| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2014 08:31:55 AM · #1 |
My sweet, dear, dignified, still driving 90 year old Pa Pa.....has charged me with a project : converting, or trying to figure out HOW to get the images from hundreds, perhaps, thousands, of slides circa 1955-1976 onto discs, copied and reproduced for family members for next year's Christmas gift from him.....
H E L P !!!!!!
Does anyone have a source, business, address, info. about an efficient, reputable, cost effective way to do this....
Thanks ahead of time for suggestions!
:-)))) - LoVi |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 08:39:57 AM · #2 |
//mikescamera.com/film-scanning.html
Mike's Camera in Boulder is "old school". I've not used their scanning services, but I know it is exists. They are reputable. But, I'd do a small batch first to check on quality. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 09:49:03 AM · #3 |
This is almost the exact project I did a few years ago. I bought one of these from an Office Depot clearance table for about $10:
//www.amazon.com/ION-Film-Slide-Negative-Scanner/dp/B001RUGOIY
Basically, you load four slides at a time into the rack and then just slide them through and push a button. It scans a 5 megapixel file directly to an SD card (SD only, not SDHD). It takes time, but it can be fun, especially if you remember some of the subject matter. (or not, I found the pictures of my parents trip to the 1963 Knights of Columbus convention where, the story has it, i was conceived : ) )
ebay may be a good source:
//www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xfilm2sd&_nkw=film2sd&_sacat=0&_from=R40
(the film2sd Plus is 14MP)
Message edited by author 2014-02-13 09:51:19. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 09:54:59 AM · #4 |
When I had the same problem with my mom in 2005, I used costco. It was cheap and the job they did was just fine. I don't know if they still do that or not.
Be prepared for a lot of color shift. I ended up picking the best 100 or so and spending several hours repairing the colors so that we'd have something worth looking at. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 09:55:25 AM · #5 |
You have to ask what quality do you want..... The options above will do okay quality. It also depends a little on the type of film.
You can offshore the scanning at places like scancafe.
You can get a good negative scanner like a Nikon coolscan but do NOT underestimate the time involved.
Some people have rigged up a macro lens with a backlight and got decent results just taking digital pics of the slide that way.
Clean the slides as best you can before scanning..... and use ICE where possible. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 10:05:49 AM · #6 |
One thing...even Costco in 2005 was something like $0.25 per slide. We did a lot of editing before we had them scanned, which was a time consuming task in itself, but kept the cost down.
If you're truly doing thousands, it will cost less to buy a scanner, but figure out how many seconds each scan takes, multiply that by the number of slides you have, and decide if that's how you want to spend the next however many hours of your life. It might still be worth it, but it might be better to pay someone.
At least you're starting early enough. No matter how you slice it, this is a Project. A very worthwhile project, though. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 10:31:24 AM · #7 |
I have done some of my slides using a "Sickles" brand "Chroma Pro" copy stand and a Fuji S3 Pro with a Micro Nikkor 55-f2.8 and it worked great.
The problem with having a lot of slides to copy is that it takes a lot more time than you expect it will, and many of them will need color correction or post processing, which adds more time.
With a copy stand, you can get the focus exactly as you want, and with the right lens setup, an advantage is that you can crop as you copy and get a more detailed shot of the area of interest. With a copy stand, it also takes a little extra time to get each slide leveled and framed. Resolution is good enough that you can see the grain of the film if you zoom in on the digital images.
One other method not mentioned yet is to set up a slide projector and either project them on a screen or through a ground glass and shoot with a camera. This is probably not the best, but works pretty fast if they are already in projector trays.
If I was thinking about doing something like that, I would set up the projector without the lens in it, and set up a camera with a macro lens focused on the slide in the projector. That way you could zip through a lot of slides quickly and be copying directly without the projector lens involved.
If you are doing it yourself, dust will be a pain to deal with.
The best advice so far is to view and eliminate all except the ones which you feel would be important. It takes a few seconds each, but saves a lot of time later.
It's a worthwhile project, and will be a great gift for the family members to have.
Sickles Chroma Pro
Message edited by author 2014-02-13 10:36:00. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 11:23:55 AM · #8 |
you have three options:
1) do it yourself. if you have the time and inclination. if you have the equipment. if you really want to deal with all the issues. if you really want to learn yet another workflow. yes, it can be done, but rest assured, it's gonna be a labor of love because, well, just because. if you go this route, just remember not to drink, for any reason, until the project is completed.
2) get someone else to do it. this could either be a "friend", or a company that offers the service as an add-on to the main business. this is better than doing it yourself, but you are going to have to pay. the biggest issues are whether they do it enough to really be good at it, whether they do it themselves or outsource it, and whether their prices and turnaround are reasonable.
3) get a company that does nothing but digitizing to do the work. there are a number of companies that do this and they have very competitive rates. if you find one you like and aren't in a rush, you can probably find a coupon/groupon/deal that can really drop the price. the main issue with these services is whether they do the work in-house, or do they ship your stuff out of country. you should also check to see just how work they are doing for you. for instance, do they include dust-and-scratch handling? do they include basic exposure/wb/color adjustments? what sized files are you going to get back?
for what it's worth, i recommend gophoto.com. years ago, i actually bought equipment to do this work, but after stumbling across these guys i realized it just wasn't worth the effort to re-invent their wheel.
good luck! |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 02:31:11 PM · #9 |
lolol guysssssssss galssssssssss you are greattttttttttttt
best advice so far...do NOT drink until the project is done...which could mean months of abstention
I tried scanning,enlarging, darkening and sharpening some pre WWII writings the other night and it was a disaster
the next morning it looked like it should have been as easy as a kindergarten coloring book.......
