| Author |
Message |
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
Don R. wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:28:30 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
In many cases it also helps to post an example. This is not a binary
group, so upload a sample image somewhere and post a link to it.
I wouldn't know where to begin. Sorry.
Oh no, please don't apologize. It was not meant as a criticism in any
way, just an explanation.
Examples are posted only rarely. Not everybody has web space for this
purpose and in most cases there's no need for an example anyway.
As requested by <ljlbox@gmail.com>, I emailed him a couple of examples
on 10/11 . . . . .. Haven't heard back from him so far . . . .
|
Oh, yeah, sorry, I don't check my gmail regularly, and, well, I forgot.
http://ljl.150m.com/Vegas1958.tif
http://ljl.150m.com/DisneylandRocket1958.tif
or
http://ljl.741.com/Vegas1958.tif
http://ljl.741.com/DisneylandRocket1958.tif
But, those scans weren't taken at 1200dpi! They're like 150dpi or so;
there's no way they can be decent.
If you have a 1200dpi scanner, you should definitely scan slides and
film at 1200dpi.
If you scanned at a lower resolution in order to be able to send me
small files, then don't worry and send them again at 1200dpi -- I have a
fast connection, and the only limit is 10Mb per email (that's a gmail
imposed limit, not much I can do about it; but in any case, you can
compress to best-quality JPEG if you can't fit in 10Mb).
The other issue with those scans is colors, but that can be corrected.
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:45 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
Don R. wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:28:30 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
As someone else mentioned most flatbeds have a light source in the lid
for this purpose. This light then illuminates the slide from above. At
the same time the scanner lamp (under the glass) is turned off so as
not to interfere.
So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover.
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.
Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.
They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
Thanks to all for all the input.
|
Don't give up so quick.
I agree that your scanner's solution for scanning film is "less than
ideal", but it might be adequate for you... you can't know until you try.
Ok, you *have* tried, but I would like to see a *1200 dpi* scan; I'm not
so sure the main source of your problem is your scanner, and not the way
you're setting it up.
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:51 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
Don R. wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:41:31 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca
wrote:
[snip]
I'm using an Epson 3200 flatbed (with lighted lid for transparencies)
that's not at all expensive now, and others here are going to
encourage you to consider a dedicated film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Yeah!! Let's hear it from you guys!!
|
Here you are.
A scan of an underexposed (about 1/3 of the correct exposure, I think)
slide, taken at 2400x4800dpi with my Epson RX500, which I think is
supposed to be equivalent to an Epson Perfection 2450, or something.
Gamma adjusted to 1.8.
Original:
http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example_2400.jpg
Sharpened:
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example_sharp_2400.jpg
Resized to 1200 dpi:
http://ljl.150m.com/scans/example_1200.jpg
Resized to 1200 dpi and sharpened:
http://ljl.741.com/scans/example_sharp_1200.jpg
(all files are really accessibl from both the 150m.com and the 741.com
domains, but please try to balance the load)
I uploaded 1200 dpi resized images mainly to allow for lower JPEG
compression, as my web server has a 1Mb limit on the size of files it
accepts.
The sharpened images were sharpened using Image Analyzer's deconvolution
and a PSF measured using my program SlantedEdge. Now, I don't know if
that's really good publicity, but ;-)
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:01:18 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:28:30 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
As someone else mentioned most flatbeds have a light source in the lid
for this purpose. This light then illuminates the slide from above. At
the same time the scanner lamp (under the glass) is turned off so as
not to interfere.
So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover.
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.
|
Looks that way! :-(
BTW, have you seen the message by Fred Toewe? He has the same scanner
and explains what's going on. I'll append it below just in case.
| Quote: | Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.
|
That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.
Which all boils down to what type of output you are after and if you
have the time and can spare the added expense.
If you decide to do it yourself, I second wholeheartedly what Ken
Weitzel said. Do get a dedicated film scanner! They are not really
that expensive, and when you're done you can sell it and recover some
of the cost. But the difference between even the best flatbed and a
dedicated film scanner is really night and day. Some film scanners
also have a hardware based "cleaning" mode which automatically
eliminates dust and scratches which makes editing afterwards much
easier. Of course that means having to get an image editing program...
| Quote: | They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
|
I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)
Don.
