pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Slide scanners  (Read 6798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2008, 05:59 »
0
Anybody had any positive experiences with slide scanners.

I just bought an Ion Slides 2PC USB scanner which is able to scan slides and negatives at up to 17MP but it uses Arcsoft Photoimpression 6 for capturing the images and appears to have no way of adjusting the exposure (and it always over exposes).

I've just been given over 1000 slides from my father-in-law, including lots of shots from the 60s, 70s and 80s which appear to be in good condition. I was getting quite excited over the microstock sales implications, but the scanner has proved to be a big disappointment.

Any input greatly appreciated.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 06:02 by Jimi King »


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2008, 06:07 »
0
I have the Nikon 5 ED but have just about given up scanning 35mm slides.  It takes too long and I have only had a few that were accepted by the micros.  My time is better spent taking new photos.

e-person

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2008, 06:19 »
0
EDIT: my reply is to Jimi King.

Never buy toy scanners, like yours.

Flatbed scanners, I can recommend Epson 4490, Epson 3200 and I believe even the newer V500. My 4490 allows me to scan @ 4800 DPI and comes with good software. Being flatbed it is a bit soft, although once you have finished processing you can add some sharpening.

Or get a Nikon 35mm dedicated scanner. They are even better although on the harsh side due to their light source, which somehow makes some photos look worse. I do prefer my Epsons over my Nikon. Software is better too. I have also tried Vuescan and it is not any better than Epson software.

My favourite scanner, so far, is the Epson 4490. Once you learn the art of scanning, which is not as easy as they would like you to believe (never ever use auto mode), you get quite decent scans.

I am ruling out drum scanners as they are on a completely different level.

I also advice not to use the anti-dust anti-scratch infrared scan, as you will get less details in your photos and lots of silly artefacts. If you want a good job you have to do it the hard way: brush the dust off your film and scanner, then scan, then remove any spots in photoshop. It might take hours for each single photo although, to me, it is well worth it, considering film colour and exposure latitude.

Also, if you happen to scan large format film, as I do, there aren't any digital cameras of that size and resolution, yet.

« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2008, 06:26 »
0
I've used the Epson V700 with good results. It's not good with Kodachrome though (and doesn't claim to be either), so check which transparency film was used before committing to a scanner.

« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2008, 07:05 »
0
Wow, thanks for the fast responses.

I guess that Maplins can have their junk back and it's an Epson 4490 for me then. Doesn't seem worth paying double for a V700 when I don't have much use for a scanner these days other than the new acquisition of slides. Also, a lot of the slides are indeed Kodachrome.

I already have a perfectly good (although fairly old now) HP Scanjet 4200, but it doesn't have a slide attachment.

Another question. Any recommendations for the best places for selling editorial images, since many of these slides have people in them. I've also got for instance a great shot of London's Piccadilly Circus at night from some time in the 70's. Including the famous Coke sign. I would have thought that the editorial value of that would be quite good.

Quite a few London tourist sites too, with 70s cars in them.

From reading around here it seems that Shutterstock is best for editorial. That so?

« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2008, 09:57 »
0
I think there were threads about this earlier.  Personally I would not recommend flatbed scanners at all, even those with slide adapters.  As far as I know, they don't deliver the high res they claim, not in high quality.  My own experiences a couple of years ago agree with that. 

As Sharpshot said, scanning is very time-consuming and not always results in an image clear enough for microstock standards.

I have HP Photosmart and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV, both dedicated film scanners, both not in the market anymore.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 09:59 by madelaide »

e-person

« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2008, 16:19 »
0

Another question. Any recommendations for the best places for selling editorial images, since many of these slides have people in them. I've also got for instance a great shot of London's Piccadilly Circus at night from some time in the 70's. Including the famous Coke sign. I would have thought that the editorial value of that would be quite good.

Quite a few London tourist sites too, with 70s cars in them.

From reading around here it seems that Shutterstock is best for editorial. That so?

Alamy is the right place for those. They are also less fuzzy than microstock in regards to digital perfection.

Regarding Kodachrome, I know many people state they are difficult to scan, but maybe they mean with the anti dust/scratch infrared function, which one shoud not use anyway. I did not have any issues with Kodachrome and I don't know what these people with issues are doing to get bad results with them. I scan expired film, self developed in expired chemicals, with cross colour issues, and I do get away with it. Scanning is a job you have to learn, like anything else.

As per the anti-flatbed scanner party, of course they are not drum scanners but please consider they use modern CCDs and Epson 4490 has a moving light in the lid, nothing to do with the prehistoric models you lot must have been using in the past. You can also do wet mount, if you like.

« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2008, 16:30 »
0

Another question. Any recommendations for the best places for selling editorial images, since many of these slides have people in them. I've also got for instance a great shot of London's Piccadilly Circus at night from some time in the 70's. Including the famous Coke sign. I would have thought that the editorial value of that would be quite good.

Quite a few London tourist sites too, with 70s cars in them.

From reading around here it seems that Shutterstock is best for editorial. That so?

