This is for the Photography geeks out there.
I have amassed a LOT of slides over the years, including loads from railfanning and Christmas. Now I want to scan them into my computer. So far, I've tried two flatbed scanners. One has a backlit slide adapter unit, and the other uses a triangular reflector. Neither has produced acceptable results so far. The images are either fuzzy out of focus, or very poorly exposed. I don't see PhotoShop as the answer to these problems.

However, I think the answer may lay in a dedicated slide scanning device. Unfortunately, due to this lousy economy, I find myself out of a job (yes, I'm looking, no luck yet), so my funds are somewhat limited. So I've been looking at lower end slide scanners. I've found two so far that could potentially do the job. Both are 5 megapixel units. One connects to the computer via USB, the other is a stand alone unit that stores the images on an SD card. I know you get what you pay for, but I'm wondering just how good these units are. Obviously these are not professional grade units. But can they do a good job, better than my flatbed scanners? Does anyone have any experience with these?

Chris
LVHR

As you have already learned, you cannot get professional results scanning slides on a flat bed scanner. You will only get professional results using a dedicated slide scanner with an optical resolution of at least 4,000 dpi. (Yes, I said 4,000 DPI!) The resolution has to be that high because the original you are scanning is so small. Scanning a 35 mm slide at 4,000 dpi results in a digital image that can be printed at 11" x 14" at 300 dpi.

Stating that a slide scanner has 5 megapixels doesn't tell you anything useful. You have to know the OPTICAL resolution ( not "interpolated" or any other name, just "optical") and it has to be at least 4,000 dpi. A Nikon Coolscan 4000 does a very nice job. This is an older model and you may be able to find them fairly cheap. There are some on Ebay now for under $500.

Chris, I'm not going to give you exactly the answer you're looking for, but give it a moment's thought.

Regarding your out of focus scans: this is frustrating, and you're right, it can't be fixed in Photoshop. Photoshop's sharpening won't fix a fundamentally unfocused scan. You need to make sure you're using the slide holder correctly, and in a worst case scenario you might need to take the slides out of the mount and treat them the same way you'd treat a negative, but if you're doing everything right and still getting unfocused scans then it is time to blame the hardware.

Regarding the bad exposure: you should be adjusting the "levels" either at the scan stage, or in a photo editor (e.g. Photoshop) after the scan. That's a fact of life: if you want to work in a digital darkroom, you can't avoid the basic elements of craftsmanship that come with the territory.

Regarding the one-step film/slide scanners: most of the cheap "slide/film converters" are really a very cheap digital camera with a fixed focus, mounted on a slide/negative holder. They're fast and easy to use, but are generally far less satisfying in their quality than getting a good scanner and learning how to use it properly.

A good slide/film scanner costs over $500. However, with a little skill you can get decent results from a mainstream flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter. For example, the Epson V500 costs about $180 from amazon.com and gives good results. Yes, if you care about quality you will need some basic photo editing skills...but you'll be much happier with the results than with those cheap one-step slide/film converters.

As with any photographic matter, having decent equipment with decent skills is better than having worthless equipment with great skills, or extravagant equipment with no skills.

Chris,
Say 'No' to an inexpensive scanner. You will still be disappointed with the results and waste an incredible amount of time.

I have an older Canon flatbed scanner with the slide adapter. As a test, I scanned one slide myself and had my local camera shop scan the identical slide. Big difference, plus the larger file allows more digital info to be manipulated in the photo-editing software.

Sort through your collection for the best shots and have them done locally at a camera shop or mail them out to a dedicated scanning service. There are many options available. Some offer 'preview' scans and you only pay for the ones that are burned to disk.

Matt

Some (most?) Transparancy Adaptors for flatbed scanners only take one slide at a time.

For anyone who has hundreds (thousands?) of slides, the tedium of scanning them all is beyond bearable. Particulary if you have the slightest urge to re-scan any to correct the exposure -- and why wouldn't you if you're taking the time to digitize already.

You might want to consider riging something up to backlight 20 or 36 at a time, and use the result as crude proof-sheets.

I think that the best suggestion is find a service on the 'net, and send the slected, good slides off to be professionally scanned. A couple years ago, I surprised that the ease and quality for the (then) price of about 90 cents a slide. For the price of a quality slide scanner, you'll have hundreds of your best slides done effortlessly in a couple weeks.

Aside: My Dad had taken a Kodachrome25 slide of two, nose-to-tail 1970's cruise ships (around 600' each if I recall) from across the harbor. With the slide professionally scanned, I was able to read the names on the bows. I'd not been able to do this scanned at 1600dpi, and it was much sharper than I'd ever known when projected on a 40" screen.