And here's that message I refer to above:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:05:55 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <ftoewe@austin.rr.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Don,
You *CANNOT* get a decent slide or negative scan using that scanner. I have
the same scanner and the same triangular "mirror" slide adapter . If you
want anything lilke a decent scan, you'll need to use a real file/slide
scanner - not a flatbed scanner.
The 6200 series front illuminates the image to be scanned. A slide or
negative needs back illumination. The slide adapter tries to accomplish
this with mirrors but can only provide *some* back illumination. So at
best, you're getting half reflected and half transmitted light from your
slide. *ALL* of the reflected light is contrast reducing glare/flare.
Plus, as others have stated, the 1200 dpi limitation is pretty severe by
today's standards.
Fred |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don R.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:30 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:41:08 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:01:18 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:28:30 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover.
|
Just checked the cover. It's much too thin to be able to accomodate
any sort of light source. Other than being sinmply a good document
scanner, it has the ADF feature, which utilizes the lid.
| Quote: | BTW, have you seen the message by Fred Toewe? He has the same scanner
and explains what's going on. I'll append it below just in case.
|
That pretty much says it all, doesn't it.
| Quote: | Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.
That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.
|
I'm not sure I'd be able to find anyone who is really a pro in this
location.
| Quote: | If you decide to do it yourself, I second wholeheartedly what Ken
Weitzel said. Do get a dedicated film scanner! They are not really
that expensive, and when you're done you can sell it and recover some
of the cost. But the difference between even the best flatbed and a
dedicated film scanner is really night and day. Some film scanners
also have a hardware based "cleaning" mode which automatically
eliminates dust and scratches which makes editing afterwards much
easier. Of course that means having to get an image editing program...
|
I do have Adobe PhotoShop 5.5, Adobe ImageReady 1.0, Adobe Photo
Deluxe BE 1.0, all of which I've had for some time and am not
proficient in any of them. Obtained them some years back when Adobe
employees were able to buy them at very low price.
I also have Olympus' Camedia Master 4.1 which came with an Olympus
C-5060 digital camera I recently purchased.
| Quote: | I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)
|
Mine are mostly Kodachromes, too, plus some other brands.
| Quote: | And here's that message I refer to above:
|
Thanks!
Spent some time chatting with a Dell sales rep this morning. He/they
recommend Visioneer scanners for slides and film. Noticed one is made
by Xerox, don't know if they all are. . . have seen references to
Visioneers in this NG. I'll ask about them in a separate post so more
are likely to see it.
Really appreciate everyone's input.
| Quote: |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:05:55 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <ftoewe@austin.rr.com
wrote:
Don,
You *CANNOT* get a decent slide or negative scan using that scanner. I have
the same scanner and the same triangular "mirror" slide adapter . If you
want anything lilke a decent scan, you'll need to use a real file/slide
scanner - not a flatbed scanner.
The 6200 series front illuminates the image to be scanned. A slide or
negative needs back illumination. The slide adapter tries to accomplish
this with mirrors but can only provide *some* back illumination. So at
best, you're getting half reflected and half transmitted light from your
slide. *ALL* of the reflected light is contrast reducing glare/flare.
Plus, as others have stated, the 1200 dpi limitation is pretty severe by
today's standards.
Fred
Don R. |
<odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:41:08 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:01:18 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:28:30 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
As someone else mentioned most flatbeds have a light source in the lid
for this purpose. This light then illuminates the slide from above. At
the same time the scanner lamp (under the glass) is turned off so as
not to interfere.
So - and I'm only guessing here - but have you opened the lid and
examined it for this light source? It's usually hidden behind a
removable cover.
Am afeerd mine doesn't have such a feature. The light source is from
the bottom. Guess that's why they made such an assinine slide adapter.
Looks that way! :-(
I have a 5470c which has an adapter that goes on top. This adapter |
consists of a plastic plate and a film holder that fits into the
center of the plastic plate. You lift the center piece out and slide
a film strip containing up to as many as four negatives or
transparencies.
But this only uses a small percent of the total scanner area.