Alamy is the right place for those. They are also less fuzzy than microstock in regards to digital perfection.

Regarding Kodachrome, I know many people state they are difficult to scan, but maybe they mean with the anti dust/scratch infrared function, which one shoud not use anyway. I did not have any issues with Kodachrome and I don't know what these people with issues are doing to get bad results with them. I scan expired film, self developed in expired chemicals, with cross colour issues, and I do get away with it. Scanning is a job you have to learn, like anything else.

As per the anti-flatbed scanner party, of course they are not drum scanners but please consider they use modern CCDs and Epson 4490 has a moving light in the lid, nothing to do with the prehistoric models you lot must have been using in the past. You can also do wet mount, if you like.


The flatbed scanners are OK for medium format film but what are they like with 35mm negs and slides?  There is a recent thread on the alamy forum where several people say they are not good enough to get past their QC.

« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2008, 16:42 »
0
For what I read in many places, it all depends for the usage you want. 

For microstock and their obsession for perfectectly sharp and noise-free images, I think it would seldom work, even from a film scanner like mine.  I have only one scanned image in microstock, intentionally reduced to about 2MPix in IS - at that resolution, nothing is a problem.

For Alamy, with their minimum requirements, I believe grain would not be a big issue, but lens quality would.  I was surprised when I started to scan slides with the Minolta (3200dpi) and discovered flaws in some cases that would be even worse in the resolution required by Alamy (4000dpi, I think). 

I ran my tests with flatbed scanners about 2 years ago.  I used a HP flatbed with slide mount adaptor we had at work, a top-of-the-line model by then.  Not good.  Also had some slides scanned in an image bureau.  Not good either.  Scans looked great at screen size view, but when you checked them at 100% zoom, things were ugly.  Of course, this may have improved, but from what I read you need special devices to make it work well.

It is important also to have a very high dynamic range, something older models lacked, even my Photosmart (this was one of the drivers that made me upgrade).  I don't know if this was improved in flatbeds as well.

I think however that the work involved in scanning, editing, adjusting, cleaning, etc, is not worth the time, especially for microstock.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2008, 16:45 »
0
This site has an extensive review of the V700. There's one for the 4990 somewhere there too. Great detail about all film formats.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 16:48 by averil »

AVAVA

« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2008, 16:56 »
0
I think the Imacon is very good probably the best you will find without going to a drum scanner. I have the 848 and it does film up to 4x5.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2008, 06:09 »
0
Jimi what sort of film were these photos taken on? its okay if it was good slide film, but most old print films when scanned reveal lots of grain, and grain is one thing that will stop those image dead when it comes to acceptance time on microstock. Istock are pretty good with film and seem (last time i uploaded film about a year back) to understand the 'difference' between film and digital. the other agencies are all a bit variable, especially if you get a scanner that will do something like 5000dpi from 35mm film, they will complain that its 'upsampled' or 'out of focus', when in fact all that's happened is that the scanner has a higher resolution than the film being scanned.

Ii have a minolta dimage 5400 but to be it has it's issues with lines in dark areas, the nikon coolscans i think are they way to go if i had to recomend a new purchase, id recommend a scanner with 'ice' and then at least you have the option to turn it on or off and remove all that dust from the scans, without it there is a lot of spotting to be done but the scans are sharper

« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2008, 06:36 »
0
All sorts really. Kodachrome, Agfa, Fuji, you name it, they're all pretty much there. There's all sorts of stuff (probably a couple of thousand slides actually, but a lot of those are family shots) which seem to have stood the test of time as they were all boxed and stored.

I bit the bullet and went for the Epson 4490, which arrived a couple of hours ago. It seemed to be the best idea price wise, as I don't know what the potential is of these shots. I'm assuming if one scans at max resolution and then downsizes to 4MP it should stand the test most places.

I'm still interested to hear from anyone with experience where the best places for editorial are. As there are, as I mentioned yesterday, a quite a few shots from the 60s, 70s & 80s with people in them. Not to mention cars from the time etc.

As I said yesterday

AVAVA

« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2008, 11:12 »
0
Hi Jimmy,

 Make sure you have model releases that hold up to this day and age. Older model releases from the 60's might pose a problem. The cars might be a problem as well. Check with the agencies before you put to much time in scanning. Just an idea.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2008, 11:17 »
0
Jimi,

Take a look at what is already available on these subjects.  Maybe these old subjects can find a better chance in the RM world than in RF, especially microstock RF. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2008, 14:53 »
0
Yay takes editorial work.

« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2008, 15:41 »
0
Thanks everybody. Tried a few scans today. I can see there's quite a bit of work ahead.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3621 Views
Last post November 09, 2008, 13:20
by madelaide
11 Replies
3769 Views
Last post May 20, 2012, 04:09
by Phadrea
39 Replies
26367 Views
Last post February 04, 2016, 04:35
by Harvepino
0 Replies
1029 Views
Last post July 12, 2018, 07:56
by stryjek
9 Replies
3426 Views
Last post February 04, 2020, 13:24
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle