Vintage 35mm digitalized images

[Old school]

Dear Alamy Contributors,

My wife and I are 'old school' photographers with 35,000 or so 35mm color slides using Nikon equipment and lens.  Most are Kodachrome 25 and 64.  We digitalized 1000s with the end result we have images with 150 to 250 megabits...too large to send by email.  Have any other ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS asked about submitting images in such large megabits and if so, what happened?  Also, there is an inherent loss of image fidelity between the original 35mm Kodachrome 25 and the digitalized results.  Any Contributors asked these questions? cheers, Flo and Paul

[Brian Yarvin]

1994! Does the museum even look like that today? Wow ... I don't have any images that old in my collections. In 1994, I was busy shooting lifestyle.

[Brian Yarvin]

5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I don't think they're recent images.

Apparently a few of you were dragging your feet on this digital thing.

[Harry Harrison]

17 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I was only answering the specific question about how to convert TIFF to JPEG

Yes, didn't mean to suggest that you were wrong to do that, that's why I didn't quote, just didn't want the OP to get the wrong end of the stick.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Chuck Nacke]

1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

Apparently a few of you were dragging your feet on this digital thing.

Brian,

 

I had a reason for waiting for more than a decade to scan and upload these and yes the Hermitage still looks pretty much the same.

 

I've also been busy shooting commercial work for the last five years and I've decided to go back to just scanning the slides I shot for

the last 40 years.  That is why I was asking about the look of the images that I scanned this week, using VueScan for the first time.

So far I am impressed with VueScan working with an old CanoScan FS4000US.

 

Best,

 

Chuck 

[Brian Yarvin]

In that case, I would say that your images capture your own mood and spirit perfectly. There is a lot of serious personality in those scans. Indeed, it's a kind of feeling that was very tough to get in transparency film images. Studio photographers take the ability to control the mood for granted, but when you're outside, there's a whole different kind of mastery involved.

[Robert M Estall]

Flo and Paul need help getting a grasp on this whole subject of size and file format. It's remarkable how often this crops up on this forum, so they are not alone. It's not that complicated, but the explanations seem to sound far more complex than it really is. I'm 78 and I just about get it and there are a good few with more miles on the clock here. There is no way 'round it you just have to learn at least the basics.They need a pal or fellow photographer to sit down with them at the computer and just demonstrate a bit. They must have some basic software which has enabled them to convert the NEF files in camera to TIFFs. The Nikon D810 is a big body and probably overkill, but that's what they bought, presumably so they could use the old lenses they were used to. These big full frame cameras are just about as big as my old Pentax 67s and I really wouldn't want to return to dragging that kind of kit around.

 

On the subject of software, there are free systems out there like Gimp and the cut-down version of Photoshop at about $100 would be more than enough to cope. Lightroom is fairly cheap and liked by lots of photographers. Once you get the hang of the basics, cropping and adjusting is a revelation. Even without becoming expert, you can tidy up a lot. You might even enjoy it!

 

Back in the early days, I submitted 50 megabit files from my scanner on DVDs but Alamy won't want those now

Edited November 5, 2019 by Robert M Estall

[MDM]

30 minutes ago, Robert M Estall said:

Flo and Paul need help getting a grasp on this whole subject of size and file format. It's remarkable how often this crops up on this forum, so they are not alone. It's not that complicated, but the explanations seem to sound far more complex than it really is. I'm 78 and I just about get it and there are a good few with more miles on the clock here. They need a pal or fellow photographer to sit down with them at the computer and just demonstrate a bit. They must have some basic software which has enabled them to convert the NEF files in camera to TIFFs. The Nikon D810 is a big body and probably overkill, but that's what they bought, presumably so they could use the old lenses they were used to. These big full frame cameras are just about as big as my old Pentax 67s and I really wouldn't want to return to dragging that kind of kit around

 

On the subject of software, there are free systems out there like Gimp and the cut-down version of Photoshop at about $100 would be more than enough to cope. Lightroom is fairly cheap and liked by lots of photographers. Once you get the hang of the basics, cropping and adjusting is a revelation. Even without becoming expert, you can tidy up a lot. You might even enjoy it!

