Digitizing 35 mm Slides

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don and Liz Campbell, Feb 7, 2005.

  1. I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
    with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
    digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
    approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
    time around.

    Thanks, Don and Liz
     
    Don and Liz Campbell, Feb 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don and Liz Campbell

    Tom Monego Guest

    You're right about tif (you can compress it with no loss). Size all depends
    what you are going to use them for.
    Printing 20mb is better 30 if you can get it with out getting too bored with
    the scanner.
    For digital display 5-10mb (tif) is good. If you are making slide shows you may
    want to make jpeg copies, generally gets opened faster by programs.
    A program such as Irfanview can batch convert whole folders at one time.

    Have fun
    Tom

    In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$>,
    says...
    >
    >I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    >LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
    >with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
    >digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
    >approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
    >time around.
    >
    >Thanks, Don and Liz
    >
    >
     
    Tom Monego, Feb 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. >>>>>I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    >>>>>LS-5000.


    I have to confess to simply saying that family pictures are family pictures,
    and I save all my many LS-5000 family scans as jpgs. They are a lot easier
    to crop and edit as jpgs (take far less time to open and save; though if
    you have them as TIFFS, and can spare the time and processing power, any
    cropping or editing you do won't diminish quality or add artifacts).

    I usually scan to include a narrow edge of the slide frame, because you can
    always crop later, but you can't add in unscanned parts of the slide later.
    I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
    dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
    software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
    try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.
     
    Douglas W. Hoyt, Feb 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Don and Liz Campbell

    clw Guest

    In article <gpUNd.39660$%>,
    "Douglas W. Hoyt" <> wrote:


    > I use the Digital ICE feature because it does a super job of cleaning up
    > dust, but don't use any of the other enhancements or fixes in the scanner
    > software because they've not looked natural to me, and I found it better to
    > try to clean any problems up in post-process editing instead.


    Second that. But, the ICE feature slows the scan and I have found that
    the Polaroid dust and scratches filter works faster than the ICE feature
    on a completed scan (and does a better job, and is free). Also, that
    way one can fix other "defects" in the scan (for which I am using
    Elements 3).

    --
    Panta Rei
     
    clw, Feb 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Don and Liz Campbell

    Guest

    Don and Liz Campbell <> wrote:

    > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
    > Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
    > and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
    > size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I
    > was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
    > get it right the first time around.


    The optimum file size depends on how sharp the slides are, and only
    you know that.

    Save them as TIFF, and make sure you use a reasonably large colour
    space. Adobe RGB will probably be adequate, but Wide Gamut RGB is
    better. Adobe RGB is probably OK for 8-bit data, with Wide Gamut RGB
    you might need to go to 12-bit data.

    Andrew.
     
    , Feb 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Don and Liz Campbell

    Steven Hook Guest

    I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the slides come
    out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to be better than film,
    is it perhaps my scanner?
    could I post a 500K JPEG expample?
    Steven
     
    Steven Hook, Feb 8, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$>,
    says...
    > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    > LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
    > with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
    > digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
    > approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
    > time around.
    >
    > Thanks, Don and Liz
    >
    >
    >

    I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
    slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
    scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
    that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
    Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
    with digital media.
    I would scan only those images which show signs of fading before they
    get too bad and those for which you have an immediate need for display
    or other use.
    Go to scantips.com for good advice on scanning resolution and other
    issues.

    --
    Robert D Feinman
    Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
    http://robertdfeinman.com
    mail:
     
    Robert Feinman, Feb 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Robert Feinman commented courteously ...

    > I always question the motivation for scanning
    > large quantities of slides. It is very labor
    > intensive. What do you plan to do with the scanned
    > images? If you are planning to archive them what
    > makes you think that the digital versions will last
    > any better than the originals? Original material kept
    > in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    > environment is a proven way to preserve film.
    > We have little experience with digital media.

    [snip]

    I'm coming into this thread rather late, so please don't
    think I'm trying to hijack it. I have a perspective on the
    OP's question and a question of my own.

    I have a $250 dedicated slide scanner which turned out to
    not only be a crappy scanner from a picture quality
    standpoint, but the time-per-slide is a couple of minutes,
    and lots of time in PSP 9 fixing what it did wrong. I
    could buy a $600 Nikon with Digital Ice but I'm still
    mulling that.

    I've got 5,000+ slides from my film days. Most are of my
    travels through southern Germany, Paris, and London while
    I was overseas with the U.S. Army in 1971. There're more
    of 1970's vacations, my wedding, etc. I would *never* scan
    anything close to 5,000 slide, they're probably 80% crap.