I'm thinking I want to find someone to do it FOR ME!~........will trade my own self made majolica pottery, my home baked sour dough bread, my own jars of my homemade non-gmo organic San Marzano tomato sauce (Puttanesca style) for color slide conversion......any takers? No???? Darn it.
Maybe projecting them onto a screen as a slide show and photographing them could be fun.....then I could drink...laughing at how I looked when I was 10......
Thanks all!
|
|
|
|
02/13/2014 08:27:24 PM · #10 |
I did a project like this a few years ago after my father passed and wanted to preserve the many slides he'd taken of my immediate family. There were about 500 in total, so not the 1000s you will have to deal with. My method, though, is faster than those previously mentioned and a lot cheaper too, but you will be responsible for upload to the computer and any processing.
I purchased the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter for around $60. It's a very simple and quick process. You attach the adapter to a macro lens attached to your camera and insert a slide into the adapter. Point the lens to a light source, incandescent or sky, manually focus, make your camera settings and shoot. Saves to the camera's memory card and then upload to your computer when the card fills up. I shot in RAW for maximum image quality and flexibility when processing. I produced a collage from the best images and printed out 16x20s. They looked great. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 08:31:03 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Point the lens to a light source, incandescent or sky ... |
I'd think to minimize color/white-balance issues the ideal light source for this method would be a softbox with daylight-balanced (5000°K) lights. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 08:40:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Point the lens to a light source, incandescent or sky ... |
I'd think to minimize color/white-balance issues the ideal light source for this method would be a softbox with daylight-balanced (5000°K) lights. |
I didn't think that was necessary as you could set your WB in camera or post (hence why I shot RAW), which is what I did, and had very few if any color issues. But your method is certainly viable and provides ultimate control. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 10:33:45 PM · #13 |
| After my next visit to Australia, I want to bring back the slides I took on my 1984 trip, including the Trans-Siberian railway. However, I know many of the slides are affected by mould, so they may not be worth copying. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 10:50:29 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Point the lens to a light source, incandescent or sky ... |
I'd think to minimize color/white-balance issues the ideal light source for this method would be a softbox with daylight-balanced (5000°K) lights. |
I didn't think that was necessary as you could set your WB in camera or post (hence why I shot RAW), which is what I did, and had very few if any color issues. But your method is certainly viable and provides ultimate control. |
Seems like with a really large job you'd want to make a few tests to get it right and then shoot straight to JPEG -- it'll take long enough without having to make a RAW conversion as well, and these are not being shot for masgazine reproduction ... but personally I think I'd still use a decent scanner, especially since I don't have a camera which I could use for your method. |
|
|
|
02/13/2014 10:57:36 PM · #15 |
That's a bummer about the mold,  Pug-H.
I copied slides to film a long time ago, using a standard tube type slide copier. I figured out how to use flash bounced off a white card for the job, and it worked a lot better than daylight. I would guess that flash would be even easier and better with today's digital TTL metering
. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 03:32:48 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Point the lens to a light source, incandescent or sky ... |
I'd think to minimize color/white-balance issues the ideal light source for this method would be a softbox with daylight-balanced (5000°K) lights. |
I didn't think that was necessary as you could set your WB in camera or post (hence why I shot RAW), which is what I did, and had very few if any color issues. But your method is certainly viable and provides ultimate control. |
Seems like with a really large job you'd want to make a few tests to get it right and then shoot straight to JPEG -- it'll take long enough without having to make a RAW conversion as well, and these are not being shot for masgazine reproduction ... but personally I think I'd still use a decent scanner, especially since I don't have a camera which I could use for your method. |
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Trying to save time with a big job. I just don't shoot jpeg anymore, much prefer the flexibility and higher quality that RAW gives. I guess it dependends on the size of your final output. However, being that the slides could deteriorate over time due to climate, improper storage, storm damage, etc., I think it best to shoot RAW while the positives are in good shape. You could always batch process the development into jpegs later and not have lost that much time.
I did do tests prior to shooting all of my slides and found that overcast outdoor lighting was what worked best for me, similar quality lighting to your approach. As long as the lighting was consistent I got good results and didn't have to change much in post. And with only 500 slides to do and that I started the project months in advance, time was not a factor.
I agree with you, scanning would probably accomplish the best quality, but talk about excessive time! |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 11:31:57 AM · #17 |
If you're copying slides with a camera, RAW is completely unnecessary if you first zero in on a standardized white balance, which you absolutely want to be doing even if you DO shoot RAW, strictly for minimizing post-processing time. Even the ease of WB adjustment (for outliers) is illusory, at least if you have the latest Photoshop, because you can open the RAW converter as a filter even on a JPG image. For that matter, you can open any JPG image IN Camera Raw with earlier versions of PS. It's not quite as excellent a WB adjuster on JPG as it is on RAW, but it's more than adequate for the job in slide conversion.
From a sheer storage point of view, the big advantage of shooting in JPG is that you can go JPG Medium, or even JPG Small for the matter of that, reducing file sizes dramatically. The likelihood that people are going to be using these images for anything other than electronic viewing and small prints is pretty low IMO. |
|
|
|
02/14/2014 06:40:43 PM · #18 |
Here's an outfit in Australia which I told my father about in 2009. They're still in business, which is a good sign.
oscans |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 03:56:20 PM EDT.
