Color Slides Scan?

[TackyToo]

Hi, I have around 2000 color slides and need to scan those on a CD/DVD but could not find any scan service in BKK

If you have any knowledge about a reliable scan service, please let me know...

[Tywais]

I'm moving this to the main photography forum.

[eurasianthai]

There are quite a few scanners available that will do it quite nicely and easily, but it sure takes a lot of time.

My eldest son scanned a few thousand color slides for me and it took him quite a bit of time.

And put everything on a DVD.

Do you have a son?

[jukapot]

TackyToo

Hi, I have around 2000 color slides and need to scan those on a CD/DVD but could not find any scan service in BKK

If you have any knowledge about a reliable scan service, please let me know...

To find someone and have that many slides scanned commercially can be expensive. Also the quality of the work is often lacking. I have a ten year old Nikon dedicated slide scanner and I suspect its past its prime. I just bought an Epson Perfection V 500 Photo flat bed for about $200 and it may be as good as the old Nikon. I also need The Epson to scan larger negatives because the Nikon only accepts 35 mm.

What I also found is that all my pictures can be improved on by editing - this process can take as much time as the scanning. The scanner often comes with its own editing program for enhancing the photo at the time of scan. I use it for basic corrections and set the scanner to picture size and type. I also invested in Vue Scan program for that pre scanning editing. Once the slide is scanned, final editing can be done with your regular editing program. At this point I often get mixed up and find it hard to work with thousands of slides. I can really mess thing up by making permanent changes to my original photo, having several edited copies and not knowing which is final etc etc.

Adobe has a solution for PC and Apple owners, Apple has a similar program just for all those Mac heads out there. Both sell a photo management systems and are just great tools . Adobe's system is called Light Room and Apples program is Aperture. The big difference is the price, $300 for Adobe and $200 for Aperture. I just upgraded my Aperture for $100. Basically I set up a library for projects and add my pictures to the proper project, these pictures may later be found by identifying each photo with key words. If I enter wife , Christmas I will suddenly have 38 Christmases with photos showing my wife. Both programs have powerful programs for quick editing and review.

You could also be selective in which photos to scan and slowly add on to your library, they don't really have to be scanned all at one time.

Just realized this is an expensive hobby. $220 for the scanner, $100 for the scanning program, $90 for photoshop elements, $200 for external hard drive, $200 - $300 for Lightroom or Aperture.

You still have two alternatives - hire Eurasianthai's son or put the slides back in the shoe box and hold each one up to the light for viewing. Good luck....

[phetaroi]

Over two years before moving here I used a dedicated slide scanner to convert a few thousand travel slides to digital. I tried a flat bed scanner, but it is no comparison quality-wise compared to a dedicated slide scanner...and they are not cheap. Using a couple of software products, I was able to color-correct and sharpen many old photographs, some dating way back to 1960. There were others that were so faded or so color-imbalanced that try as I might, I could not improve them. Overall, however, the results were impressive.

The ease of finding a dedicates slide scanner here in Thailand...I can't say. Personally, when in the States, I used the Nikon COOLSCAN...I don't recall the model...maybe V ED. In the States they run about $2000 USD, although when done with the project I easily sold mine for $800. Beware -- the scanning and correction process is very time consuming.

[jukapot]

I haven't tried my Epson V500 Scanner yet, I think it will be satisfactory for most slides. Vulcan posted this same subject about a year ago. He bought the Epson V700 flatbed scanner and is very satisfied with it. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Flatbed-Scanners-t157269.html

My Nikon Coolscan IV ED is getting old, about 8 years. I paid $600 for it, but it does not scan medium size negatives. The newer Coolscan models are more expensive. If I had $2000 to spend on a scanner, I wouldn't - i'd buy a new kayak.

[svenivan]

Hi,

I bought a flatbedscanner here in Thailand a year ago. It is a HP Scanjet 4050. I can scan 16 slides at the same time, I can scan negatives, positive photos or whatever. It works great. I can choose resolution from 75 ppi to 19200 ppi (slow!).

I think I gave 9 - 10 000 baht including software.

