Scanning Thousands of Slides

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om...
Hi Bill,

Just for added clarity, the film used to create negatives from slides was
Kodak Internegative Film. To make a slide from a negative the film to use
was Kodak Slide Duplicating film (Ektachrome). the slide duplicating film
(now called Kodak Ektachrome EDUPE Film) was and still is not only for
making slide dupes but also is used for making interpositives (copyslides/
slides from artwork). You can also use EPN or EPR as a copy film to make
slides of artwork or whatever but EDUPE has a lower contrast to keep the
inherent contrast increase from reproduction to a minimum.
Kodak Commercial Internegative film, however, is now disct'd. In its place
we suggest they use PORTRA 160NC Film instead (note daylight instead of
tungsten), or for tungsten they can use PORTRA 100T film instead.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

Thanks, Ron....It's amazing how little I know about film, even though I have
been using it for over 50 years. Does Kodak publish any books that describe
the different film types and how/when to use them?

apart from getting a nikon coolscan ls-5000 + nikon automatic slide
feeder (50 slides per run), there is another quick'n'dirty way to do
that.

what we do at my photoclub is to use a repro-support with the best
digital camera we have (that is, the d2x of a friend of mine) to shoot
a 1:1 macro photo of a slide (we use a nikon af-d 105/2.8 micro lens),
retroilluminated with a 5000 kelvin lamp. in this way, we get a 12mpx
file with perfect color balance of a slide (that is more than you need
to print a 12x16" and far more than anything you'll ever wish to
project the images).

i've recently manufactured an "L-shaped" metal sheet, so that we have
a fixed and reliable "reference" against which we put the different
slides; this allows a very quick positioning of each slide, so that we
can digitalize tens or hundreds of slides in an evening.

in other words, take your desk, put a 5000 kelvin retroilluminated
plane, attach to this plane some references to be *sure* you'll always
put a slide in the very same position, have the best digital camera
with the best macro lens you can get over the slide and set the whole
thing so that you shoot at the whole slide, switch on the 5000 kelvin
lamp, shoot at the slide, remove the slide, put another slide against
the references, shoot at the slide, loop tens or hundreds of times and
have a powerful pc with a large hard disk to store the images.

of course, shooting raw will give (slightly) better results, but jpgs
are more than enough imnsho.

this way of "acquiring" the slides avoids the problems you encounter
with film scanners when scanning certain tipes of slides (for example,
velvia 50's are awful, and kodachromes aren't easy at all).

i hope this helps.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com

Gianni Rondinini writes:

apart from getting a nikon coolscan ls-5000 + nikon automatic slide
feeder (50 slides per run), there is another quick'n'dirty way to do
that.

And even with the feeder it's not *that* quick (it's what I'm using
for old slides).

what we do at my photoclub is to use a repro-support with the best
digital camera we have (that is, the d2x of a friend of mine) to shoot
a 1:1 macro photo of a slide (we use a nikon af-d 105/2.8 micro lens),
retroilluminated with a 5000 kelvin lamp. in this way, we get a 12mpx
file with perfect color balance of a slide (that is more than you need
to print a 12x16" and far more than anything you'll ever wish to
project the images).

A nit -- you're not shooting at 1:1 if you're capturing the full slide
on the 1.5x crop factor sensor.

this way of "acquiring" the slides avoids the problems you encounter
with film scanners when scanning certain tipes of slides (for example,
velvia 50's are awful, and kodachromes aren't easy at all).

I'm interested in that. I'd think you would have *more* troubles,
since you don't have film profiles (or at least a separate Kodachrome
setting), and since the brightness range of this setup probably
doesn't use the full range of the camera.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: 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/

Hi Bill,

Not aware of it, but I have a lot of information on them as I have been
working for Kodak since 1960. I remember when T-Grain was released as well
as the other films you noted. And, yes, T-Grain as BW was released first. VR
was the first to be released in color. Ektar followed close behind. It was a
follow up film for another film I cannot recall now. Added to the concept of
new technology.

Kodak did publish a lot of books on all kinds of things but they are no
longer around. I was a Technical Editor there for a time, and wrote some of
the content. Many of those that I was involved with have slipped through my
fingers, though I have retained some. What do you need, maybe I can find it
for you?

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Ron Baird" wrote in message
om...
Hi Bill,

Just for added clarity, the film used to create negatives from slides
was
Kodak Internegative Film. To make a slide from a negative the film to
use
was Kodak Slide Duplicating film (Ektachrome). the slide duplicating
film
(now called Kodak Ektachrome EDUPE Film) was and still is not only for
making slide dupes but also is used for making interpositives
(copyslides/
slides from artwork). You can also use EPN or EPR as a copy film to make
slides of artwork or whatever but EDUPE has a lower contrast to keep the
inherent contrast increase from reproduction to a minimum.
Kodak Commercial Internegative film, however, is now disct'd. In its
place
we suggest they use PORTRA 160NC Film instead (note daylight instead of
tungsten), or for tungsten they can use PORTRA 100T film instead.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

Thanks, Ron....It's amazing how little I know about film, even though I
have
been using it for over 50 years. Does Kodak publish any books that
describe
the different film types and how/when to use them?

An external hard drive is a short term backup.
A very minor failure and the data is most likely
irretrievably lost.

