Slides to jpeg

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Anyone recommend a machine to digitize my slide collection?

I probably have a few negatives that may need doing also:angel:

[iClick]

It really depends on the quality your after and the size you want to output to. If its mostly for online use, then something like this (http://www.officeworks.com.au/retail/products/Technology/Cameras/Tripods-and-Accessories/Photo-Scanners/BCDFC1400?cmpdt=20131111&cmpcr=preshop&cmptp=PPC&cmpprv=getprice&cmpprd=BCDFC1400&cmplnk=&CAWELAID=620015440000153972&catargetid=1402860417&cadevice=t) should do the trick.

I used an even more basic and lower megapixel version to achieve this result: https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/438.jpg

This is straight from the scanner without any adjustments or cleaning.

BTW, That's me, helping to change a tyre on our Valient Safari during our trip around Oz in 1977 ;)

[Rok_Dr]

Hi pedro

It all depends on how much you want to spend, the number of slides you want to scan and the quality you are after.

I'm currently using an Epson V700 and vuescan drivers. It's at the top end of the flat beds but gives high resolution and I can scan 12 slides at a time and can calibrate for Kodachrome. New they are about $700-900. There are cheaper Canon and Epson flat beds which also do a good job. Plustek is another quality brand.

At the cheap end Kaiser Baas do a number of models in the $100-200 range. I can't comment on quality tho.

Cheers

Steve

[sheerluck]

Anyone recommend a machine to digitize my slide collection?

I probably have a few negatives that may need doing also:angel:

They were selling a machine very similar to the one iClick has linked to in Aldi last week, for $50 I think it was.

If you have an Aldi close by, might be worth a punt. (Apparently they are pretty good for the money)

[Bushie]

I've had a Plustek for a few years (no doubt it has been superceded now) but is capable of good results. The end result however will be highly dependent on the original slide/negative.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/879.jpg
Good one (1985 slide)

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/821.jpg
Not so good (1977 slide)



Martyn

[JDNSW]

I have one I got from Big W for under $100. While many have suggested this is a less than satisfactory type, I have found that with only 5mp its resolution exceeds by a considerable margin the resolution of almost all my slides. While the colour accuracy may not be perfect, neither is the colour accuracy of most of the slides after being stored for up to sixty years.

In my view, it is adequate, and a sample is given below - my 2a on the banks of the Condamine at Surat in 1964. It has been scaled down to 640 width.

John

[Grappler]

Coincidentally, Ive just started digitising my old transprancies and negatives

Its a very laborious pocess

I got hold of a Qpix PS989, 14 MP and gives a good result. Keep in mind you cant polish a turd, so if your original is degraded you will get a true copy of that

Here is my examlpe from Sep 73, taken by my wife of my first Landrover S2

[iClick]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/821.jpg
Not so good (1977 slide)
Martyn

I hope you don't mind Martyn :angel: I had a very quick go at removing the blemishes from your picture. I've seen you post this before, it's a very iconic Australian image.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/11/822.jpg

Sorry Pedro for hijacking your thread..

[dullbird]

Nicely done iclick

[Listerdiesel]

We use Epson Perfection flatbed scanners with either the separate top slide scanner attachment which replaces the original lid, or the later and smaller unit which is placed over the slide on the scanner glass.

Both give good results and both offer colour negative conversion on the fly as well as B&W negative to positive conversion.

I used to take a lot of slides before digital came along, still got loads to sort through.

Peter

[FenianEel]

Hey Pedro, I've got a slide scanner you can borrow mate. It's pretty good. I scanned my Dads Vietnam slides, and they came up a treat. It's an Optex.
Just let me know, and I can send it up to you.

[Didge]

And exactly how did we do that clean up iclick???? some sort of voodoo, black magic, smoke and mirrors stuff?
I need to know - pleeeezee :)

[JDNSW]

And exactly how did we do that clean up iclick???? some sort of voodoo, black magic, smoke and mirrors stuff?
I need to know - pleeeezee :)

I use The Gimp (Open source image processing software available for Windows, Linux etc.) but depending on how bad it is, it is fairly labour intensive in that each slide has to be treated as required, mostly using trial and error, although some functions such as white balance can usually be applied routinely.

A further point I should mention is that there exist dedicated slide scanners that will automatically remove dust defects by imaging in infrared as well as visible light - then editing out any pixel that matches in both visible and infrared, replacing the pixel with an average of it neighbours. However, these tend to be quite expensive, I believe, and also tend to include automatic feed. Which is not much help for me as I want to transfer the label information on the slides to the image filenames.