 

Back in the early days, I submitted 50 megabit files from my scanner on DVDs but Alamy won't want those now

 

I think they need more than a pal to sit down with them for a demo. It is clear that they need to start right at the basics and it is a pity that they didn't ask for help before embarking on such a huge project with what is most likely a sub-standard scanner. In fact, having followed this thread carefully, I would say that the whole approach needs rethinking. 

 

The D810 is not in fact a particularly big camera body at all by the way - it is just under 1 kg. With a 50mm lens on, it is quite petite in fact. However, it is big in terms of the files it produces at 36MP as there are a lot of advantages to using a large MP camera but that is another story. Reading between the lines here, it is clear that they are not doing any editing of the D810 images so must be shooting JPEGs. 

 

So starting back on the basics of digital imaging is an essential step for Flo and Paul as they appear to have gone a long way down a blind alley. Of course they may be able to submit their scans as archival and the images may be up to scratch for that but they were not aware until a long way through this thread that they need to submit as jpeg and that it is possible to convert from tiff to jpeg - their knowledge of digital imaging is indeed that basic. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by MDM

[Robert M Estall]

For sure Michael,  a session or two with a digital savvy pal isn't going to solve  all their problems but if they can make a start, they may see a learning path opening. You don't have to be an expert to get reasonable results. Some seem content with a very basic grasp, others learn complex  moves. I might point to Jeff Greenberg who seems to have gone missing from the forum. He uploaded phenomenal quantities and resisted developing post production skills other than basics. Personally, I think he took that approach to an extreme but it seemed to work for him.

[Betty LaRue]

I have to back up what Michael, MDM, said. When I first started, I saved my files in Tiff format on DVDs. This is when we had to submit Tiffs on CDs to Alamy.  Much to my sorrow, a few years later when I put them in my computer to view, probably 50% of them were corrupted and lost to me. Forever. I had saved duplicate DVDs, but most of those were corrupted, as well. I had even bought gold (expensive) DVDs and they stood up no better, at least not that I could tell.
So please, put your images in whatever form, Tiff or jpeg, on a desktop hard drive and back up them up on another. Considering the time you spent shooting your images and more agonizing time scanning them, you need to protect them.

 

 Funny thing, that. My first hard drive (my only hard drive) after the DVD debacle, failed. I spent a goodly sum of money to recover those files, and some, maybe 15%, could not be recovered.  That’s when I bought TWO drives, transferred those recovered images onto both drives. I figured if one failed, I’d quickly get another and copy over to it. Everything I’ve done since has been saved and duplicated on two drives. That’s the bare minimum you should do.

Back in the day when I bought my first Photoshop, I bought Scott Kelby’s Photoshop For Dummies. It was put in simple 1 2 3 4 5 steps of instructions anyone, even non-technical me could understand. I quickly learned how to adjust Levels, fix the White Balance and a few other things. I learned just enough to improve my RAW files just enough to submit. As time went on, I learned more, improved more. I doubt those books are done now because Photoshop would add new features before a book came out in print. But there are a lot of tutorials online. To me, though, I prefer the books, I learn better with hard copies.

 

You don’t need to become a whiz overnight. You just need to learn just enough to get going, and the rest will come eventually.

Betty

[Old school]

On 31/10/2019 at 08:59, MDM said:

 

You have mentioned 100s of dual-layer disks a few times. I am just wondering if you were advised to use DVDs? If so I think that is likely to have been bad advice. That is a very expensive, inefficient and ultimately unwise way to store an archive of images. Hard drives are much cheaper nowadays than DVDs, are much faster to transfer data to and are likely to be more reliable as an archiving medium - better to buy a new drive or drives every few years and redo the backup. Cloud storage may be preferable in the long run. Also you are almost certainly wasting a lot of space saving as TIFF given that the scans are sub-standard in the first place. Much better to write them back out as JPEGs and store them. They would need to be JPEGs for Alamy anyway as far as I know.