As others have said, a dedicated film and slide scanner will do a far
better job and you can get a really nice one new in the $500 US range,
then sell it on E-Bay after you are done.
I use a Nikon LS5000ED which is a bit more money but was worth it, "I
think", but I've gone through more than 20,000 scans. Actually I've
lost track of just how many I have done as I ended up redoing a bunch.
However I plan on keeping the LS500ED.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm may help with some
decisions.
| Quote: | BTW, have you seen the message by Fred Toewe? He has the same scanner
and explains what's going on. I'll append it below just in case.
Oh, well, I'd best see if there's any commercial operation which can
copy them for me.
|
Many camera shops have this capability as do photo finishers.
HOWEVER you need to find out ahead of time at what resolution they
scan and at what price!
The local photoshop uses a Nikon scanner for slides and film strips. I
don't know if the charge is the same for all, but they get a buck a
slide. OTOH I'd rather pay $1.00 US for a 4000 dpi scan (they will
clean the slides if necessary and know how to do it) than 50 cents for
a screen resolution slide on a CD.
Of course at 4000 dpi you can use a lot of CDs when you consider at
an 8 bit color level the images are roughly 60 megs each, which is
about 12 per CD, or 120 megs at 16 bit color depth which is about 6
images per CD.
| Quote: |
That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.
Which all boils down to what type of output you are after and if you
have the time and can spare the added expense.
|
You usually pay for what you get and sometimes you pay for what you
don't get.
| Quote: |
If you decide to do it yourself, I second wholeheartedly what Ken
Weitzel said. Do get a dedicated film scanner! They are not really
that expensive, and when you're done you can sell it and recover some
of the cost. But the difference between even the best flatbed and a
dedicated film scanner is really night and day. Some film scanners
also have a hardware based "cleaning" mode which automatically
eliminates dust and scratches which makes editing afterwards much
easier. Of course that means having to get an image editing program...
They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)
Those can be real bears. I just went through many thousand of the "old |
family slides" and nearly all were Kodachrome 25. ICE did not work on
many, but on those it did it was worth it.
Some of them had faded to just a greenish cast and the scanning
"restore faded slide" function made them look like the originals, or
as near as my memory could tell.
Of course the old paper mounts have that tendency to curl and/or have
the edges spread out. <:-))
Good luck all,
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: | Don.
And here's that message I refer to above:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:05:55 GMT, "Fred Toewe" <ftoewe@austin.rr.com
wrote:
Don,
You *CANNOT* get a decent slide or negative scan using that scanner. I have
the same scanner and the same triangular "mirror" slide adapter . If you
want anything lilke a decent scan, you'll need to use a real file/slide
scanner - not a flatbed scanner.
The 6200 series front illuminates the image to be scanned. A slide or
negative needs back illumination. The slide adapter tries to accomplish
this with mirrors but can only provide *some* back illumination. So at
best, you're getting half reflected and half transmitted light from your
slide. *ALL* of the reflected light is contrast reducing glare/flare.
Plus, as others have stated, the 1200 dpi limitation is pretty severe by
today's standards.
Fred |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:30:11 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.
I'm not sure I'd be able to find anyone who is really a pro in this
location.
|
In that case you may just as well do it yourself. After all you've
done scanning with the flatbed and using a film scanner is not all
that different. There are some differences (e.g. focus) but you have a
head start!
| Quote: | If you decide to do it yourself, I second wholeheartedly what Ken
Weitzel said. Do get a dedicated film scanner! They are not really
that expensive, and when you're done you can sell it and recover some
of the cost. But the difference between even the best flatbed and a
dedicated film scanner is really night and day. Some film scanners
also have a hardware based "cleaning" mode which automatically
eliminates dust and scratches which makes editing afterwards much
easier. Of course that means having to get an image editing program...
I do have Adobe PhotoShop 5.5, Adobe ImageReady 1.0, Adobe Photo
Deluxe BE 1.0, all of which I've had for some time and am not
proficient in any of them. Obtained them some years back when Adobe
employees were able to buy them at very low price.
|
Oh well, you're all set then! That also means you're familiar with the
software and the whole editing process.
| Quote: | I also have Olympus' Camedia Master 4.1 which came with an Olympus
C-5060 digital camera I recently purchased.