Guys,
Thanks for the replies. Like I said, being out of work, I'm on a tight budget. So $500 plus for an "unnecessary toy" (as the other half puts it) is out of the question. So I guess I'll just have to wait on this project until something shakes loose. Meanwhile, I can play (waste time?) and see if I can get either of my flatbeds to cooperate a little. At the moment, I just want to be able to post a pic to two on the net. Quality archiving can wait.

What I don't get, is that my Dad has been scanning slides in with his flatbed scanner, which is nothing fancy (just an Epson). Now granted, I'm only looking at them on the monitor, and not blowing them up, but I will say that they do look far better than what I've been able to produce. Rich, I know for enlarging and printing purposes they probably will not measure up, but at least they are in focus, and properly exposed. Dad is no whiz kid with the computer settings, so I know he used nothing but the basic exposure settings.

Next questions: In what format should I save the images? The software for the one unit appears only to allow .tif files. I don't know if it is due to the "Slide" setting or not. The other allows 5-6 different types,.gif, .bmp, .tif, .pdf, .jpg, etc. Of course, if I can not get the one to scan in focus, it is not even a consideration.

Lastly, can any scanner software be made to control any scanner, or are you stuck with what is bundled with the unit? And if so, how?

Chris
LVHR

Chris,
Go to the manufacturer's website and verify that you have the current scanner software and drivers installed on your pc. Also, review the scanner instructions. You may need to adjust the actual scanner when using the film adapter. For instance, on my Canon flatbed scanner, the white protective sheet on the scanner lid must be removed for the film adapter to work properly.

There is plenty of info on the net regarding the various file formats.

Matt

I found a photography shop near where I live who does digital scanning using the right equipment (not a flat bed scanner) to reproduce slide images onto a DVD. The price isn't too bad. I picked only those slides worth digitizing and had them done.

Maybe you can find a similar place near you.

Tex

quote:

In what format should I save the images?

TIF files.

A JPG file is a compressed file. Some of the data in the file is literally thrown away in order to compress the file size. Tif files are not compressed, consequently for any given image they are much larger than a JPG file. However, all the data is there - none has been thrown away to save on file size.

Since disc space is very cheap these days, save the files in the TIF format.

quote:

TIF files.
save the files in the TIF format.

That would be TIFF for Tagged Image File Format.

JPEG or Joint Photographic Experts Group files will be reduced in quality every time you save it as it uses a compression format that interpolates the values of surrounding pixels and assigns them the same values to reduce the file size.

I am extremely satisfied with my Epson 4870 flatbed, and with Photo Shop, can get very satisfactory results. It handles 35 mm slides (8), 35 negs (4 strips), 120 film (3 strips), and 4 x 5 (2 sheets), and prints.

Here is a scan done at my standard 4800 dpi resolution; normally I keep it just under 400 kb file size for use elsewhere:



Here is a 8 x 10 print scan done at 300 dpi resolution, again keeping it under 400 kb file size:



Both these were rescanned from Photo Shop Document files (.psd) to smaller file size .jpeg files, to meet the OGR criteria for file size <120 kb.

BBB

Well Chris evidently U have your work cut out for you. We have a megascan answer that
obviously will scan anything and everything. Plus a bit inbetween.....

My experience-
My current scanner is about 7 yrs old, an epson, with slidein strip for either 35mm en their slide holders
or for 21/4 sq twin lens reflix rollfilm. It has performed with the best of my requests. As an aside,
I have allergic tendencies, and if I have an episode of outbreaks I can scan the booboos and end up with
a magnificent image of an item that is only 1/3 of a MM thats right millimeter.
What we often forget is there is a multiplier built into our monitors, and that is what resolution are you
attempting to view? Since the scan is in DPI, the screen resolution of the scan becomes far different
that what you expect.
You can also tweak the final image in many ways, with the built in scanning adjustments, all the way
from each of the colors to contrast to flat vs contrast.
IMHO its not necessarily the scan or dpi it is your EYE and the final product printed that counts.

Note also I have a new Canon MP620 I think, but its fine for quick and easy scans. However you have
little control over the rez, i.e. are you scanning at 300 or 600 or 1600 dpi????? Thats important.

I have no need for genuine Photoshop, Photoshop Elements gives all the control I need even for color photos
to be published in, say modle railroading mags. And large outputs like an 8 x 10 of faces from an
old old photo.

All this is saying it is often your TECHNIQUE that solves the problem and not the dpi or any other fancy number.
As with everything else, experience is the great teacher.
Remember, if you dont experiment you probably will not get the answer.
and
If you don't make mistakes you won't make anything at all.

More later maybe...

L

a quick PS
those posted images prove little in regards to PRINTED output.
if you right click on the image for Properties, you will see these
fine looking images are not 12 meg but commonplace rez of
say 120,000 bytes in a moderate image.