    What I'd probably do is set up my reconditioned Kodak
    Carousel and cull out 500 or so of the "best". My purpose
    is two-fold:

    1) I'm strongly considering a digital picture viewer like
    an Epson 2000 (may have the model number wrong). My wife
    wants one (albeit, not necessarily one that expensive), so
    she can take *her* digitals to her friends houses. I'd
    like to get the pictures I just described into the Epson.

    2) I use a screen saver that continously flashes my
    picture libraries. It's quite entertaining, so I like it.
    I also have Microsoft's Wall Paper Changer Power Toy. So,
    I'd like to have the 500 35mm's turning into digital;
    they're just languishing in my basement right now.

    So, that is why *I* would want to scan a large number of
    slides. Might be 500, might approach 1,000. That may or
    may not be the order of magnitude the OP is considering,
    but it is still a farily large number.

    So, my question for you or others reading this is:
    considering both my time and expense, for 500, maybe 800-
    1,000 slides, what would be most cost & time efficient,
    buying a better scanner (ala Nikon) or shipping them off
    to a pro?

    Just as a rough guideline (I'll do the research on my
    own), what should I expect to have to pay per slide
    scanned? I'm just guessing, but I'd be willing to pay a
    premium not to be a slave to a scanner for a month.

    Thanks for your help.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
     
    All Things Mopar, Feb 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Don and Liz Campbell

    Markeau Guest

    "Steven Hook" <> wrote in message
    news:cua5hq$if$...
    > I'm also scanning slides, bought an HP Scanjet with a TMA, the
    > slides come out pretty grainy tho, I thought they were supposed to
    > be better than film, is it perhaps my scanner?
    > could I post a 500K JPEG expample?


    Lots of grain with my Nikon Coolscan V, too, so must use my scanner's
    Digital ICE4 which is preferable over trying to fix it in
    postprocessing. If your scanner does not have ICE (or similar) then
    yes you can fix the grain in post, ie use something like NeatImage or
    the Kodak GEM plugin for Photoshop Elements or PS CS.
     
    Markeau, Feb 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Don and Liz Campbell

    Jeremy Guest

    "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message

    > So, my question for you or others reading this is:
    > considering both my time and expense, for 500, maybe 800-
    > 1,000 slides, what would be most cost & time efficient,
    > buying a better scanner (ala Nikon) or shipping them off


    People that hold themselves out as "Pros" don't always do a better job than
    you can do yourself.

    If you have the time, you'll probably be able to do a better job yourself.
    Of course, scanner technology on, say, five more years might improve to the
    point that you might want to scan your slides again. No one knows what the
    future will bring.

    I am on the side of digitizing all your images, if for no other reason than
    the probability that projection equipment might not be all that common in
    the future. Kodak has discontinued their 35mm slide projector line. That
    should tell you something.

    I'd keep the slides stored in near archival conditions, and digitize them
    all, for normal viewing. Given the time and money you spent creating those
    images, the cost of digitizing them seems small by comparison.

    Just my 2-cents'.
     
    Jeremy, Feb 8, 2005
    #10
  11. "Don and Liz Campbell" <> writes:

    > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a
    > Nikon LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3
    > and later with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file
    > size for a digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I
    > was thinking of approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to
    > get it right the first time around.


    Either that's too small, or else you don't want to commit to scanning
    all of them at the same resolution.

    For me, I think the second; a family slide collection has lots of
    things you really won't ever want to print bigger than 4x6, but every
    now and then there's something that you want to scan for every bit of
    detail in the picture. (4x6 comes out to about 6.5MB).

    And you might seriously want to consider archiving final copies in
    jpeg. On the one hand, there's the potential for some jpeg
    artifacts. On the other hand, you can get a 3x to 5x reduction in
    file size without getting much in the way of artifacts.

    You can always trade money for other factors :). How big is the
    slide collection? If you can seriously consider keeping the whole
    thing on hard disk (and backed up on a couple of sets of DVDs) in 30MB
    files, maybe it's better to go with the probable-overkill, rather than
    risk regretting it later?

    (Yes, I know those last two paragraphs conflict. Depending on your
    constraints, either view may be useful to you.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Robert Feinman <> writes:

    > In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$>,
    > says...
    >> I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    >> LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
    >> with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
    >> digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
    >> approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the first
    >> time around.
    >>
    >> Thanks, Don and Liz
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
    > slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
    > scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
    > that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
    > Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    > environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
    > with digital media.