I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)
Mine are mostly Kodachromes, too, plus some other brands.
|
In that case do note that Nikons have a problem with Kodachromes! :-(
On the other hand, for other slides and for negatives Nikons are
really fantastic because due to 3 separate light sources they have
exceptional color purity. Also, LED light source in Nikons does *not*
deteriorate with time! Conventional light source used in other
scanners (with the exception of Minolta 5400 Mark *II* - not Mark I)
those conventional light sources deteriorate and drift over time
eventually burning out.
Nikons also produce very sharp scans which sometimes makes the grain
more apparent. But, the way I see it, you can always "blur" the grain
using various grain reduction methods or 3rd party software. It's much
more difficult to get that sharpness back, unsharp mask
notwithstanding. So, on balance, I for one prefer grain to a fuzzy
scan.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:10:37 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I have a 5470c which has an adapter that goes on top. This adapter
consists of a plastic plate and a film holder that fits into the
center of the plastic plate. You lift the center piece out and slide
a film strip containing up to as many as four negatives or
transparencies.
But this only uses a small percent of the total scanner area.
|
I think the reason they only use a small area is because the middle is
probably the "sweet spot" of a flatbed. And since flatbeds struggle
with film anyway at least they make sure one uses the best area.
| Quote: | I use a Nikon LS5000ED which is a bit more money but was worth it, "I
think", but I've gone through more than 20,000 scans. Actually I've
lost track of just how many I have done as I ended up redoing a bunch.
|
That's exactly why Nikon's LED light source is superior (in terms of
longevity and reliability). Not only is it still going strong but even
after 20,000+ scans it hasn't changed its characteristics. I suspect
if you did that with a conventional light source scanner, the lamp
would have either burned out by now or drifted so much that it would
have to be replaced anyway.
| Quote: | However I plan on keeping the LS500ED.
|
Even though I'm not planning to go back to analog, one never knows...
So I'll probably keep mine as well, when I'm done. After all, the
resale value (even though pretty good for Nikons) is a fraction of
what I paid so I may just as well keep it.
| Quote: | Many camera shops have this capability as do photo finishers.
HOWEVER you need to find out ahead of time at what resolution they
scan and at what price!
|
And the quality of edits!
| Quote: | That's one option, but a couple of considerations. They will not put
the effort you will! For them it's just work. Now, they are
professionals (hopefully! ;o)) so it will spare you a steep learning
curve, but - at least in theory - you could produce much better
results if you have the time.
Which all boils down to what type of output you are after and if you
have the time and can spare the added expense.
You usually pay for what you get and sometimes you pay for what you
don't get.
|
Indeed! ;o) That's what I was warning about.
| Quote: | I'm wrestling mostly with 1980s Kodachromes and that's a horror story
in its own right! ;o)
Those can be real bears. I just went through many thousand of the "old
family slides" and nearly all were Kodachrome 25. ICE did not work on
many, but on those it did it was worth it.
|
I find ICE works (LS-50 here) on overexposed Kodachromes where all the
silver has been washed out. On normal or underexposed ones it doesn't
really work. But often times one really has to struggle to see it and
inspect the image carefully at ~300% magnification to notice it. It's
a subjective call whether to use ICE on Kodachromes.
My main problem with Kodachromes is noise in dark areas (now fixed by
scanning twice) but most of all the notorious blue cast!
That Nikon blue cast on Kodachromes will be the end of me! ;o)
| Quote: | Some of them had faded to just a greenish cast and the scanning
"restore faded slide" function made them look like the originals, or
as near as my memory could tell.
