From: Robert Nabors on

"MG" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1180718719.866497(a)vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>> I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
>> transfer to digital images.
>>
>> On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
>> consuming.
>>
>> I have a 35 mm carousel projector, and wonder whether I can photograph
>> each image as I project it onto a white surface.
>>
>> Has anyone else done this, and are there some factors I need to take
>> into consideration, such as size of projected image, setting of digital
>> camera, etc.?
>
>
> This is what I did
> http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
>
> MG
> (Sorry, forgot URL first time around)

I have more than a thousand 35 MM slides that have been sitting in metal
boxes since the early 1950's. I have tried scanning them, and find they are
not nearly good enough for me to waste the time of trying to edit them into
a presentable digital photo after 50 years. It didn't help that I tried to
take a digital shot when they were projected on a screen. Maybe a camera
shop might do better, but I would have them convert 2 or 3 photos to see the
quality of the resulting digital photo.

RCN


From: MarkW on
On Jun 1, 4:11 am, LeighWillaston
<LeighWillaston.a5d...(a)photobanter.com> wrote:
> I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
> transfer to digital images.
>
> On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
> consuming.
>
> I have a 35 mm carousel projector, and wonder whether I can photograph
> each image as I project it onto a white surface.
>
> Has anyone else done this, and are there some factors I need to take
> into consideration, such as size of projected image, setting of digital
> camera, etc.?
>

I've done that with 8mm movies as well, and have also scanned old
family photo albums with a digital camera (I've also scanned many
years worth of 35mm negatives using a film scanner -- with a good
negative, the results are very good, but it's quite time-consuming).
I think the slide projector method is an excellent idea in that once
you get things set up, it should be many, many times faster than using
a flatbed or dedicated film scanner. Use your lowest ISO setting (and
a tripod if necessary). Obviously make sure both the camera and
projector focus are spot on (preferably put the camera in manual focus
mode, so you don't have the possibility of random focus misses as you
go). And experiment with the white balance (or shoot raw and post-
process). And if you see particular images that are especially worthy
of more careful treatment, make a note of those as you go and then use
a film scanner or scanning service on only those.

Mark

From: HEMI-Powered on
Robert Nabors offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

> I have more than a thousand 35 MM slides that have been
> sitting in metal boxes since the early 1950's. I have tried
> scanning them, and find they are not nearly good enough for me
> to waste the time of trying to edit them into a presentable
> digital photo after 50 years. It didn't help that I tried to
> take a digital shot when they were projected on a screen.
> Maybe a camera shop might do better, but I would have them
> convert 2 or 3 photos to see the quality of the resulting
> digital photo.
>
I've got an estiamted 5,000+ Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides in
Kodak Carousel trays sitting in my basement. Most are of Europe
taken while on various leaves and passes while I was in West
Germany with the U.S. Army. The rest are vacation pictures until
I gave up 35mm film in favor of home video when my daughter was
small. They are in pretty good shape considering their age,
possibly because they've been stored in the dark so dye fade and
color shift is minimal. But, they're covered with dust. Groan!
I've tried scanning some with a mediocre scanner with mediocre
results. Obviously, I would never attempt to scan nearly the
total. I estimate that the "keepers" are in the range of 700-800,
still a big job to do myself if I ever decide to buy a dedicated
slide/neg scanner and a piece of change for a service bureau to
do.

I'd never given any thought to the simple expedient of showing
them on a white wall and at least trying my Rebel XT on a tripod
with proper adjustment for WB, brightness/contrast, etc.

But, the real reason I am chiming in a 2nd time in this short
thread is to fully support your notion to test drive any way you
or me or the OP decide to attack the problem. In my other reply,
I said to ALWAYS send irreplaceable slides in small batches and
try to keep the batches relatively similar in exposure et al so
that the scanning service can take direction from me.

If I ultimately decide to use a service bureau, I will pay the
price for one that is more "professional", meaning that I can
give direction to for color balance and brightness/contrast, and
one that can try to use Digital Ice on the dust, although I
believe that at least some versions of Kodachrome won't work with
DI.

Again, no matter what method(s) are chosen, test, test, and test
again is the watch word.

--
HP, aka Jerry
From: HEMI-Powered on
MarkW offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
the matter at hand:

> I've done that with 8mm movies as well, and have also scanned
> old family photo albums with a digital camera (I've also
> scanned many years worth of 35mm negatives using a film
> scanner -- with a good negative, the results are very good,
> but it's quite time-consuming). I think the slide projector
> method is an excellent idea in that once you get things set
> up, it should be many, many times faster than using a flatbed
> or dedicated film scanner. Use your lowest ISO setting (and
> a tripod if necessary). Obviously make sure both the camera
> and projector focus are spot on (preferably put the camera in
> manual focus mode, so you don't have the possibility of random
> focus misses as you go). And experiment with the white
> balance (or shoot raw and post- process). And if you see
> particular images that are especially worthy of more careful
> treatment, make a note of those as you go and then use a film
> scanner or scanning service on only those.
>
Mark, I see no way around the time consuming part. If the number
to be scanned/photographed on a wall is at all large, at the very
least, one would have to go through them one by one and cull out
the keepers and leave the less memorable in the tray. That itself
takes time, especially since I would try to mark them so I could
figure out which position in the tray they came from. I have
toyed with the idea of buying a Nikon Coolscan dedicated scanner,
maybe a 5000 or a newer model if there is one. I'm told these
scan 4 at a time. So, scan time is going to be both tedious and a
PITA, as it tweaking all those old slides that are less than
perfect and giving them a reasonable name.

Your advice is excellent and in keeping with what I'd learned the
last time I investigated both scanners and service bureaus more
than a year ago. I suppose the quantity I have to do and the time
and expense involved are causing me to drag my feet. Maybe I'll
give the projector method a whirl and see if that is good enough
....

--
HP, aka Jerry
From: dennis on

"LeighWillaston" <LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com> wrote in message
news:LeighWillaston.a5dd45(a)photobanter.com...
>
> I have hundreds of 35 mm slides of family and travel which I want to
> transfer to digital images.
>
> On the rare occasions when I can access a scanner, it is very time
> consuming.

I converted about 2000 negatives using a HP SJ4890.
It takes its time but I did 5 strips of 4 negs at a time (it's a flatbed
with built in A4 transparency adapter).
It was a case of put 5 strips in start it off and go and do something else
(like sleep).
It came with holders for 5 strips of 35mm negatives, 16 mounted slides, and
a cut film one.

Don't do 4800dpi as the files are far too large.
Use a lens brush to remove the dust.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Bayer filter removal
Next: Battery woes