Been deer hunting the last 7-days so i am out of the loop and now catching up with replies from ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS to my original question regarding scanning slides to JPEG.  Original purpose of putting the scanned slides on DVD was mobility and the ability to 'copy' the entire disk to submit with the short story article.  Our scanning began more than 7-years ago.  We do not manipulate the scanned image with any software ie. PHOTOSHOP.  We now use a WESTERN DIGITAL MY DUO external storage unit with 20-terabit capacity with dual storage units with each one of 10-terabit capacity.  When formatted, each has 9+ terabit capacity. We have used about 6-terabit in each storage unit coping the disks.  Use of the dual-layer disk was a decision that cannot be reversed and was the best decision at the time.  Again, our thanks for your insight to our dilemma.  Flo and Paul 

[Old school]

20 hours ago, Robert M Estall said:

Flo and Paul need help getting a grasp on this whole subject of size and file format. It's remarkable how often this crops up on this forum, so they are not alone. It's not that complicated, but the explanations seem to sound far more complex than it really is. I'm 78 and I just about get it and there are a good few with more miles on the clock here. There is no way 'round it you just have to learn at least the basics.They need a pal or fellow photographer to sit down with them at the computer and just demonstrate a bit. They must have some basic software which has enabled them to convert the NEF files in camera to TIFFs. The Nikon D810 is a big body and probably overkill, but that's what they bought, presumably so they could use the old lenses they were used to. These big full frame cameras are just about as big as my old Pentax 67s and I really wouldn't want to return to dragging that kind of kit around.

 

On the subject of software, there are free systems out there like Gimp and the cut-down version of Photoshop at about $100 would be more than enough to cope. Lightroom is fairly cheap and liked by lots of photographers. Once you get the hang of the basics, cropping and adjusting is a revelation. Even without becoming expert, you can tidy up a lot. You might even enjoy it!

 

Back in the early days, I submitted 50 megabit files from my scanner on DVDs but Alamy won't want those now

Dear Robert, Actually, we bought the Nikon D810 because we couldn't afford Nikon's D5.  And, we wanted a full-frame digital camera. Lens were a bonus.  We originally set-up the D810 to store in TFF but the files were huge and could not be sent by email.  We now have the camera set to JPEG fine resulting in  images that are consistently between 20 and 30 MB.  Various options with the menu of the D810 have been set to NORMAL with a 1/3 bias on exposure...same bias we used for slide film.  We are beginning to apply for ALAMY's vintage program after Paul's deer hunt for 7-days.  Again, our thanks for your insight.  cheers flo and paul

[Old school]

On 28/10/2019 at 07:45, MDM said:

 

I strongly recommend copying the slides using your D810 and the Nikon ES-1 Slide Copier and a micro-Nikkor lens. If you happen to have the 55mm micro-Nikkor in your lens collection, then you will need an extension ring as well to bring it up to lifesize. Or you can use the 60mm micro - Nikkor. I use a daylight LED as backlight. 

 

Having used a very decent slide scanner (Nikon LS4000) and the above setup I can say without any doubt that the copying method above is far superior after a bit of tweaking. It is also far faster.

 

The trick is to shoot raw, use a bit of noise reduction balanced with appropriate sharpening in Lightroom or ACR and then finally downsize the resulting image to 3000x2000 pixels. Way better than scanning unless you pay for drum scans.

 

 

Dear MDM. thank you for your suggestion of using the D801 to scan our slides...regrettably we have too many slides to make that a viable option.  We thank you for your recommendations' cheers, Flo and Paul

[Old school]

20 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I think they need more than a pal to sit down with them for a demo. It is clear that they need to start right at the basics and it is a pity that they didn't ask for help before embarking on such a huge project with what is most likely a sub-standard scanner. In fact, having followed this thread carefully, I would say that the whole approach needs rethinking. 

 

The D810 is not in fact a particularly big camera body at all by the way - it is just under 1 kg. With a 50mm lens on, it is quite petite in fact. However, it is big in terms of the files it produces at 36MP as there are a lot of advantages to using a large MP camera but that is another story. Reading between the lines here, it is clear that they are not doing any editing of the D810 images so must be shooting JPEGs. 

 

So starting back on the basics of digital imaging is an essential step for Flo and Paul as they appear to have gone a long way down a blind alley. Of course they may be able to submit their scans as archival and the images may be up to scratch for that but they were not aware until a long way through this thread that they need to submit as jpeg and that it is possible to convert from tiff to jpeg - their knowledge of digital imaging is indeed that basic. 