Of course the old paper mounts have that tendency to curl and/or have
the edges spread out. <:-))
|
Yes! Half of my Kodachromes are in cardboard mounts and the film
itself has acquired "pincushion" distortion which makes it very hard
to focus! Add to that the relatively narrow depth of field of Nikons
and it's yet another nightmare. :-(
In my experiments I find that +/- 3 clicks is acceptable range where
things are still in focus. The trouble is the difference between the
middle of a mounted slide and the corners is often > 20 clicks! So I
now focus on the object of interest and try to have that in focus as
much as possible. On the "plus" side the areas out focus have less
visible grain! ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don R.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:53:14 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I do have Adobe PhotoShop 5.5, Adobe ImageReady 1.0, Adobe Photo
Deluxe BE 1.0, all of which I've had for some time and am not
proficient in any of them. Obtained them some years back when Adobe
employees were able to buy them at very low price.
Oh well, you're all set then! That also means you're familiar with the
software and the whole editing process.
|
Hahaha. Guess you missed my statement, "all of which I've had for some
time and am not proficient in any of them". I wish I was familliar
with the software and the editing process. Guess I'd better do some
studying and practice.
| Quote: | On the other hand, for other slides and for negatives Nikons are
really fantastic because due to 3 separate light sources they have
exceptional color purity. Also, LED light source in Nikons does *not*
deteriorate with time! Conventional light source used in other
scanners (with the exception of Minolta 5400 Mark *II* - not Mark I)
those conventional light sources deteriorate and drift over time
eventually burning out.
|
I'll check them out. Thanks.
Don R.
<odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:22 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:21:02 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Oh well, you're all set then! That also means you're familiar with the
software and the whole editing process.
Hahaha. Guess you missed my statement, "all of which I've had for some
time and am not proficient in any of them". I wish I was familliar
with the software and the editing process. Guess I'd better do some
studying and practice.
|
LOL. I know what you mean. When I look at my first edits now I roll my
eyes!
That's why I think it's important to scan raw and archive. That way,
as you get more proficient, if you don't like the edits later you can
always go back and start again without having to re-scan. And by then
the film would have deteriorated further too!
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
| Quote: | They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
that's two retired years,lots and lots of time invested into it, and the
end isn't
even in sight yet :)
35mm negatives, 35mm slides, and pics for which I have no negatives. And
old 120 negatives, disc negatives. Lots.
Having said all that, I promise that it's a very worthwhile task, I
know the kids and grandkids appreciate it and enjoy them. Hope that
at least a couple of generations further down the road do to.
..and others here are going to encourage you to consider a dedicated
film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Ditto on the film scanners plural! For the <= 4x6 prints I like the |
mini-ADF set-top of the Epson 2480 Photo LE. However for the 35mm and
superslides (126 square) and 120 format 6x6 and 6x4.5 and 620 films, negs
and diapos, I used Kodak 3570 and Minolta Dimage Scan Multi ( Pro upgrade
is free) procured via online auctions (eBay is of course the biggest but
not the only bear in these woods) because their film carriers were built
for day in&out use. Their sw are still available at mnfr web sites. But
with lack of mnfr repair support, your $300-500 investment has no future
value so caveat emptor.
And for the online sellers who do not include the film carriers, closely
question the phone folks at B&H or Adorama about availibility BEFORE you
bid because the offerings on their web stores may not truly track
inventory - these two kept me optimistic with back order assurances for
more than four MONTHS!
Hence my tagline.
Theo
--
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Weitzel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
Don wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:21:02 GMT, Don R. <odatdon@REMOVETHIStelus.net
wrote:
Oh well, you're all set then! That also means you're familiar with the
software and the whole editing process.
Hahaha. Guess you missed my statement, "all of which I've had for some
time and am not proficient in any of them". I wish I was familliar
with the software and the editing process. Guess I'd better do some
studying and practice.
LOL. I know what you mean. When I look at my first edits now I roll my
eyes!
That's why I think it's important to scan raw and archive. That way,
as you get more proficient, if you don't like the edits later you can
always go back and start again without having to re-scan. And by then
the film would have deteriorated further too!
Don.
|
Hi...
I have one more suggestion to add, for the benefit of OP Don, that he
might like to consider.
Suggest that when you first get started, that you pick out a few
interesting slides/pieces of film, choosing a mix of under-exposed,
real nice, and a bit over-exposed.
Then do those one's over and over, practicing as it were, until you have
some of the skills down pat. Only then begin scanning and saving in
earnest.
So very easy to look at your first couple on the monitor, be truly
impressed, and then keep going.
