«

no, not that sort of trannie ;-)

anyone care to recount experiences please.

have over 1000 to scan ;-(

ushere <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> no, not that sort of trannie ;-)
>
> anyone care to recount experiences please.
>
> have over 1000 to scan ;-(

Good that your scanning problem is only a small one. On another forum
one person starting a 70,000 photo sort-and-scan project (actual
scanning will be a lot fewer than that of course) was comforted by
another who's well into a 500,000 photo scanning project -- and has a
second one waiting when this one is done :-).

Transparencies are hard; they have high maximum density, so they need a
scanner with a good DMAX rating.

There are basically three levels of scanner:

Flatbed scanners with transparency adapters (including good ones like
the Epson V750).

"Prosumer" dedicated film scanners, which are mostly not made any more.
Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED or 9000 are examples (35mm and medium format).

Full-out professional scanners, like old drum scanners and the modern
Imacon models.

If your needs are at all serious, the first level won't give you
satisfactory results from 35mm originals (you haven't said what size
you've got; that mostly means 35mm, but doesn't always).

ICE or equivalent infrared scan channel based defect fixing will HUGELY
ease your job, unless the originals are in exemplary condition.

There's also "camera scanning"; setting up a slide stage with lighting
behind it, and photograping the originals with a macro lens and high-res
digital camera. This is very fast, but takes quite a lot of work to get
just right (alignment of camera to slide, holding the film flat, getting
the lighting exactly even, and so forth). This is much faster.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 3/03/2012 1:56 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> ushere<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> no, not that sort of trannie ;-)
>>
>> anyone care to recount experiences please.
>>
>> have over 1000 to scan ;-(
>
> Good that your scanning problem is only a small one. On another forum
> one person starting a 70,000 photo sort-and-scan project (actual
> scanning will be a lot fewer than that of course) was comforted by
> another who's well into a 500,000 photo scanning project -- and has a
> second one waiting when this one is done :-).
>
> Transparencies are hard; they have high maximum density, so they need a
> scanner with a good DMAX rating.
>
> There are basically three levels of scanner:
>
> Flatbed scanners with transparency adapters (including good ones like
> the Epson V750).
>
> "Prosumer" dedicated film scanners, which are mostly not made any more.
> Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED or 9000 are examples (35mm and medium format).
>
> Full-out professional scanners, like old drum scanners and the modern
> Imacon models.
>
> If your needs are at all serious, the first level won't give you
> satisfactory results from 35mm originals (you haven't said what size
> you've got; that mostly means 35mm, but doesn't always).
>
> ICE or equivalent infrared scan channel based defect fixing will HUGELY
> ease your job, unless the originals are in exemplary condition.
>
> There's also "camera scanning"; setting up a slide stage with lighting
> behind it, and photograping the originals with a macro lens and high-res
> digital camera. This is very fast, but takes quite a lot of work to get
> just right (alignment of camera to slide, holding the film flat, getting
> the lighting exactly even, and so forth). This is much faster.

thanks david, most informative.

you're right they are 35mm, though there were quite a few med and large
format that we had done prof. (my wife's an artist of over 40 years, and
travelled extensively round the world). when i wrote over 1000 i am
being VERY conservative ;-(

i've done a few 100 with my canon 5600 - takes forever at full res but
results are acceptable for her needs.

i think, as i suspected, i'll just have to find an old prosumer one.