A Rare One! - sold scanned image today!

takestock

« on: January 28, 2009, 15:35 »

#link

Well, I don't get many of them selling and it's hard enough getting them processed to a decent level and accepted, but I sold one today on FT - a scanned 35mm trannie taken on Fuji Sensia.

How is everyone else getting on with their scans?


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2009, 15:54 »

#link

I only have one scanned image in microstock, and it sells well at IS (the only place I submitted it in fact). I wouldn't mind all the trouble of scanning and editing scanned slides for microstock, but I have sold some in macro (RF and RM).

The problem is that I have too many digital images not yet edited and uploaded, so I end up not taking the time to scan more.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Gannet77

« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2009, 16:18 »

#link

I've sold 5 scanned 35mm transparencies today - that's unusual for one day, but I normally would sell at least one or two a day on average.


	Ignore \| Logged

ason

« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2009, 16:25 »

#link

One of my bestseller on DT is scanned 35mm...working to get more scans to micros but it takes lot of time/work, this digital cameras get me lazy... Wink

/lena


	Ignore \| Logged

MikLav

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2009, 16:25 »

#link

I have only a few scanned photos in my portfolio, but one of them is among my best sellers on several stocks for 3 years.


	Ignore \| Logged

Mellimage

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2009, 16:36 »

#link

I only have a few scanned transparencies online. One sells ok on Istock, the others barely sell. Might be because they are mainly landscapes.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lcjtripod

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2009, 16:40 »

#link

At least 100 of my images are scans from color negatives. I scan at high res and resize down from there and I go heavy with noise removal. I even remove most of the real grain in the images. It works!

-Larry


	Ignore \| Logged

gaja

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2009, 17:28 »

#link

What scanner do you use? I guess the Nikon 5000 is the best, but a bit pricey. Are there any cheaper options?


	Ignore \| Logged

Lcjtripod

« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2009, 18:10 »

#link

Quote from: gaja on January 28, 2009, 17:28

What scanner do you use? I guess the Nikon 5000 is the best, but a bit pricey. Are there any cheaper options?

I think any of the top brands with high res options and equipped with Digital ice will do the job.
Do not use interpolated resolutions!

I am now using Epson Perfection V500 and love it. It is a high res flatbed. Most of my negs are 2 1/4 and 4X5 so the 35mm scanners are no good for me.
The Epson V700 is even better than mine but a lot more dollars.

Photo below is from 2 1/4 B&W neg.

-Larry


« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 18:15 by Lcjtripod »	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2009, 18:12 »

#link

I don't have too many but 2 of my best selling images are scans of 2 1/4 transparencies and another consistent seller is a scan of a 4X5 transparency. All from about 18 years ago.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2009, 18:15 »

#link

I used HP Photosmart (2100dpi) and now a Minolta Scan Dual IV (3200dpi), both are dedicated film scanners. The one at IS was downsized to 1800x1200, also because I didn't want a high res version in microstock (as I said, it was only a test; I don't put my travel images in micros).

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Smiling Jack

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2009, 20:30 »

#link

about 80 of my very small portfolio are scanned 35MM slides. They account for over half my small amount of sales. I use a Epson 3170 and Scan in at 3200 dpi.I then change to 300 dpi TIF and then down size and change to JPG. I do get quite a few rejections.Most rejections are for composition and poor lighting.Considering most are aerial photos in available light I guess that is to be expected
Smiling Jack


	Ignore \| Logged

davidm

« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2009, 03:46 »

#link

I got Canon FS4000US which is a 4000DPI film scanner right on my desk, but I never tried to sell anything scanned to stock. Thought the scans will be rejected for grain / noise for sure. So the scanner remains disconnected since I moved to a newer computer.

Lary, Jack,
When you guys say you scale the scans down - can you be more specific? A 4000DPI scan of 24x36 film in color is about 100MB TIFF with a lot of pixels. What the right workflow to adjust the grain / noise and convert it to reasonable JPG?
Do you use VueScan or any other scanning utility or just a TWAIN driver with PS/Lightroom?

FS4000US came with Canon FARE software, not with Digital ICE - not sure how FARE is good in noise reduction, if any


	Ignore \| Logged

Lcjtripod

« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2009, 10:06 »

#link

Quote from: davidm on February 03, 2009, 03:46

All my scanning is in Photoshop using the Epson Twain Driver. The photo of the little girl in my above post was scanned with enough pixels to make a 12 X 12 print at 300 DPI
I did all my retouching and adjustments in .tiff format then when I was happy with the results I reduced the image file size to 1024X1289 and saved it to .jpg You cannot tell it was from film. (I also cropped it some to make a vertical.)

Note: I do everything with the file in .tiff and save to .jpg as the last save. Only then will I sharpen it if necessary and most of the time sharpening is not needed.
Digital Ice makes for a great time saver on color images as it will eliminate 99% of all dust specks.

-Larry


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: A Rare One! - sold scanned image today!

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results