Then after you've done, say, a couple of hundred you find out that a
slight change that had gone un-noticed makes a huge diffence for the
better, and have to start all over again. And again. And again!
Don't ask me how I know, eh? :)
Take care.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:41:06 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | They're mostly slides taken back in the 1940s and 1950s of my children
and was hoping I could provide them with decent copies on CDs.
|
I have many thousands of mostly slides (The old Family Slides" from
the 40's through the 70's. Then negatives that come up to current
along with 35mm transparency film strips. I only have a few thousand
of those left, but then I get into the really old stuff. "Petrified
Cardboard" prints back into the early 1900's and even a few tintypes.
That groups comprises of probably several hundred pounds of prints.
Then there are some old family albums.
A lot of the images are not even labeled. Some that are I haven't been
able to decipher. So, I'm putting together some CDs of screen
resolution scans to send out to each side of the family, and
particularly the historians/genealogy experts. I'll let them try to
figure out who is who.
All of the 35 mm stuff has been done on a Nikon LS5000ED. I'd sure
hate to have tried to do that many on a slower scanner. After well
over 20,000 I've not had to change any settings.
I only have a few of the larger negatives so I'll have the local
camera shop scan those, or I'll set up a copy stand. I could go
through setting up the enlarger and making some 8 X 10's but that is
one whale of a lot of work compared to scanning although I still do
have the full set up.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
that's two retired years,lots and lots of time invested into it, and the
end isn't
even in sight yet :)
35mm negatives, 35mm slides, and pics for which I have no negatives. And
old 120 negatives, disc negatives. Lots.
|
| Quote: |
Having said all that, I promise that it's a very worthwhile task, I
know the kids and grandkids appreciate it and enjoy them. Hope that
at least a couple of generations further down the road do to.
..and others here are going to encourage you to consider a dedicated
film scanner. Speak up,
dedicated guys :)
Ditto on the film scanners plural! For the <= 4x6 prints I like the
mini-ADF set-top of the Epson 2480 Photo LE. However for the 35mm and
superslides (126 square) and 120 format 6x6 and 6x4.5 and 620 films, negs
and diapos, I used Kodak 3570 and Minolta Dimage Scan Multi ( Pro upgrade
is free) procured via online auctions (eBay is of course the biggest but
not the only bear in these woods) because their film carriers were built
for day in&out use. Their sw are still available at mnfr web sites. But
with lack of mnfr repair support, your $300-500 investment has no future
value so caveat emptor.
And for the online sellers who do not include the film carriers, closely
question the phone folks at B&H or Adorama about availibility BEFORE you
bid because the offerings on their web stores may not truly track
inventory - these two kept me optimistic with back order assurances for
more than four MONTHS!
Hence my tagline.
Theo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:58:54 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:
| Quote: | Then after you've done, say, a couple of hundred you find out that a
slight change that had gone un-noticed makes a huge diffence for the
better, and have to start all over again. And again. And again!
Don't ask me how I know, eh? :)
|
LOL.
I lost track how many times I had to restart! Like I said before. I've
done quite a few things in my life but nothing has been so full of
"gotchas" (and so frustrating) like scanning.
Just yesterday I was blind sided by a new "out of left field"
Kodachrome/Nikon trap. I've been going on all cylinders scanning my
Kodachromes (blue cast and all...) when all of a sudden on the latest
film I get a massive red cast!?!? Huh?
Puzzled, I tried scanning as Positive - just in case - and that looked
almost perfect. But the cardboard mounts clearly said Kodachrome!?
Totally confused I took apart one unexposed slide and, sure enough,
the film number is 5073 which is Kodachrome 25 daylight (see P.S.)
Visually, there is no visible red cast on the slides themselves, of
course, just like all other Kodachromes don't have any blue cast when
viewed. However, Nikons "see things" when it comes to Kodachromes. The
only explanation I have is that Kodak messed up the development in
some way. This is not perceptible to the human eye, but nothing
escapes the Nikons. I suppose I should be happy about that but,
somehow, I'm not! ;o)
Back to square one... Again... :-(
Don.
P.S. Speaking of which, a handy link:
http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in