Slide scanning questions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Michael A. Covington, Sep 26, 2004.

  1. I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need to
    scan.

    I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute per
    slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
    saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.

    I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not been
    satisfied with the quality.

    My questions:

    (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays (in
    the same positions)?

    (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III in
    quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.

    BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are sufficient.
    I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust and spot
    removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would be very
    welcome.

    Many thanks!


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 2004-09-26 16:32:29 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
    <> said:

    > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I
    > need to scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1
    > minute per slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned,
    > processed, and saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour
    > project.
    >
    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not
    > been satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays
    > (in the same positions)?
    >
    > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan
    > III in quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
    >
    > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
    > sufficient. I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic
    > dust and spot removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes
    > (E-4) would be very welcome.
    >
    > Many thanks!


    If you are satisfied with the scan quality, it seems to me that 6 hours
    is not a lot to invest.
    --
    Michael Weinstein | "Those who cannot remember the
    Nashua, NH | past are condemned to repeat it."
    -George Santayana
     
    Michael Weinstein, Sep 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael A. Covington

    Frank ess Guest

    Michael A. Covington wrote:
    > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I
    > need to scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1
    > minute per slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned,
    > processed, and saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour
    > project.
    >
    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have
    > not been satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same
    > trays (in the same positions)?
    >
    > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan
    > III in quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
    >
    > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
    > sufficient. I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic
    > dust and spot removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes
    > (E-4) would be very welcome.
    >



    My Epson 4870 (flatbed )will do four or five slides at a time, comes
    with Digital Ice and plenty of compensating tools. I've no experience at
    using it for those purposes, but they are there, and must be of some use
    in lowering your time investment.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Sep 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Michael A. Covington

    Mark M Guest

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message
    news:4157295d$...
    > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need

    to
    > scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute

    per
    > slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
    > saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
    >
    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not

    been
    > satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays

    (in
    > the same positions)?


    So you'd rather spend those same 6 hours...

    Finding a service...
    Driving to that service...
    Paying your money for questionable quality results at that service...
    Waiting...
    Driving back to pick them up...
    -And whatever other messing around you'll inevitably do...

    Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
    :)
     
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #4
  5. "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:ceG5d.337999$Oi.243969@fed1read04...

    >
    > Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
    > :)


    That's about what I've concluded, because on each slide, I can do about 1
    minute of scanning and 1 minute of image processing (my way), and save it
    with a suitable name. That works out to 2 minutes per slide (or more)... a
    fairly lengthy project... but high quality.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 26, 2004
    #5
  6. Michael A. Covington

    Mark M Guest

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    > news:ceG5d.337999$Oi.243969@fed1read04...
    >
    > >
    > > Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
    > > :)

    >
    > That's about what I've concluded, because on each slide, I can do about 1
    > minute of scanning and 1 minute of image processing (my way), and save it
    > with a suitable name. That works out to 2 minutes per slide (or more)...

    a
    > fairly lengthy project... but high quality.


    Slide scanning is indeed a pain in the rear, but it's the only way to
    maintain control of film images, as you say. I have a Nikon scanner and
    have gotten a lot of great use out it, but there's no denying that it's a
    pain...
     
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
    Laptop?
    Thanks!



    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message
    news:4157295d$...
    >I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need
    >to scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute
    > per slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed,
    > and saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
    >
    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not
    > been satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays
    > (in the same positions)?
    >
    > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III
    > in quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
    >
    > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
    > sufficient. I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust
    > and spot removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would
    > be very welcome.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >
    > --
    > Clear skies,
    >
    > Michael A. Covington
    > Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    > www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
    >
    >
     
    Larz F. Kremer, Sep 26, 2004
    #7
  8. Michael A. Covington

    bmoag Guest

    If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality" you
    are wasting your 6 hours.
     
    bmoag, Sep 27, 2004
    #8
  9. "Larz F. Kremer" <> wrote in message
    news:41573e35$0$4027$...
    > Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
    > Laptop?
    > Thanks!


    It requires a SCSI interface. Do they make PCMCIA SCSI cards? I think so.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Michael A. Covington

    Mark M Guest

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Larz F. Kremer" <> wrote in message
    > news:41573e35$0$4027$...
    > > Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
    > > Laptop?
    > > Thanks!

    >
    > It requires a SCSI interface. Do they make PCMCIA SCSI cards? I think

    so.

    Yes.
     
    Mark M, Sep 27, 2004
    #10
  11. "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:GlI5d.3455$...
    > If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality"
    > you are wasting your 6 hours.


    No, I'm not. I still want equal resolution all over the frame, as well as
    careful adjustment of density and color balance. The scans are going to be
    viewed on the computer, and the original slides are not all that sharp.

    There is more to quality than just number of pixels. One megapixel can make
    a fine picture on the computer screen.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2004
    #11
  12. "Michael A. Covington" <> writes:

    > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need to
    > scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute per
    > slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
    > saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.


    Wow. That's spectacularly fast compared to my scanning rate. Partly
    because my newer, higher-end scanner (LS-2000) is apparently much
    slower than yours.

    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not been
    > satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays (in
    > the same positions)?


    I dunno about the trays, but for your purposes Kodak PhotoCD scans
    would be just fine. Taking the slides from the trays and putting them
    back would only take a few minutes.

    > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III in
    > quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.


    Yes, generally. The LS-5000 is advertised, at least, to be a lot
    faster than my LS-2000, for example.

    > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
    > sufficient.


    Oh, that's a big difference. I don't think I've ever scanned at such
    low resolution.

    > I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust and spot
    > removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would be very
    > welcome.


