I spent 5 yrs scanning over 1500 photographs that I had made from the time I
graduated from high school 14 yrs ago till I stopped working in the darkroom
7 yrs ago. Well a lot of the negs were made during the 5 yrs I spent
scanning, but I got to the point of being totally done for a while and being
able to scan as I shot new stuff. Until I moved to Santa Fe, then I got
behind. I have about 50 rolls to go through and scan from backed up from
that time. I just scan the ones I think will be exhibition quality, not
everything on every roll. Took me forever because I did extensive dodging
and burning on ever scan in photoshop..in other words made each file ready
to print as an exhibition print.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Fort Wayne, Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 5/30/08 1:23 AM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> My current workflow for the thousands of negatives I'm working on is 16 bit
>> TIFF Scan (Nikon scan for the one with less fading and Vuescan for the
>> serious one)-
> What a daunting task! I'm embarking on the same sort of job, although
> it's mixed negs and slides, with a few other formats thrown in.
>
> I finally found a like new Canon 9950F scanner for a reasonable price. I
> bought it specifically for this task. It will allow me to scan five
> strips of negs at a time, 12 slides at once and the 6x6 and 6x9 negs
> from the old family album. The prospect of feeding all those strips into
> the film scanner one at a time, and slides four at a time was really
> daunting.
>
> The full 4800 dpi output is, in the end, just slightly - very slightly,
> pixel peeping - lower in quality on contemporary film. but I don't think
> it's a difference I'll ever see in a display or print. Most of the
> archive is older film, and a quick test shows that the scanner resolves
> more than the film, and more than the camera/lenses that made some of
> the images.
>
> I'll learn more as I go through the process, but I think some of the
> oldest 35mm stuff won't require more than 2400dpi to capture all that's
> there. I don't think the 6x9 shots from dad's folding Kodak hold as much
> detail as my later 35mm images. 600dpi gets it all.
>
> Most of the negs are separated from their prints. Many prints are
> missing. Many are so poor that I am sure there are good images whose
> full quality I've never seen scattered about. So I'm pretty excited to
> learn that the CanoScan software does a good, quick job of scanning a
> full film holder to produce proof images and an index image. I can then
> easily skip the junk in the final scans.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|