[phetaroi]

I haven't tried my Epson V500 Scanner yet, I think it will be satisfactory for most slides. Vulcan posted this same subject about a year ago. He bought the Epson V700 flatbed scanner and is very satisfied with it. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Flatbed-Scanners-t157269.html

My Nikon Coolscan IV ED is getting old, about 8 years. I paid $600 for it, but it does not scan medium size negatives. The newer Coolscan models are more expensive. If I had $2000 to spend on a scanner, I wouldn't - i'd buy a new kayak.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems a little odd to be willing to pay $1,000-$2,000 (or more) for a camera these days, but basically throw your old photos in the trash...because I've seen (and tried) scanning slides with a flatbed scanner (and one designed to do it), and what you get is a quality you would never accept in today's cameras.

[astral]

If you are serious you do need a dedicated slide scanner.

I used to have a Canon FS2710

A superb piece of equipment for 35mm slides and film.

Resolution of 2720dpi and excellent sw particularly for film where the orange background needs removing.

It would scan negatives that the shops simply rejected as unprintable.

[jukapot]

I haven't tried my Epson V500 Scanner yet, I think it will be satisfactory for most slides. Vulcan posted this same subject about a year ago. He bought the Epson V700 flatbed scanner and is very satisfied with it. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Flatbed-Scanners-t157269.html

My Nikon Coolscan IV ED is getting old, about 8 years. I paid $600 for it, but it does not scan medium size negatives. The newer Coolscan models are more expensive. If I had $2000 to spend on a scanner, I wouldn't - i'd buy a new kayak.

I understand what you're saying, but it seems a little odd to be willing to pay $1,000-$2,000 (or more) for a camera these days, but basically throw your old photos in the trash...because I've seen (and tried) scanning slides with a flatbed scanner (and one designed to do it), and what you get is a quality you would never accept in today's cameras.

phetaroi - Thanks for your input. I once had a $1,000 camera, the Nikon D80 and because it was digital no scanning was necessary. I was tired lugging around the camera and lens,etc.. so I gave the mess to my daughter. I'll be getting the Canon S90 in another month or so. For me my old negatives and slides are a treasure chest of good memoriess - most of the negatives I've never seen in print. In fact I've just discovered a dozen rolls of negatives and may be he best photos I have ever taken. they go back to the 60's. I want the best equipment I can afford to digitalize these negatives, but cost is a factor.

Right now it will be the NikonCoolscan for all 35 mm work, and the new Epson V500 flatbed for the 2 1/4 negatives and old photos that no longer have a negative. I am using the best equipment I can now afford. I'd love to have a $2,000 scanner and maybe some day I will get one. I can always rescan the best photos only after I see what they all look like digitalizes and edited.

I have two questions, how many passes through the scanner should I take. Does it really improve the image. If two passes are good - why not 4?. I know time is a big factor, but is it worth the effort? Still haven't decided how many pixels per inch. Since most of these pictures initially will be show on computers or TV's, can I get away with 72 per inch, and set it for 8 by 10 size image or maybe yet should I go for 300 pixels per in for a 5 by 7 print. I am looking for a standard size but when I spot an exceptionally pleasing print I'll may go for size. I normally don't print my pictures for friends, most of whom don't have computers, I put them on CD and tell them to take them to the friendly drug store and have them printed commercially. I absolutely refuse to do the donkey work to print the snap shot type photos for others.

Anybody want to share their experiences and solutions, please post. Your input will be welcomed.

Edited March 24, 2010 by jukapot

[astral]

I think it will be a mistake to scan only at 72dpi.

Go for the best possible resolution that you can get.

You never know that someone, perhaps a grandson/daughter may ask for

a decent size print for their room at some later stage.

BTW I never print photos myself, always take them to the local shop on a memory stick.

Better quality and cheaper.

[svenivan]

My experiences with scanning old slides:

I live in Thailand and my two grownup daughters live in Sweden with small children.

I have close to 1000 old slides from the 80´s and the 90´s and most from familylife when my daughters were small children.

So as I said earlier, I bought this HP Scanjet G4050.