John

[Didge]

Oh thanks John, must have a look asbInhave Gimp but haven't played withbit for quite a while
Cheera gerald

[iClick]

And exactly how did we do that clean up iclick???? some sort of voodoo, black magic, smoke and mirrors stuff?
I need to know - pleeeezee :)

Hey Gerald. - I used photoshop. Dust and scratches filter with lots of healing brush for the fine detail.

I'm heading out he door but can send you a link later to some tutorials later.. :)

[olbod]

I have a Digitech XC4881. Does slides and negs with pretty good results.
Below is a slde pic from 1977.
Mt Hopeless, looking back toward the Flinders Rangers.

[workingonit]

Without going back to do a websearch again on the topic, I seem to recall that roughly 20 or so megapix only translates to about the old 100 ASA in terms of grain.

I did a lot of cave exploring and photography when younger, mostly on 36(?) and 64 ASA film (much finer grain than 100 ASA). Despite using high resolution scanning the sparkle that comes off the crystal formations or 'magic' fails to translate. Anyone had this issue and got a solution?

One day I intend making a light box and use a macro lens. Just got to wait for the high pixel cameras to become cheap enough to match 64 ASA film.

I miss slide film. Ideal camera would have been a digital preview before shooting in film (other than action shots). Long live the Pentax LX :)

[JDNSW]

Without going back to do a websearch again on the topic, I seem to recall that roughly 20 or so megapix only translates to about the old 100 ASA in terms of grain.

I did a lot of cave exploring and photography when younger, mostly on 36(?) and 64 ASA film (much finer grain than 100 ASA). Despite using high resolution scanning the sparkle that comes off the crystal formations or 'magic' fails to translate. Anyone had this issue and got a solution?

One day I intend making a light box and use a macro lens. Just got to wait for the high pixel cameras to become cheap enough to match 64 ASA film.

I miss slide film. Ideal camera would have been a digital preview before shooting in film (other than action shots). Long live the Pentax LX :)

I have just had a look at some sample slides from the sixties, scanned at 5Mp resolution. Blowing it up, you can see the grain in the film - and each grain is about four pixels across. This does not suggest that you need a 20Mp conversion. Obviously, not all film is created equal, and without digging out the slides involved, they were probably Ektachrome, possibly Kodachrome. The other point I note is that on most of the slides the image is blurred across several grains. (These were taken with a Practica IV). Not all films of the same speed have the same grain, and not all cameras are created equal!

The other thing to consider, and this may be where you are losing your "sparkle", is dynamic range. It is quite possible that in at least some images, the dynamic range of the image exceeds that of the scanner. This may be inherent with the hardware, or may be a function of the software. Most of the cheap scanners produce .jpg files which by definition have significant processing. Also, dynamic range will be reduced (or rather you only use part of it), if the illumination is not optimal for that particular slide and that scanner - and I do not know of any cheap scanner that adjusts illumination - they adjust the image after digitising. This is where you camera and light box may well make a big improvement, as you can change the illumination.

John

[workingonit]

Thanks JDNSW for those thoughts, particularly the idea of dynamic range and changing illumination. My HP scanner is quite old now, but touted itself as high resolution - funny thing is when you set it to the highest resolution the software comes back with an on screen message suggesting high resolution is going to be of little value, do you want to persist!!

When blowing up the results you find the scanned image consists of frames. To me it implies the original image is divided into squares, each square separately scanned, then the collection of squares stitched together side by side to reform the entire image.

When I get around to converting the slides I will try using a daylight temperature flouro, available from the hardware, in the light box. Hopefully it will provide uniform diffusion. I have the macro lens, which I've used in the past to copy raisin sized heads from black and white school photos etc. Was good enough to give the impression that the resultant image was originally a full sized portrait.

PS I was hoping by my 'long live the Pentax LX' to drag the thread into one of those Ford/Holden Nikon/Cannon like debates that annoys everyone. Cheers.

[VladTepes]

I was thinking about thsi same thing the other day.

I have LOTS and lots of slides which I'd like to convert. Ideally I;d like to do so inexpensively.

Obviously I'd prefer very high image quality BUT as the slides are just sitting unloved in a cupboard at the mment - anything is an improvement.

As I have so many I really dont want to have to do them 1 at a time as I'd be busy for a few lifetimes....

[The Mutt]

I worked for many, many years as a professional photographer, my negative and slide and video archives could easily fill a large garage.

I have a Nikon Coolscan II, high end quality professional scanning for the time, recently I made a slide/negative copier using an old slide copier that fits on a 35mm film camera, it sits on the end of a 50mm Rokkor Macro lens with 1:1 extension and is connected to a Sony NEX digital camera (14.2 Mp), I can't tell the difference in image quality between the two systems, the biggest difference is that I can copy half a pack of slides on the Sony in the time it takes to copy one slide on the Coolscan,

I'll look through my archives later, "Dinner Time"

Glenn

[workingonit]

My kids, in their late teens, are quite taken by slides when projected at large on the wall. Thought they would be bored and off in 5 minutes back to computers.

