Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On 2021-02-12 02:41, wrote:
My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures


.... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.

tl, dr version: TIFF is a fine format.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures


... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject), in which case raw would be the proper choice. tiff should
*never* be used in a digital camera. there is *no* benefit and only
drawbacks.

if he decides to use a scanner, then tiff would be the proper choice in
almost every case (this is not one of the exceptions).

tl, dr version: TIFF is a fine format.

for certain things it is. not all.

On 2021-02-14 19:04, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures


... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),

The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.

Thus TIFF...


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:42:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),

The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.

Exactly. When the whole approach that was being considered is so
completely, utterly and totally mistaken, there's very little point
in refining each part of the "chain of mistakes"

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.

On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:42:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),

The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.
Exactly. When the whole approach that was being considered is so
completely, utterly and totally mistaken, there's very little point
in refining each part of the "chain of mistakes"

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.

Having gone down that road, I'm going to disagree:

The touch labor involved in "doing it right" with a proper scanner means
that in most instances, it becomes a "don't bother" project.

As such, my advice is:

Step 1:
Use whatever "lousy" capture process you can that's fast & easy so that
at least a copy - no matter how crappy - actually gets accomplished.

Step 2:
Use this output to cherrypick what images are actually worth the effort of a high quality scan

Step 3:
Do (or pay for) the high quality scans on the cherrypicked subset


Overall, this is the "Better is the Enemy of Good Enough" paradigm put into practice.

-hh

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 07:06:48 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote:

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.

Having gone down that road, I'm going to disagree:

The touch labor involved in "doing it right" with a proper scanner means
that in most instances, it becomes a "don't bother" project.

As such, my advice is:

Step 1:
Use whatever "lousy" capture process you can that's fast & easy so that
at least a copy - no matter how crappy - actually gets accomplished.

Step 2:
Use this output to cherrypick what images are actually worth the effort of a high quality scan

Step 3:
Do (or pay for) the high quality scans on the cherrypicked subset


Scanning film-based images is unavoidably going to involve doing a lot
of work. Best done methodically and systematically.

Given that, my experience doing exactly this is that if you're going
to have to do a lot of work, it makes sense to only do it the once.

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, then do it right like you should have done it
in the first place isn't it for me. What use is a "crappy copy" to
man or beast? Or even hundreds -- thousands -- of "crappy copies"?

Obviously, there has to be selection -- judgment -- about which images
are worth scanning, and which one's aren't. (Or, often which images
are worth scanning in order to keep a good/important part of an
otherwise faulty or lousy total image).

However, in my experience, that kind of judgment is best done during
the scanning process (given that the scanning process will generally
include an initial pre-scan before the scan proper). It's at that
point when one decides whether to go ahead with an image or to skip
it.

Doing twenty years' worth of pre-scans in the hope of then selecting
which ones to go back to again in order to do properly is both
inefficient and soul-destroying. You need to take a decision while
your engagement with the particular image is fresh, not months down
the road.