That's how I do it as well.
If it weren't for the time it takes to digitize negatives and slides, I'd be very tempted picking up another Nikon film body/rangefinder and start taking pictures with it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Slide scanner advice
- Thread starter Sly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If it weren't for the time it takes to digitize negatives and slides, I'd be very tempted picking up another Nikon film body/rangefinder and start taking pictures with it.
Unless you have a very good DSLR, your digital camera will not capture the full tonal range and resolution of the slide and has zero hope of capturing the tonal range of a negative. Film is still better then digital. But if the goal is only making a DVD or viewing the image on a computer screen the DSLR is OK. But a normal DSLR just can't fully capture all the information in a 35mm negative
My flatbed scanner makes better scans then my DSLR and the scanner does 20 at a time in one batch.
The bulk of my work is outsourced you can not beat the current prices. When they can do the work for 21 cents per frame, it's not worth my time.
True. I agree 1000%.
So, I have been experimenting with HDR by doing a simple exposure bracket and then compositing the images.
So far so good.
Ahhh, you edited while I was typing a reply...
Any way, refresh my memory. What type of flat bed do you have?
How long does it take to run those 20 images through it?
I would out source if the images weren't irreplaceable, but alas they are usually very precious.
Negative films typically have a dynamic range of 10~13 stops, slide films have less (I think 8~10 EV). And then you need a very good scanner. Modern dslrs are capable of that (the highest I've seen was ~12 EV). A Nikon D90 tops out at about a little less than 10 EV (RAW), for instance. I do see advantages of film (mostly how you work with film vs. the inexhaustable amount of memory you have these days), but image quality isn't really one of them anymore.
For me it is best to outsource
I looked over these valuable, knowledgible forums and decided, for me, at least, it is better to spend my money on having a professional do the job. I can buy a slide scanner for $100 to $1000 and spend hours doing the old slides I took over the years, or spend $500 per 1000 slides to have someone else do a complete and professional job and put the results on a DVD. Then, if I want to work on them, even more, with iPhoto, I can do that at my leisure.
The many forum posts on this topic convinced me that the time spent at home, doing the work, would be excessive, as is the cost of a scanner capable of doing the job.
This is just my comment and only based on my particular time and financial constraints. I find it hard enough to organize my digital photos on my Mac and PC, and then to use Photoshop with them. No desire here to add to my many "projects."
I do feel anyone thinking of buying a slide scanner and planning to do good work, should carefully consider outsourcing.
Additionally, I discovered that the company that does slides, also can transfer all my mini DV cassettes to my external hard drive. Not knowing this before, I had the video camera repaired for $450 thinking that the only way to transfer the cassettes to my mac was to use that camera.
Oh, I wish someone had told me in one of the many other forum groups I went to, looking for help.
Good luck to all.
I looked over these valuable, knowledgible forums and decided, for me, at least, it is better to spend my money on having a professional do the job. I can buy a slide scanner for $100 to $1000 and spend hours doing the old slides I took over the years, or spend $500 per 1000 slides to have someone else do a complete and professional job and put the results on a DVD. Then, if I want to work on them, even more, with iPhoto, I can do that at my leisure.
The many forum posts on this topic convinced me that the time spent at home, doing the work, would be excessive, as is the cost of a scanner capable of doing the job.
This is just my comment and only based on my particular time and financial constraints. I find it hard enough to organize my digital photos on my Mac and PC, and then to use Photoshop with them. No desire here to add to my many "projects."
I do feel anyone thinking of buying a slide scanner and planning to do good work, should carefully consider outsourcing.
Additionally, I discovered that the company that does slides, also can transfer all my mini DV cassettes to my external hard drive. Not knowing this before, I had the video camera repaired for $450 thinking that the only way to transfer the cassettes to my mac was to use that camera.
Oh, I wish someone had told me in one of the many other forum groups I went to, looking for help.
Good luck to all.
SCSI to USB with Sprintscan 35
I have this old scanner that is probably very good. If I get this adapter cord someone mentioned, and use the old driver CD that came with the scanner, will I have trouble using this outdated software on my ibook (intell 10.5.8) or with my photoshop CS4? I realize I will not be able to connect with any online help or instruction manual...since the product is defunct and Polaroid does not have support for it on their site.