Yep. Make sure you have at least 2 copies of each photo you scan (for
example, one on the hard drive and one on DVD). And be sure to keep
them in separate buildings, in case of fire. A friend of mine lost
years of photos when her house burned down, destroying both her PC and
all her backup CDs.

It was called 5254, and, yes... it was a movie film.
You could have it processed either way, but they could provide you with
slides and negatives.
Dang, never believe the crap that gets retained in the back vaults...
just when you think nothing's left.
Hmmmmm,
BScott

--
Buy ART, and Invest in Style!
Come and visit my site at
http://www.AerieArts.com !
All rights reserved - Barry Scott 2005
"no_name" wrote in message
m...
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm dj_nme wrote:

It sounds a bit like the old roll-film Polaroid Land Cameras.
They used a dual film roll system, which gave a positive print and a
negative off the same exposure.
I've never used it (it was discontinued almost 15 years ago), but I have
worked on some Land Cameras for conversion to medium format and 4x5
recently.


Indeed, this would be something significantly different. That is
basically
creating two latent images on two different portions of film, presumably
sitting side by side. Certainly there is a difference in chemistry
requiring
separate development.


I can't locate it now, but I think there was at one time a Kodak motion
picture film that had a positive and a negative film glued together. The
two films were separated in processing, and each went into its own
appropriate chemical process.

I'm not exactly sure how the Polaroid system works, but when you pull it
out of the film holder, it does indeed develop into a B&W print and a B&W
negative. Don't know if the print is exposed thru the negative and both
developed at the same time, or if the print is produced chemically from
contact with the negative when it's developed.

It's Type 55 P/N (4x5) or Type 665 P/N (medium format pack film). Both are
still available. The negatives have to be cleared with sodium sulfite to
be usable, and they're rather fragile. It's also pretty expensive, Type 55
P/N is about $4.00 a sheet.

IIRC, Polaroid had an "instant" 35mm Polachrome film that gave both color
positive and color negative, although the negative was apparently
discarded during processing.

In article q3_tg.42$ok5.32@dukeread01, BScott
wrote:

It was called 5254, and, yes... it was a movie film.
You could have it processed either way, but they could provide you with
slides and negatives.
Dang, never believe the crap that gets retained in the back vaults...
just when you think nothing's left.
Hmmmmm,
BScott

"Processed either way?" I don't believe so. As I recall, it was a
reasonably conventional color negative film, with three differences: It
was optimized to be "printed" to transparency, rather than paper; it
was tungsten balanced; and it had a black coating that would have to be
removed in processing. I THINK the coating was to protect the film
surface as it went through the movie camera, but I'm less sure about
that.

I remember the color lab telling me if a roll snuck into the regular
developing batch the coating would gunk up the machine something awful.

Scott Schuckert writes:

In article q3_tg.42$ok5.32@dukeread01, BScott
wrote:

It was called 5254, and, yes... it was a movie film.
You could have it processed either way, but they could provide you with
slides and negatives.
Dang, never believe the crap that gets retained in the back vaults...
just when you think nothing's left.

"Processed either way?" I don't believe so. As I recall, it was a
reasonably conventional color negative film, with three differences: It
was optimized to be "printed" to transparency, rather than paper; it
was tungsten balanced; and it had a black coating that would have to be
removed in processing. I THINK the coating was to protect the film
surface as it went through the movie camera, but I'm less sure about
that.

That all matches my memories. And, being a movie film, there was a
matching positive print film, so it was easy for them to print slides
from the negatives that projcected well. Which is what they did.

One of the big problems with movie films is that grain doesn't matter
nearly as much when projected at 24fps, and the films they use show
it.

I remember the color lab telling me if a roll snuck into the regular
developing batch the coating would gunk up the machine something awful.

I've never actually done it, but that's what I was told and read
various places.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: 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/

In article ,
Scott Schuckert wrote:

In article q3_tg.42$ok5.32@dukeread01, BScott
wrote:

It was called 5254, and, yes... it was a movie film.
You could have it processed either way, but they could provide you with
slides and negatives.
Dang, never believe the crap that gets retained in the back vaults...
just when you think nothing's left.
Hmmmmm,
BScott

"Processed either way?" I don't believe so. As I recall, it was a
reasonably conventional color negative film, with three differences: It
was optimized to be "printed" to transparency, rather than paper; it
was tungsten balanced; and it had a black coating that would have to be
removed in processing. I THINK the coating was to protect the film
surface as it went through the movie camera, but I'm less sure about
that.

I remember the color lab telling me if a roll snuck into the regular
developing batch the coating would gunk up the machine something awful.

Most movie film was shot on negative film, this was then 'printed' by
contact with negative film to create a positive. Both of these films had
no red base so colour mixing/correction was left up to the labs who
processed the stuff. These labs would often offer a contact printing
service to amateurs to offset their expenses as most studios paid
rock-bottom prices for their services.

Mass produced film for still cameras was either negative or positive,
but not both. The development process is quite different and the red
layer will mess up any attempt to create positives from negatives.

wrote in message
...
...snip...
On a more serious note - don't buy the HP flatbed scanner that can do 16
slides
at once - it's a total disaster! My old Canon has it beat!

-------------------

And what old Canon would that be which you like?

Bill