Scanner for photos and film

ray wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
>> about this.
>>
>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
>> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
>> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
>> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
>> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
>> prints but no negatives.
>
> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming
> no matter what equipment you choose.
>


ray is right as rain: if you embark on such a project, be prepared to
become a slave to it. Often worth it in the end, but wrenching
drudgery when the excitement dies down.

My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.

--
Frank ess
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <fr....RemoveThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
>
> >> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
> >> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
> >> about this.
>
> >> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
> >> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
> >> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
> >> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
> >> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
> >> prints but no negatives.
>
> > You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
> > many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming
> > no matter what equipment you choose.
>
> ray is right as rain: if you embark on such a project, be prepared to
> become a slave to it. Often worth it in the end, but wrenching
> drudgery when the excitement dies down.
>
> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
> the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
> techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
> and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
>
> --
> Frank ess

I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).
In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
imperfections will be magnified (2) time involved - film negatives
will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill. Perhaps
nowadays, it is much more automated and you did not play around with
chemical agents. However, you need some knowledge about colour and
therefore will end up doing things more that you planned to do.

I was initially thinking about a cheap scanner, but I was advised
against that and did not follow through. I ended up scanning colour
prints in a cheap scanner. It is much cheaper, but still take time and
quality is not that great. I did more than 1 regular postcard photo in
one shot, and then crop them into the siez of the photos. I usually do
it at 600 dpi or more, as the cropped image may be only a quarter of
an 8x11 size or even less (if you crammed 6 postcard photos in the
scanner screen of 8x11).

I even wonder if it is still cheaper and less time if I just order the
brand new prints from the negatives and then scanned the photos. It
may end up cheaper than buying a $2000 scanner (plus extra time
consumed). However, I have over 2000 photos to scan and if it cost $2
each, it will cost $4000!. It is amusing to note that if you ask the
photo lab to get digital files when you order your prints, it only
cost $2 more for the whole 36 photos. However, if it already cut into
6 strips, it is much more time for them to scan and get the digital
files, and the technician has to insert them one strip at a time.
Therefore the cost of $2 per photo. It is a time consuming job, either
using regular print scanner or even more if you have to use a film
scanner.

Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner. Note
that there is another discussion in this same newsgroup about this
same topic. Please read that one too.
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

In message pan.2007.11.19.16.33.52.853702 RemoveThis @zianet.com,
ray <ray RemoveThis @zianet.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
>> about this.
>>
>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
>> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
>> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
>> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
>> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
>
> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
> matter what equipment you choose.
>

Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort with a
decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than taking 6 months
with the wrong equipment...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:00:25 +0000, ChrisM wrote:

> In message pan.2007.11.19.16.33.52.853702 RemoveThis @zianet.com,
> ray <ray RemoveThis @zianet.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
>>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
>>> about this.
>>>
>>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
>>> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
>>> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
>>> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
>>> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
>>
>> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
>> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
>> matter what equipment you choose.
>>
>
> Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
> something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort with a
> decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than taking 6 months
> with the wrong equipment...

IMHO - with the 'wrong equipment' it can't be done.
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

Cams wrote:
> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
> about this.
>
> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
>
> I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
> fine.
>
> My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
> or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a
> way to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of
> choice would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site
> and I'm in Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one
> they have is listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google
> are referencing the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or
> indication of whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same
> model. Does anyone know whether the M version is more recent?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Cams
I use a dedicated slide/negative scanner and a separate photo scanner for
prints etc.

There may well be combination scanners that will do both equally well, but I
would think that the quality of the finished scan will be a compromise.

I stand corrected if I am wrong about this.

Dennis.
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

Scanning negatives is not a quick process if you do it yourself and
expensive if you get someone else to do it.

I done mine over about 6-8 months, running the scanner in the background and
feeding it a new strip about very every half a hour. Part of the process
was the scanning, but if you include the ICE process (to remove dust and
scratches), it takes longer. It worked out about 6-8 minutes per frame
(scanned at 16 bits per channel, max resolution, with ICE and saving as
TIFF, which were about 140MB each). 6-8 minutes may not sound like much,
but if you have thousands of photos, it's a big task. Also, this is just
the scanning process, there is also the post production to think of, which
will probably be about the same, unless you batch process.

I used a Nikon film scanner myself, which was handy because it allowed me to
just feeding the strips straight into the scanner without having to mount
them in a holder first. Before scanning, I would clean with a lint free
cloth, then blow the negs with a pressurized photographic air blower. Mind
you, my negs were already in very good condition, as I stored them in
special folders.

I done as you are planning to do and scan everything, then sort them
afterwards, although I didn't scan any photos that I knew were definitely
binners.


"Cams" <Cams.30at01.TakeThisOut@no.email.invalid> wrote in message
news:Cams.30at01@no.email.invalid...
>
> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going about
> this.
>
> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
>
> I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
> fine.
>
> My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
> or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a way
> to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of choice
> would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site and I'm in
> Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one they have is
> listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google are referencing
> the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or indication of
> whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same model. Does
> anyone know whether the M version is more recent?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Cams
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

Ali wrote:

>Scanning negatives is not a quick process if you do it yourself and
>expensive if you get someone else to do it.

Scanning negatives or slides is a classic example of the
quality/speed/price choice: You get to pick any two of the three.