The software is OK but it takes some time to find all options. There are functions for recovering color, repair for dust and scratches, change individually light for each slide and change color and saturation. Can even crop the photo before the real scanning. And change resolution for each slide. Resolution is from 75 dpi up to 19000 something.

You can scan 16 slides at the same time and it starts with a quick one, takes a few seconds and you see all 16 slides. Then you can zoom in each slide and change all the above.

I can also choose for more exact colors, called 6-colorscan.

I have found out with higher resolution it takes a lot of power from the computer and it is slow.

And every function like removing scratches, improving color takes more time.

After scanning all slides I have used ACDSee Pro to improve the digital photos a little bit.

My daughters are very happy with the photos and so is my exwife that also got a copy of the CD.

Some people say that the result with a flatbed scanner will not be good enough but I donot agree.

First, what quality is on the slides from the beginning? What camera has been used, what lens?

And who has been behind the camera? A pro or an amateur that always had problem with zooming and focusing etc ?

And how had the slides been treated during the last 30-50 years? Stored in a proper place, cool and dark?

How about scratches, dust, fingerprints, marmelade etc etc that come after not so careful people have handled them?

So if you have slides taken by a pro with good cameras and good lenses and then the slides had been taken care of in best ways then I understand it can be worth to use the best scanner in the market.

But for 90% of us here in the forum I am quite sure a flatbed will do the job!

Just my experiences!

[phetaroi]

Some people say that the result with a flatbed scanner will not be good enough but I donot agree.

Okay, show us some flatbed results.

[svenivan]

Some people say that the result with a flatbed scanner will not be good enough but I donot agree.

Okay, show us some flatbed results.

As I said these are familyphotos, they were not taken by a pro, the equipment not the best and during 10-15 years the slides were in the projector many, many times and sometime a whole bunch of them were on the floor because the children loved to have a look at them.

[astral]

4" x 2.7" at 200dpi.

OK for snapshot prints but not for serious enlargement.

If you are happy then that is the main thing.

[svenivan]

4" x 2.7" at 200dpi.

OK for snapshot prints but not for serious enlargement.

If you are happy then that is the main thing.

How many people here that produced slides before the digital era had that good equipment and were that good fotographers that they today want to make "serious enlargement" of their old slides?

Most people want to save the slides before they are totally destroyed and also to share maybe to children, grandchildren and friends.

My point is that for 90% of us probably a flatbedscanner will do the job. If we in the 2000 slides find a couple that have quality enough and are interesting enough, then we can have them scanned in a professional lab and order the print at the same place.

I also said " So if you have slides taken by a pro with good cameras and good lenses and then the slides had been taken care of in best ways then I understand it can be worth to use the best scanner in the market. "

And with a flatbedscanner we can use it for other purpuses after we have finished scanning our slides.

[Tywais]

4" x 2.7" at 200dpi.

OK for snapshot prints but not for serious enlargement.

You do realize those were likely scaled down for upload/download convenience?

Here are a couple of examples scanned from my Epson Perfection V300 - downsized to 800 wide for the forum, original scan file 6192x4128 pixels (20.64" x 13.76" at 300dpi if printed). 21 years ago and 42 years ago respectively.

Patong Beach Phuket - 1989

Outside Utapao RTAFB - 1968

[phetaroi]

4" x 2.7" at 200dpi.

OK for snapshot prints but not for serious enlargement.

If you are happy then that is the main thing.

How many people here that produced slides before the digital era had that good equipment and were that good fotographers that they today want to make "serious enlargement" of their old slides?

Most people want to save the slides before they are totally destroyed and also to share maybe to children, grandchildren and friends.

My point is that for 90% of us probably a flatbedscanner will do the job. If we in the 2000 slides find a couple that have quality enough and are interesting enough, then we can have them scanned in a professional lab and order the print at the same place.

I also said " So if you have slides taken by a pro with good cameras and good lenses and then the slides had been taken care of in best ways then I understand it can be worth to use the best scanner in the market. "

And with a flatbedscanner we can use it for other purpuses after we have finished scanning our slides.

I agree...if one is happy with the less expensive alternative, then that's fine. I wanted a fairly high level of quality, and considering that some of my old pics were taken with an instamatic camera way back as early as the mid-1960s, I felt the dedicated scanner was needed. It was a $2000 investment, but then again, 2 years later when I finished the project (which I would estimate at 5,000 slides), I sold the scanner for about $1,000.