    I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
    facility for the original film.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Don and Liz Campbell

    Don Dunlap Guest

    "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95F77185ABF33ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
    > Robert Feinman commented courteously ...
    >
    >> I always question the motivation for scanning
    >> large quantities of slides. It is very labor
    >> intensive. What do you plan to do with the scanned
    >> images? If you are planning to archive them what
    >> makes you think that the digital versions will last
    >> any better than the originals? Original material kept
    >> in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    >> environment is a proven way to preserve film.
    >> We have little experience with digital media.

    > [snip]
    >
    > I'm coming into this thread rather late, so please don't
    > think I'm trying to hijack it. I have a perspective on the
    > OP's question and a question of my own.
    >
    > I have a $250 dedicated slide scanner which turned out to
    > not only be a crappy scanner from a picture quality
    > standpoint, but the time-per-slide is a couple of minutes,
    > and lots of time in PSP 9 fixing what it did wrong. I
    > could buy a $600 Nikon with Digital Ice but I'm still
    > mulling that.
    >
    > I've got 5,000+ slides from my film days. Most are of my
    > travels through southern Germany, Paris, and London while
    > I was overseas with the U.S. Army in 1971. There're more
    > of 1970's vacations, my wedding, etc. I would *never* scan
    > anything close to 5,000 slide, they're probably 80% crap.
    >
    > What I'd probably do is set up my reconditioned Kodak
    > Carousel and cull out 500 or so of the "best". My purpose
    > is two-fold:
    >
    > 1) I'm strongly considering a digital picture viewer like
    > an Epson 2000 (may have the model number wrong). My wife
    > wants one (albeit, not necessarily one that expensive), so
    > she can take *her* digitals to her friends houses. I'd
    > like to get the pictures I just described into the Epson.
    >
    > 2) I use a screen saver that continously flashes my
    > picture libraries. It's quite entertaining, so I like it.
    > I also have Microsoft's Wall Paper Changer Power Toy. So,
    > I'd like to have the 500 35mm's turning into digital;
    > they're just languishing in my basement right now.
    >
    > So, that is why *I* would want to scan a large number of
    > slides. Might be 500, might approach 1,000. That may or
    > may not be the order of magnitude the OP is considering,
    > but it is still a farily large number.
    >
    > So, my question for you or others reading this is:
    > considering both my time and expense, for 500, maybe 800-
    > 1,000 slides, what would be most cost & time efficient,
    > buying a better scanner (ala Nikon) or shipping them off
    > to a pro?
    >
    > Just as a rough guideline (I'll do the research on my
    > own), what should I expect to have to pay per slide
    > scanned? I'm just guessing, but I'd be willing to pay a
    > premium not to be a slave to a scanner for a month.
    >
    > Thanks for your help.
    >
    > --
    > ATM, aka Jerry


    I haven't used these people yet, but 500 slides should cost about $260 or
    so:

    http://www.slideplus.com/slidecd/index.htm

    I plan on trying them for 500 slides pretty soon. If you do use them, give
    us an indication of how it works out.

    I bought a slide scanner and tried to scan some of mine but it was very slow
    and I gave up and sold the scanner on E-bay.

    Don
     
    Don Dunlap, Feb 8, 2005
    #13
  14. On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:14:21 +0000, Don and Liz Campbell wrote:

    > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a Nikon
    > LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and later
    > with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for a
    > digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking of
    > approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right the
    > first time around.
    >

    I am also scanning my slides (family & travel pix) into digital images.
    First thing is to determine what the digital images will be used for. For
    me, they are only for viewing on the PC screen. Saves the trouble of
    setting up the slide projector, screen, etc. I can also see any of the 600
    or so family shots without searching for them through the slide albums.
    For that sort of purpose scanning at anything over 600 dpi is probably
    adequate. I tried out from 300 to 3600 dpi, 8 & 16 bit colour, jpg & tiff,
    in various combinations and have settled for 900 dpi, 16 bit colour & jpg
    format. Higher resolution & tiff format produced no better on screen show.
    900 dpi allowes me to crop the margins freely.

    If you want to print them, then of course higher the dpi the better. But
    for me, if I want to get prints, I shall use the original slides.

