with high dynamic range. I then sent those slides to pro scan shops to get scans made. I went through three pro shops until I finally got decent enough scans to make 8x12 prints. So, in my experience success varies image to image. 90% should be ok, but don't expect 100%. Although I shot Fuji Velvia and you should have better luck with the Kodacrome.

What I have found is that you need to get a good film scanner. I haven't priced them in a while, but you are probably looking at $2,000. If you send slides out to get scanned you can pay around $35 - $50 each to get them scanned and cleaned. So if you have a bunch of slides then it is cost justified to buy your own.

Speaking of cleaned. I don't care how much you air blow your slides and try to get the dust off them before you scan them, you will have tons of dust and spots on the scan. Be prepared to become a master with the clone stamp tool in Photoshop and spend a lot of time doing it. Scanner software will have the auto dust removal functions, but I always found that you lost overall quality of the scan. Maybe the software is better now. Anyway, the 30 seconds per slide to scan is nothing compared to the time you will spend in post processing.

Out of the 13,000 be prepared to pick your best 5%.

If you do scan all 13,000 or even half that (I can't even imagine doing that - ugh!), your scanner will most likely have no resale value because it will probably be dead.

Sorry if I sound like a downer. You have a lot of work ahead of you. Go to the local university....maybe you can get a co-op student.

- d

ps: I assume you already know this, but in case you do not, do not even bother wasting your time with a flatbed scanner with the slide attachment. Junk. All of them. My film scanner died and I had a hand full of slides left to scan, so I bought a new flatbed scanner that is supposed to be one of the best flatbed scanners for slides. It is sitting in the basement . Junk. You can have it for free.

I had better luck putting the slide on a light box, putting my DSLR with a macro lens on a tripod and shooting a full frame shot of the slide. It actually worked much better than the flatbed scanner.

 

[Peakbagr]

Thanks, Darren. One of those "do you want the good news or bad new first" messages.

Appreciate the advice and cautions. Daunted by the task, bummed that 95% of my images will be sitting in the slide safes unseen.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Nikon Scanners

I have had pretty good results from Nikon's Super Coolscan 5000 (about $1000 street), which has much better dynamic range than the 4000 which came before it. The output is about 12"x18" @ 300 dpi, which is plenty for most publications and calendars, and prints up to that size range. I would agree with Darren as to the amount of time that you will need to invest cleaning up slides is considerable, and generally the dust removal programs, although they are getting better, genrally soften the image noticeably. Also, slides are rarely flat, which can throw off the autofocus of the scanner.

To save yourself some scanner babysitting, you can get a slide feeder for the Nikon which works pretty well, but they are about $500 extra.

 

[bobandgeri]

Be glad to let you borrow a HP Photo Smart S20 we have. Slow to scan but does an okay job.

 

[BorealChickadee]

I have an HP Photosmart 4070, 2400 x 2400 dpi and 48 bit. Comes with a slide retainer for copying up to 6 slides at one time.

I agree with Darren. It's Ok for the occassional old slide that I want to post but that's about it. It's deadly slow and dust comes out of nowhere.

Maybe I really don't know how to work it to its fullest potential if other people have had better luck.

If I ever get a DSLR (I'm still at the 35mm film and a pont/shoot digital) I'd try Darren's setup.

 

[skiguy]

I have had pretty good results from Nikon's Super Coolscan 5000 (about $1000 street), which has much better dynamic range than the 4000 which came before it. The output is about 12"x18" @ 300 dpi, which is plenty for most publications and calendars, and prints up to that size range. I would agree with Darren as to the amount of time that you will need to invest cleaning up slides is considerable, and generally the dust removal programs, although they are getting better, genrally soften the image noticeably. Also, slides are rarely flat, which can throw off the autofocus of the scanner.

To save yourself some scanner babysitting, you can get a slide feeder for the Nikon which works pretty well, but they are about $500 extra.

I 'll give a thumbs up for this unit also. I have been running this same scanner for some time and for purposes of scanning slides and negatives it definitely beats my Agfa Flatbed Scanner.The slide feeder although a bit pricey will save alot of time and IMO if you a scanning lots of slides will pay for itself in the times saving. Also the software (Digital Ice) that comes with the scanner can SOMETIMES be useful for cleaning up the slides, but I will echo what has already been said...get to know the clone stamp in Photoshop. IMO the the Coolscan series is a real good value without paying huge $$$$! Here's a link.

 

[RGF1]

Scasnning meduim format

Speaking of Scanners I am having a hard time finding a affordable scannr for my 645 tranparancies I want to put all of the rolls on cds so they look better when posted instead of pixilated . Should i just go to a place that can do this an have them do it for me .

thanks

Rick

 

[Peakbagr]

Wow, thank you.

Could any of you put up some scanned slides? I'd be interested in how that look.

Thank you. Appreciate the replies.

Alan

 

[Tim Seaver]

Here is an sample from the Nikon 5000 from a pretty contrasty slide (Velvia 100), followed by a detail shot of the image at 100%. The original is very sharp:

And that noble face:

 

[BorealChickadee]

I put a few in a link to Kodak Gallery. These were scanned with the cheap HP scanner.

The problem is when you try to print you gets so much "dust" and quality really degrades.

One from 1991 at the lean-to and the moose from 1976 at Baxter. Amazing how the slides have retained their color. I recently came across a large print made from a slide back in the late 70s, printed by Kodak in Rochester, and it had faded dramatically.

http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?mode=fromshare&Uc=k9z7mf1.9j62c4ed&Uy=-8lq7li&Ux=1

 

[darren]

My entire Canadian Rockies Gallery is from scanned slides.

An example:

This section of the kayaking gallery shows some of the problems I had scanning sunset shots:

http://www.vftt.org/gallery/kayak/westport.html

- darren

 

[Fen]

Are there any slide scanners that accept carousel trays?

 

[Brambor]

Another vote for the Nikon Coolscan if you can afford it. I use Konica ScanDual III. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/minolta_dsd3.html It's cheaper and does a decent job.

All of the shots from my Wind River Range blog were scanned with the Konica.
http://windriverrange.blogspot.com/