It really is all about expectations and importance to the individual. I recall when my secretary's daughter got married they sent me a CD with wedding pics. They were taken by a semi-professional photographer, but then put on the disk at a very low resolution...virtually ruining any enjoyment one might get out of looking at them. But they were happy...and that's what really mattered.

[svenivan]

I agree...if one is happy with the less expensive alternative, then that's fine. I wanted a fairly high level of quality, and considering that some of my old pics were taken with an instamatic camera way back as early as the mid-1960s, I felt the dedicated scanner was needed. It was a $2000 investment, but then again, 2 years later when I finished the project (which I would estimate at 5,000 slides), I sold the scanner for about $1,000.

It is a little bit funny how we are thinking different!

Choosing the right scanner I was thinking that if I have very high qualityshots taken with the best equipment then it is worth to invest in the best scanner to preserve the high quality.

If I have slides taken with point-and-shoot-cameras, maybe not the best focus and not so detailed then I donot need the highest quality of scanner. Because I can never improve the quality of the photo but I can preserve it. Yes, most scanners have functions to repair when a slides color has degenrated and functions to repair for scratches and dust. I am not talking of that. I am talking about the quality of the original shot.

So in my opinion paying 2000 US to scan Instamatic is like "throwing pearls to pigs" !

But that is just my opinion and my thinking. Phetaroi is happy with his choice and I was happy with my choice!

[astral]

The quality of the original shot is very important.

IME it is better not to ask for prints.

Just take the negs and scan them.

The scratches occur in the printing process.

[phetaroi]

I agree...if one is happy with the less expensive alternative, then that's fine. I wanted a fairly high level of quality, and considering that some of my old pics were taken with an instamatic camera way back as early as the mid-1960s, I felt the dedicated scanner was needed. It was a $2000 investment, but then again, 2 years later when I finished the project (which I would estimate at 5,000 slides), I sold the scanner for about $1,000.

It is a little bit funny how we are thinking different!

Choosing the right scanner I was thinking that if I have very high qualityshots taken with the best equipment then it is worth to invest in the best scanner to preserve the high quality.

If I have slides taken with point-and-shoot-cameras, maybe not the best focus and not so detailed then I donot need the highest quality of scanner. Because I can never improve the quality of the photo but I can preserve it. Yes, most scanners have functions to repair when a slides color has degenrated and functions to repair for scratches and dust. I am not talking of that. I am talking about the quality of the original shot.

So in my opinion paying 2000 US to scan Instamatic is like "throwing pearls to pigs" !

But that is just my opinion and my thinking. Phetaroi is happy with his choice and I was happy with my choice!

Well, I also didn't explain myself very well. From the mid-1960s to the digital years, there was a lot of evolution in my photography. Instamatic was the mid-1960s...by the 70s it was on to ever more sophisticated film SLR cameras...and then in more recent years digital SLRs.

From the old photos...my view was to not have any further deterioration in quality. For the more modern SLR pics, it was to maintain picture quality. And, with the higher quality dedicated scanner it was much easier to actually improve quality through sharpening (for example) or adjusting color.

[svenivan]

Well, I also didn't explain myself very well. From the mid-1960s to the digital years, there was a lot of evolution in my photography. Instamatic was the mid-1960s...by the 70s it was on to ever more sophisticated film SLR cameras...and then in more recent years digital SLRs.

From the old photos...my view was to not have any further deterioration in quality. For the more modern SLR pics, it was to maintain picture quality. And, with the higher quality dedicated scanner it was much easier to actually improve quality through sharpening (for example) or adjusting color.

OK phetaroi, then I understand your choice. When you were talking Instamatic then I referred in my mind to my own slides, most of them taken with an SLR, Minolta XG-1 and some good lenses, but often with a slovenly photographer behind.

But sharpening and adjusting color is probably not made by the scanner but with the software. In that case the software that came with my HP Scanjet 4050G was very good, even better than Vuescan that I also used.

But good that we both are happy!