For those images of boo boos, I wil scan at like 1200 or so dpi
since I know I will view them much reduced on my screen.
However I do have the option to enlarge them too. Rare that
these pseudo microscope views are over a few meg, if at that
Its the TECHNIQUE vs results we are looking at here, not just
a numbers chart.

L

PS dont think you mentioned you wanted to produce show quality
images of 11 x 14.....

What the OGR web dude said......4000 dpi minimum......and you will get what you pay for....cheap is as cheap does. The Coolscan recommendation is a good one........sell a train or two to raise funds if you have to.

Rod

Your other variable is the quality of the slides. Camera quality? i.e. Kodak 35mm or Leica or Exacta or???? And the FILM- speed meaning grain in the image, Focus, and on and on......
Thoughts at dinner brought that aspect up...

If all else fails, keep saying this is FUN!

L

[QUOTE]Originally posted by L Larson:
Your other variable is the quality of the slides. Camera quality? i.e. Kodak 35mm or Leica or Exacta or???? And the FILM- speed meaning grain in the image, Focus, and on and on......
Thoughts at dinner brought that aspect up...

If all else fails, keep saying this is FUN!

update-
Think Old Goat might have your answer, pick and choose and have done professionally.
Why not try your Dads scanner? That could verify a lot of things...
Again I feel the 4000 dpi in case, someday, you wanted to do salon photos, hah.....
Ditto again YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGE QUALITY based on focus, camera quality, film quality, and so on will have as much an effect on final as any high end scannrer.

I recently used my ole Epson to help wife salvage some of her OLD pix from family shoeboxes. Like a mud straw reinforced brick , actually sod, house in midwest.
Image was B/W of unknown origin quality but a print. From there a good scan on the Epson (no , not negative but print) and the usual adjustments then some touchup with spray painter (no hard lines he said) to solve those crummy areas.

Again Rotsa Ruck

L.

L Larson writes:

quote:

those posted images prove little in regards to PRINTED output.
if you right click on the image for Properties, you will see these
fine looking images are not 12 meg but commonplace rez of
say 120,000 bytes in a moderate image.

You obviously have never posted any pictures HERE. OGR has a MAXIMUM IMAGE FILE SIZE OF <120 kB, which I stated clearly.

BBB

Chris,

Why don't you call Dan's Camera City since you are from Allentown? Thay are the largest camera shop in your area. Check out their prices, and ask if there is any discount for volume - example 500 or more slides. also, they may give you a discount if you don't have a specific timeframe that you need the work done. That would allow them to do your work between the time sensetive jobs, filling in their down time, so to speak.

Lars,
The slides are all 35mm, either Kodachrome 25, Kodachrome 64, or Echtachrome. They were shot with an Argus C3 brick(!), one of three Exactas, a Minolta SRT101, or a Canon Rebel. Granted none of these are a Nikon, but all have produced fine quality slides over the years. If the image recorded was bad, it was the fault of the guy pushing the shutter button, not the equipment. Believe me, I did more than my fair share of that!

For the flatbed scanners, I have the DPI cranked up as far as it will go. Both scanners spec out in the 4800dpi range. The one that gives out of focus images is easy to see. I can't read the letters on the tender. If I put the same slide in a viewer, no problem. Crystal clear. Definitely the scanner. Unfortunately, this is the one that gives good exposures.

Lionel GP,
I'll keep Dan's in mind. They are not too far away.

Chris
LVHR

When it comes to making the images, the best photographers are rarely limited by equipment.

Chris - I recommend a third-party scanning software called Vuescan. It will run over 1200 scanners, so whatever scanner you get will probably be supported. You can download the software to try it for free. I have a very old (SCSI) Nikon Coolscan 2000 which stopped working when I went to Windows XP. Nikon Tech Support could never get it to work and they finally told me about Vuescan. Worked (still does) like a charm and gives me better results than the Nikon software did. Check them out at: Vuescan software

Ron

quote:

Originally posted by RonS:
...I recommend a third-party scanning software called Vuescan...

Software packages like this are merely scanner interface tools.....they do relatively nothing in terms of improving output from a given scanner. I.e., it is still necessary to start with a good scanner to get good output.

Rod

Chris, a couple of years ago I borrowed a friends Nikon Coolscan, it had a 50 slide holder which made the scanning go quickly. I had 2000 + slides, some from 40 years ago and the only issue I had was disappointment with my photographic skills :-)

Hi Bob
Not sure what U R saying. here are some posts of mine on album
page..... Do believe U will find numerous pix.



http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...53102703/m/806105202

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...53102703/m/493105081

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...53102703/m/313104262

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...53102703/m/518106652

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...53102703/m/999102712
Not all are done to gallery standards, but done to simply shoot the image
and getit on line.

Cheers.

L