    --

    Gautam Majumdar

    Please send e-mails to
     
    Gautam Majumdar, Feb 8, 2005
    #14
  15. Don and Liz Campbell

    Ron Guest

    Having done several thousand slides I agree with the need to be
    selective. However, having been in a home where the basement was
    unexpectedly flooded and hundreds of venerable family photos destroyed,
    had slides go unexpectedly bad, and had some thrown out by mistake or
    damaged in projection I think it is a great idea to scan them at a
    relatively high resolution and then archive them on multiple media,
    perhaps recopying every four or five years (only takes ten minutes or
    so).

    You can put a disc in a safety deposit box or, as I do, keep backups in
    the trunk of a car or with family members who can enjoy them at will.
    If you're worried about today's cd or dvd media pick up a hard drive,
    put it in a USB enclosure and archive away. Chances are that will
    outlive you and maybe the next generation.

    Though scanning can be pretty darn labor intensive and time consuming,
    I have cut that back by getting extension tubes and a slide holder for
    my OLY 5060 and can copy one every fifteen or twenty seconds at
    acceptably high resolution with utter clarity and really good color. I
    also have an Epson 2580 which does a fine job.

    Just a few thoughts....


    Robert Feinman wrote:
    > In article <4207e9a4$0$22519$>,
    > says...
    > > I am about to start the digitization of our family slides using a

    Nikon
    > > LS-5000. Some of these slides were taken with my old Argus C-3 and

    later
    > > with my Pentax. What have you found to be the optimum file size for

    a
    > > digitized slide and what is the best storage format? I was thinking

    of
    > > approximately 10 MB using TIF format. I sure want to get it right

    the first
    > > time around.
    > >
    > > Thanks, Don and Liz
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
    > slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
    > scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you

    think
    > that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
    > Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    > environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little

    experience
    > with digital media.
    > I would scan only those images which show signs of fading before they
    > get too bad and those for which you have an immediate need for

    display
    > or other use.
    > Go to scantips.com for good advice on scanning resolution and other
    > issues.
    >
    > --
    > Robert D Feinman
    > Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
    > http://robertdfeinman.com
    > mail:
     
    Ron, Feb 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Don Dunlap commented courteously ...

    > I haven't used these people yet, but 500 slides
    > should cost about $260 or so:
    >
    > http://www.slideplus.com/slidecd/index.htm
    >
    > I plan on trying them for 500 slides pretty soon.
    > If you do use them, give us an indication of how it
    > works out.

    [snip]

    Thanks for the link, Don. This site says that scans are 49
    cents each plus a "setup" fee of $9.99 per CD created.
    And, it strongly suggests UPS to ship your slides to them.
    Haven't read the fine print to find out the DPI they scan
    at or the average file size for the JPEG, but I'd guess
    they'd be in the range of 2MB apiece.

    So, I could get maybe 350 slides per CD, so I'd need 4 to
    do my estimated 1,000 slides. The all-up price would then
    be $537 plus an known amount for the multiple UPS sends.
    The web site says 500 slides but they have no real way to
    determine that until they do the scans, since JPEG sizes
    can vary widely due to slide-to-slider differences in what
    I call "image complexity".

    I have exactly one data point in my research of "pro"
    scanning services: Ritz Camera, which may be local chain
    in southeast Michigan.

    Their price was 75 cents/slide with no setup fee. I asked
    what DPI they scan at and the guy didn't know since they
    job it out. But, he said that the files average 2MB.

    I'm obviously going to do more research, although I'm in
    no hurry. My slides have been languishing in the basement
    for 30 years, they'll wait another month or two. <grin>

    Even at 75 cents, which seems high to me, I could do 1,000
    (if that's really the number) for $750 and not have to do
    anything except pull them out of the trays and truck 'em
    to the store. Since this is literally a one-time thingy
    for me (never going back to film), $750 is very cost
    effective for me compared to something like a $600+ Nikon
    scanner. And, I'm not a slave to a scanner for months and
    months.

    Plus, you and I may have different opinions, but I would
    *never* ship off my slides to some place out-of-state
    location. I imagine I'm taking a risk even doing this
    locally, without the vagueries of UPS or a place I can't
    talk to when they conveniently "lose" my slides.

    Please be clear, I'm not disputing you nor am I casting
    aspersions at a scanner service I've not talked to. Let's
    just say that I'm a life-long pessimest and let it go at
    that.