--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

Thanks for the input. Since posting I discovered the dedicated scanner
forum (where I ought to have posted!) - please forgive my newbie-ness!
I spent a while reading the threads that interested me and learned a
great deal. This thread has been helpful also, particularly with regard
to learning the time required.

I'm not really looking to scan images with a view possibly to printing
ANY of them. In fact, the idea is to get rid of my existing prints and
have everything archived and tagged digitally. So with the idea that I
won't ever print any of my digital scans, would I not be able to scan at
lower than maximum resolution and thereby speed up the process?

I have several shoeboxes filled with a lifetime's worth of photos (say
20 years?), many of which are not really worth keeping but might still
be worth having low-res jpegs. A lot of them are still in the print-shop
envelopes with accompanying negatives but I guess there will be a lot
for which a) I have no negatives or b) which are not stored with the
negatives.

The original plan was to scan the photos first. This is because we are
about to move house (in 6 weeks' time) and I wanted to get rid of
several albums of photos. I would do the negative scanning process later
on after we had moved and replace any scanned photos with the
corresponding negative once/if found. Does scanning photos take as long
as scanning negatives? And with regard to the Epson V7x0 scanners, is
the V750 faster than the V700?

Many thanks for the help. I'm very glad to have found these forums!
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

On Nov 19, 8:08 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote:
> <anira....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <fr....DeleteThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
> >> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
> >> the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
> >> techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
> >> and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
> >> Frank ess
>
> Sensible advice. Although finding an "intern" is probably impossible<g>.
>
> > I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
> > film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
> > money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
> > scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
> > Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).
>
> Uh, no. If all you need is 35mm, the Nikon Coolscan V is excellent and is
> under US$600 new.
>
> The Canon 4000 is discontinued and the Nikon 9000 is expensive because it
> also scans medium format up to 56x86mm.
>
> > In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
> > scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
> > imperfections will be magnified
>
> This is only a problem with traditional B&W film, the ICE technology detects
> and fixes dust imperfections during scanning for color films and C41 process
> B&W films.
>
> > (2) time involved - film negatives
> > will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
> > require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill.
>
> It's not that bad. You get a positive image from the scanner. But you do
> have to adjust it. It's very similar to the adjustments required during raw
> conversion: black and white points, contrast, and color temperature
> adjustments, noise reduction, resampling to size for printing, and
> sharpening.
>
> > Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
> > film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
> > Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
> > will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
> > Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
> > are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner.
>
> The Epsons are roughly the same price or a bit more than the Coolscan V, and
> not as good. But they can scan up to at least 4x5 film.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


The Epson V700 does a decent job of scanning, the latest Nikon
scanners are probably better, but I did put away my older Nikon LS2000
after I got my V700, it was faster, had more dynamic range while
sharpness was very close, sometimes the Epson won sometimes the Nikon.
Oh yes the Nikon was just 3 months out of overhaul at Nikon Melville
NY.
The Epson can take 12 slides at a time and batch scan, and 24 35mm
negs. 12 and 24 images is enough just to let the scanner do its thing
while you can be productive at other things. Not sure of APS but isn't
that the same width as 35? If it is the neg carriers can take the
film. Each scan at 3200ppi for slides, negs will take 3 minutes,
double that if you use Digital Ice. The Epson require a little setup
to get the best sharpness out of the unit, but the work is rewarded
with good scans. The scans are not shabby at all and for a project
like you have this is probably the scanner you want.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

<aniramca.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <fr....RemoveThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>
>> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
>> the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
>> techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
>> and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
>> Frank ess

Sensible advice. Although finding an "intern" is probably impossible<g>.

> I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
> film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
> money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
> scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
> Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).

Uh, no. If all you need is 35mm, the Nikon Coolscan V is excellent and is
under US$600 new.

The Canon 4000 is discontinued and the Nikon 9000 is expensive because it
also scans medium format up to 56x86mm.

> In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
> scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
> imperfections will be magnified

This is only a problem with traditional B&W film, the ICE technology detects
and fixes dust imperfections during scanning for color films and C41 process
B&W films.

> (2) time involved - film negatives
> will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
> require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill.

It's not that bad. You get a positive image from the scanner. But you do
have to adjust it. It's very similar to the adjustments required during raw
conversion: black and white points, contrast, and color temperature
adjustments, noise reduction, resampling to size for printing, and
sharpening.

> Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
> film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
> Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
> will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
> Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
> are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner.

The Epsons are roughly the same price or a bit more than the Coolscan V, and
not as good. But they can scan up to at least 4x5 film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

In message pan.2007.11.19.19.18.30.948191.TakeThisOut@zianet.com,
ray <ray.TakeThisOut@zianet.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:00:25 +0000, ChrisM wrote:
>
>> In message pan.2007.11.19.16.33.52.853702.TakeThisOut@zianet.com,
>> ray <ray.TakeThisOut@zianet.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
>>>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
>>>> about this.
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
>>>> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
>>>> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
>>>> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
>>>> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
>>>> prints but no negatives.
>>>
>>> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
>>> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
>>> matter what equipment you choose.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
>> something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort
>> with a decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than
>> taking 6 months with the wrong equipment...
>
> IMHO - with the 'wrong equipment' it can't be done.

For wrong, read not ideal rather than completely incorrect.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film 

Take note or Franks post, that's good advise.


"Frank ess" <frank.TakeThisOut@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:fpCdneNWi9kPhd_anZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at the
> end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your techniques
> and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time, and revel in
> the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
 >> Stay informed about: Scanner for photos and film