Slide scanning questions

"bmoag" wrote in message
...
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.

"bmoag" wrote in message
...
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" 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, , 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/

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

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

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

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.

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


"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...
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.

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


"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...
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.

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.