    Thanks again for the link.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
     
    All Things Mopar, Feb 8, 2005
    #16
  17. Don and Liz Campbell

    paul Guest

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    >
    > Thanks for the link, Don. This site says that scans are 49
    > cents each plus a "setup" fee of $9.99 per CD created.
    > And, it strongly suggests UPS to ship your slides to them.
    > Haven't read the fine print to find out the DPI they scan
    > at or the average file size for the JPEG, but I'd guess
    > they'd be in the range of 2MB apiece.
    >
    > So, I could get maybe 350 slides per CD, so I'd need 4 to
    > do my estimated 1,000 slides. The all-up price would then
    > be $537 plus an known amount for the multiple UPS sends.



    2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good digicam with a slide
    adapter. Not sure if that's an option with your setup but inexpensive
    and much faster than scanning.
     
    paul, Feb 9, 2005
    #17
  18. paul commented courteously ...

    > 2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good
    > digicam with a slide adapter. Not sure if that's
    > an option with your setup but inexpensive and much
    > faster than scanning.


    Didn't know there was such a thing, Paul. Since I don't
    have a clue can you give me a mini tut or point me to a
    couple places to read about them?

    Wallowing as I am in ignorance, the last time I did slide-
    to-slide photography (i.e., duping), I borrowed a bellows
    and slide adapter for my 1969 Nikon FTN, and shot at 1:1.

    Do these digigan adapters mount to the lens on something
    like my Nikon 5700, or what? I think a lot of my 5700's
    sharpness but I wouldn't think it could match 2600 DPI of
    a "good" scanner with Digital Ice. I know from my feeble
    attempts 2 years ago with my cheapie slide scanner that
    2MB is in the range of a minimally compressed JPEG slide
    scanned at 2600 DPI.

    Thanks in advice for any hints and advice.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
     
    All Things Mopar, Feb 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Don and Liz Campbell

    paul Guest

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    > paul commented courteously ...
    >
    >
    >>2MB JPGs are about what you can get out of a good
    >>digicam with a slide adapter. Not sure if that's
    >>an option with your setup but inexpensive and much
    >>faster than scanning.

    >
    >
    > Didn't know there was such a thing, Paul. Since I don't
    > have a clue can you give me a mini tut or point me to a
    > couple places to read about them?
    >
    > Wallowing as I am in ignorance, the last time I did slide-
    > to-slide photography (i.e., duping), I borrowed a bellows
    > and slide adapter for my 1969 Nikon FTN, and shot at 1:1.
    >
    > Do these digigan adapters mount to the lens on something
    > like my Nikon 5700, or what? I think a lot of my 5700's
    > sharpness but I wouldn't think it could match 2600 DPI of
    > a "good" scanner with Digital Ice. I know from my feeble
    > attempts 2 years ago with my cheapie slide scanner that
    > 2MB is in the range of a minimally compressed JPEG slide
    > scanned at 2600 DPI.
    >
    > Thanks in advice for any hints and advice.


    I was looking at a "toiletpaper tube" with a closeup diopter & slide
    bracket for $65 attached to any 80mm ~120mm lens (DSLR) but the link
    changed from my bookmarks. I'm sure it's not extraordinary quality but a
    convenient way to get a bunch of images good enough for screen display.
    If there were any really important to print, they could be scanned special.

    I've not heard any big problems with such devices. 'Slide Adapter' is
    the correct term to search I think.
     
    paul, Feb 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Don and Liz Campbell

    chidalgo Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >>I always question the motivation for scanning large quantities of
    >>slides. It is very labor intensive. What do you plan to do with the
    >>scanned images? If you are planning to archive them what makes you think
    >>that the digital versions will last any better than the originals?
    >>Original material kept in a good low temperature, low humidity, dark
    >>environment is a proven way to preserve film. We have little experience
    >>with digital media.

    >
    >
    > I have no way to provide a low temperature low humidity storage
    > facility for the original film.


    So you can't provide the necessary enviroment for digital media
    preservation either! :-(

    --
    chidalgo
     
    chidalgo, Feb 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mirsky

    Need Advice on Digitizing Slides

    Mirsky, Apr 24, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    660
    Michael Weinstein
    Apr 28, 2006
  2. IRO

    Digitizing slides with FZ30?

    IRO, Jul 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    414
    Malcolm
    Jul 7, 2006
  3. MB
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,503
    tomm42
    Jan 15, 2007
  4. newscans

    Negatives, Slides, Photo Scanning/Digitizing

    newscans, Jan 8, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
    newscans
    Jan 8, 2008
  5. Skylamar Jones

    Digitizing Slides

    Skylamar Jones, Aug 2, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,424
    Bruce
    Aug 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page