If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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/ |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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 $4.00 a sheet. IIRC, Polaroid had an "instant" 35mm Polachrome film that gave both color positive and color negative, although the negative was apparently discarded during processing. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
In article q3_tg.42$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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
Scott Schuckert writes:
In article q3_tg.42$ok5.32@dukeread01, BScott wrote: It was called 5254, and, yes... it was a movie film. You could have it processed either way, but they could provide you with slides and negatives. Dang, never believe the crap that gets retained in the back vaults... just when you think nothing's left. "Processed either way?" I don't believe so. As I recall, it was a reasonably conventional color negative film, with three differences: It was optimized to be "printed" to transparency, rather than paper; it was tungsten balanced; and it had a black coating that would have to be removed in processing. I THINK the coating was to protect the film surface as it went through the movie camera, but I'm less sure about that. That all matches my memories. And, being a movie film, there was a matching positive print film, so it was easy for them to print slides from the negatives that projcected well. Which is what they did. One of the big problems with movie films is that grain doesn't matter nearly as much when projected at 24fps, and the films they use show it. I remember the color lab telling me if a roll snuck into the regular developing batch the coating would gunk up the machine something awful. I've never actually done it, but that's what I was told and read various places. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
In article ,
Scott Schuckert wrote: In article q3_tg.42$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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning Thousands of Slides
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning Thousands of Slides | CJB | Digital Photography | 107 | August 1st 06 06:27 PM |
Scanning Thousands of Slides | CJB | 35mm Photo Equipment | 100 | August 1st 06 03:14 PM |
scanning slides with flatbed scanner - any other methods? | Steve | Digital Photography | 8 | January 14th 06 12:21 PM |
Scanning slides vs Prints | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | November 5th 04 09:23 PM |
Scanning Slides | Ed Mullikin | Digital Photography | 8 | October 13th 04 11:27 AM |