    Oops, that kills off the PhotoCD suggestion. You want ICE^3;
    specifically you want the infrared-based dust-and-scratches
    eliminator, and the ROC "reconstruction of color". ROC is also
    available as a photoshop plugin from the maker, Applied Science
    Fiction, but the dist-and-scratches thing is not because it depends on
    an infrared channel in the scanner (and slows down the scanner).

    Many of the Nikon scanners can take an automatic slide-feeder that
    will run a stack through unattended. I've never had one, though, no
    personal experience.
    --
    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, Sep 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Michael A. Covington

    The Wogster Guest

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:33:58 GMT, "bmoag" <>
    wrote:

    >If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality" you
    >are wasting your 6 hours.
    >


    Not always, resolution is a function of need, if your simply going to
    scan an view on screen, or a web album. then 900DPI might be quite
    reasonable. If your scanning to make 11x14 or 16x20 prints, then you
    obviiously need more, but few if any people print EVERY photo into big
    prints, I have about 2.5m of empty wall in-front of me, and am
    considering getting 3 or 4 biggish prints made to cover it. This is
    out of the 350 or so frames shot (so far) this year.

    So, the issue comes down to a simple question, do you scan everything
    at 5400DPI and use up a lot of storage space, or scan everything at
    900DPI and use relatively little storage space, rescanning the ones
    you want for big prints.

    W
     
    The Wogster, Sep 27, 2004
    #13
  14. Michael A. Covington

    Jer Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    [....]

    > I dunno about the trays, but for your purposes Kodak PhotoCD scans
    > would be just fine. Taking the slides from the trays and putting them
    > back would only take a few minutes.


    If I had this job, I'm pretty sure I'd get a second slide carrier, and
    be loading that while the first carrier is being scanned. Cut the time
    in half for the cost of a second carrier.

    [....]

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
     
    Jer, Sep 27, 2004
    #14
  15. >>If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality"
    >>you
    >>are wasting your 6 hours.

    >
    > Not always, resolution is a function of need, if your simply going to
    > scan an view on screen, or a web album. then 900DPI might be quite
    > reasonable...


    Right.

    In my case, many of the pictures are not sharp enough to justify scanning at
    higher resolution. (They are travel pictures, many of them taken hastily at
    slow shutter speeds and wide apertures.) But as I was saying, I still
    benefit from the edge-to-edge uniformity of a good scanner, as well as
    exposure control, color balance, and so forth.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2004
    #15
  16. Michael A. Covington

    Guest

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:09:28 -0700, "Mark M"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in message
    >news:4157295d$...
    >> I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need

    >to
    >> scan.
    >>
    >> I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute

    >per
    >> slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
    >> saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
    >>
    >> I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not

    >been
    >> satisfied with the quality.
    >>
    >> My questions:
    >>
    >> (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    >> accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays

    >(in
    >> the same positions)?

    >
    >So you'd rather spend those same 6 hours...
    >
    >Finding a service...
    >Driving to that service...
    >Paying your money for questionable quality results at that service...
    >Waiting...
    >Driving back to pick them up...
    >-And whatever other messing around you'll inevitably do...
    >
    >Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
    >:)


    If your setup is convenient, I can think of no better use for
    the ten or fifteen minutes of commercials per hour on TV.
     
    , Sep 27, 2004
    #16
  17. Michael A. Covington

    Guest

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:56:54 -0500, Jer <> wrote:

    >David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >[....]
    >
    >> I dunno about the trays, but for your purposes Kodak PhotoCD scans
    >> would be just fine. Taking the slides from the trays and putting them
    >> back would only take a few minutes.

    >
    >If I had this job, I'm pretty sure I'd get a second slide carrier, and
    >be loading that while the first carrier is being scanned. Cut the time
    >in half for the cost of a second carrier.
    >
    >[....]


    And if you're seriously concerned about the order of your
    collection, you might want to line up the contents of each carrier or
    carousel and run a light, diagonal felt pen mark on eash set before
    putting them in (different color for each set). If one or more end up
    on the floor, you'll at least be able to reorder them.
     
    , Sep 27, 2004
    #17
  18. Michael A. Covington

    Bob Williams Guest

    Michael A. Covington wrote:
    > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need to
    > scan.
    >
    > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute per
    > slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
    > saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
    >
    > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not been
    > satisfied with the quality.
    >
    > My questions:
    >
    > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
    > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays (in
    > the same positions)?
    >
    > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III in
    > quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
    >
    > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are sufficient.
    > I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust and spot
    > removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would be very
    > welcome.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >

    What did you NOT like about the dupes made with the Nikon 990 and Slide
    Copier?
    I have used this technique with great success. Regardless of WHO or HOW
    the slides or digitized, you are still going to have to do at least one
    minute of post processing in your photo editor. So there is actually
    precious little time to be saved by going outside for scanning.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Sep 27, 2004
    #18
  19. Michael A. Covington

    Gadgets Guest

    Sounds like a job for the work experience kid! Scouts? Neighbours kids!??!
    :)

    Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
     
    Gadgets, Sep 27, 2004
    #19

  20. >>Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
    >>:)

    >
    > If your setup is convenient, I can think of no better use for
    > the ten or fifteen minutes of commercials per hour on TV.


    I don't watch TV. If I had time to watch TV, I wouldn't begrudge the 6
    hours that this project will take.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2004
    #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. Steve

    Outsource slide scanning

    Steve, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    441
    HRosita
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. Charlie Self

    Re: Outsource slide scanning

    Charlie Self, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    345
    Charlie Self
    Aug 7, 2003
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,234
  4. Alfred Molon

    Slide scanning problem

    Alfred Molon, Aug 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    815
    Greg Campbell
    Aug 13, 2004
  5. LAshooter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
    LAshooter
    Jun 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page