I have this old scanner that is probably very good. If I get this adapter cord someone mentioned, and use the old driver CD that came with the scanner, will I have trouble using this outdated software on my ibook (intell 10.5.8) or with my photoshop CS4? I realize I will not be able to connect with any online help or instruction manual...since the product is defunct and Polaroid does not have support for it on their site.
Came across this thread while doing a search. I am looking to do a bunch of slides to digital as well. I have plenty of time to get them done, and am looking for some advice. One of those devices that is designed just to do slides or negatives, or a flatbed scanner. Of course, I would like to say under $100 for the device. Thx.
As with most things in life, you get what you pay for. You will get bad results spending <$100 on a film scanner. Take that $100 and rent a Nikon Coolscan for the weekend.
How many slides? Are you talking about 100 or 10,000?
OK I'll guess and assume 1,000. Figure once you get really good it this you might be able to do one slide every 5 minutes. Technicians who do this every day might think that rate a "rush". But I'll use this optimistic number. So we are talking about 5,000 minutes of your time. That is 83 hours. Call it "100"
Here is how to do the job in only 50 hours: Go to McDonald's and get a job selling burgers that pays $7.00 per hour and work 50 hours then quit. Send your paycheck and your 1,000 slides to a scanning service. Not only is this twice as fast but you don't need to buy a scanner.
OK, this the "entertainment" and you have time to kill. But don't waste your time using a cheap scanner. There are two features to look at
- d-max (Maximum Density) The industry standard Nikon 5000 ED does d-max = 4.8. Look for a scanner that claims at least 4.0
- Must have a forth "IR" lamp to suport automatic dust and scratch busting. THis will do 85% of the work for you, a "must have" feature.
4,000 DPI is more then enough resolution for most slides. Only a few really need 4000dpi. That would be the ones on slow speed film shot on a tripod with a good
If you were scanning printed photos I'm say just go get any cheap scanner. But slides are very hard to scan. One thing that can help is better scanner software. Lok up "Vu-Scan". Is driver can run the scanner is "multi-pass" mode. Kind of like bracketing the exposure in a camera. Then the software assembles an images from all those passes and can capture shadows without burning out the hilights.
That is the problem with cheap scanners, they have poor dynamic range and you get white skys and black-ed out shadows. To avoid that you need eaither the multi-pass technology in vu-scan or a $3,500 Nikon 5000ED scanner. Either way you will need to go into photoshop and tweek the color and exposure of each scan.
I think best to pay some guy in India $0.31 to do it for you.
If you're going to get a 35mm camera and will be shooting primarily color film (negative film has more latitude, but slides will work) then an investment in a decent Nikon LS50 (Coolscan V) used will be worth it for current shooting (but not worth it, if as mentioned above, you're wanting to scan a ton of archival negatives/slides from Grandpa's family history due to the investment in time to do this.) Get a light box or look for a used light table to edit your negatives/slides, and then just scan as you go. It's not that bad, since you'll probably only have a certain number of keepers from each roll to scan, and you won't be shooting nearly as prolifically as with digital. Figure 3 or 4 rolls when you go shooting, give or take. At 36 exposures per roll max, with maybe 1/3rd of them worth scanning high res, that's 30-50 scans... and more than likely you'll scan far fewer and be much more selective about what you post-process. Shooting film does make you think a bit more about what you're taking photos of because of the limited number of exposures you can make, which is actually not a bad thing.
I'd probably recommend shooting a decent 400 speed Fuji negative film which should be reasonably affordable if bought in bulk, and having it processed and sleeved without cutting it. Then just cut the negative strips into 5 exposures each and store them in the negative archival sleeves. It shouldn't be that expensive if you're not having the negs printed. This kind of film has a lot of exposure latitude and is easy to scan well and get good results.
Now that I've talked myself into it, I need to go find myself an old, reliable Nikon film camera and an old Olympus rangefinder like the 35sp...
I'd probably recommend shooting a decent 400 speed Fuji negative film which should be reasonably affordable if bought in bulk, and having it processed and sleeved without cutting it. Then just cut the negative strips into 5 exposures each and store them in the negative archival sleeves. It shouldn't be that expensive if you're not having the negs printed. This kind of film has a lot of exposure latitude and is easy to scan well and get good results.
Now that I've talked myself into it, I need to go find myself an old, reliable Nikon film camera and an old Olympus rangefinder like the 35sp...