To Glenn, is it your old slide copier that is providing the light source. If not, then what are you using?

Your experience seems to back up what I have read elsewhere, that macro is much faster and just as good as scanners.

[The Mutt]

I'll shoot some pics of my setup later in the week and post them.

For light I'm using a flash, I have also found that daylight or a non eco friendly old fashion bulb alright as well for easy colour balance, the bonus being that I can focus easier than by flash, those fancy new bulbs they recon will help save the planet seem to have a weird colour balance sometimes creating more post processing.

I forgot to mention that I'm shooting Raw (not in the ...) from there I can process in Lightroom or Photoshop to any format I like.

Just remembered, the Father in-law is coming to stay for a few days around Christmas ... think I'll disappear into the office and continue inputting slides.

Regards
Glenn

[VladTepes]

OK so us simpletons whohavent got

a) a pile of money
b) camera gear

What's the best option..... ?

Would it cost a huge amount to get this done professionally? And how would you know they were doing it well not "on the cheap" qualitywise?

[workingonit]

For my own interest I looked up slide digitisation services. Michaels page gives a good idea of range of services and prices, all dependant on level of quality required.

Film Scanning | michaels Camera Video Digital, Melbourne Australia (http://www.michaels.com.au/index.php/services/photo-laboratory/film-scanning)

Cheapest way of looking at your slides is through your projector. But next slide night get a cheap digital camera plus tripod, and photograph the screen image - other peoples efforts have looked quite OK when they throw the image up on computer or tv.

If your hobby is photography then more than likely somewhere along the line you will get a macro (and a fish eye, and telephoto etc). It's not as if a macro is just purchased for slide copying - it just happens to be useful in that respect; and how can it be adapted. If it can be adapted then it can save considerable money and time if ou get the results you want. See if a second hand digital SLR and macro is within your budget.

As to what is quality? Slightly subjective and slightly technical. Replication methods may slightly change colour, contrast etc, and it may not matter in most cases. Areas in and out of focus, because the original image material is not held flat, can be a problem.

I'm still at the experimental stage. Tried a home scanner, but not happy at all. Have used generic slide digitisation services, which are OK for run of the mill images (not much better than the home scanner) - no good where high quality reproduction is required. Have experimented with macro copying of printed photos, got to watch reflections off gloss paper, but otherwise happy. Next step is to get organised and try it with my'best'slide. If having used all resources at hand, and still not happy, then I will try expensive retail therapy - just got to trust the image to the postal system and the replication service.

If I had enough money I'd just buy the best digital camera available and go on holidays to take the same photos, plus more! Pay someone else to do the more dangerous shots that I'm probably to old (wise) to do now.

[Don 130]

I discovered my old slide copier fitted my daughters newer 'D something' Nikon as well as my old FE2. I quickly did some passable copies using both available light and flash. I need to get hold of it again and persist with refining the process and knock the 'pile' off..

When I've got a minute

Don.

[VladTepes]

My specific is that I have a heap of slides from the late 70s / early 80s when I did a lot of overseas travel. Frankly is just to much trouble to get a projector etc to relive the memories. I'd like to get decent quality copies but it's not as if they are professional shots to start with.

[goingbush]

OK so us simpletons whohavent got

a) a pile of money
b) camera gear

What's the best option..... ?

Would it cost a huge amount to get this done professionally? And how would you know they were doing it well not "on the cheap" qualitywise?

I stickytape a piece of white a4 paper onto an outside window, then bluetak some slides (or negatives) to it

then I take photos of the slides with whatever digital camera that has a macro lens. typically my OMD EM5 with a extension tube

results are as good or better than using my Epson perfection flatbed scanner, but a whole lot faster and easier AND FREE !!

[VladTepes]

It seemsi need to add that the only camerai own these days is an inexpensive social point and shoot job.

[VladTepes]

Wish I could just get someone else to do it for me....

[VladTepes]

Priced commercial scanning and due to labor intense process it is costly and for the number of slides I have it would be cheaper to buy a scanner I can't afford either. Anyone have a scanner I could borrow or even rent?

[FenianEel]

Vlad, you can borrow mine. You'll have to get it off Pedro first but.

[VladTepes]

Ta mate - what scanner is yours? Good results?

Pedro - you reading this old mate ?

[FenianEel]

Hey Vlad, pm your details mate, I've got the scanner back, and I'll get to it if you want to borrow it.