Dear MDM, Your note is our key of 'converting' our already existing TFF images on dual-layer disk to JPEG using our 'computer' to do so...in reading replies to our original question, that 'conversion' seems to satisfy our ability to use our alreading existing dual-layer files on DVDs and having our computer to the work...our dilemma is our computer capable and we simply have no idea at this time.  We'll have to as DATA DOCTORS who we have a maintenance agreement for help.  Again, our thanks for your recommendations. cheers, flo and paul

[Old school]

11 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I have to back up what Michael, MDM, said. When I first started, I saved my files in Tiff format on DVDs. This is when we had to submit Tiffs on CDs to Alamy.  Much to my sorrow, a few years later when I put them in my computer to view, probably 50% of them were corrupted and lost to me. Forever. I had saved duplicate DVDs, but most of those were corrupted, as well. I had even bought gold (expensive) DVDs and they stood up no better, at least not that I could tell.
So please, put your images in whatever form, Tiff or jpeg, on a desktop hard drive and back up them up on another. Considering the time you spent shooting your images and more agonizing time scanning them, you need to protect them.

 

 Funny thing, that. My first hard drive (my only hard drive) after the DVD debacle, failed. I spent a goodly sum of money to recover those files, and some, maybe 15%, could not be recovered.  That’s when I bought TWO drives, transferred those recovered images onto both drives. I figured if one failed, I’d quickly get another and copy over to it. Everything I’ve done since has been saved and duplicated on two drives. That’s the bare minimum you should do.

Back in the day when I bought my first Photoshop, I bought Scott Kelby’s Photoshop For Dummies. It was put in simple 1 2 3 4 5 steps of instructions anyone, even non-technical me could understand. I quickly learned how to adjust Levels, fix the White Balance and a few other things. I learned just enough to improve my RAW files just enough to submit. As time went on, I learned more, improved more. I doubt those books are done now because Photoshop would add new features before a book came out in print. But there are a lot of tutorials online. To me, though, I prefer the books, I learn better with hard copies.

 

You don’t need to become a whiz overnight. You just need to learn just enough to get going, and the rest will come eventually.

Betty

Dear Betty, we are sorry to hear of the 'loss' of your work on the DVDs.  Fearing we could 'lose' the images in our hard-drive due to failure, we bought a WESTERN DIGITAL MY DUO hard drive with 20-terabit capacity in a dual-status. When formatted, each storage unit had 9+ terabits of capacity.  We have used about 6-terabits in each of the 2-storage units to store the scanned images on the dual-layer DVDs...very slow process but we have hopes that failure of the DVDs and or our computer will not result in a huge loss.  Again, our thanks for your recommendation. cheers, Flo and Paul

[spacecadet]

25 minutes ago, Old school said:

 suggestion of using the D801 to scan our slides...regrettably we have too many slides to make that a viable option. 

Copying is far faster than scanning. I found I could manage at least 100 mounted slides/hour.

Edited November 6, 2019 by spacecadet

[Chuck Nacke]

Don't really think that the Pacific Image scanner is the right tool for the job, just my opinion.

 

Workflow:  Mine has never changed.  Scan at 4000DPI (CanoScan FS4000 and Vue Scan) to 16bit TIFF,

do my correcting, spotting, etc.  Downsize slightly, go to 8bit and save as JPEG.  I do keep all retouched

and captioned 16bit TIFF's, in folders specific to the subject and JPEG's uploaded in a Alamy folder. 

I do all work in aRGB color space.

 

On another note, It appears to me that once uploaded to Alamy as a JPEG, the previews on Alamy

appear to gain contrast and git a tiny bit darker?

 

I have about 75lbs of Photoshop / Lightroom books and have read most of them going back to PS 3.  I do keep Scott Kelby's

Lightroom book on my desk and go to it often.

 

Chuck

Edited November 6, 2019 by Chuck Nacke
Clarity

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Old school said:

Dear MDM. thank you for your suggestion of using the D801 to scan our slides...regrettably we have too many slides to make that a viable option.  We thank you for your recommendations' cheers, Flo and Paul

 

This is your first and most fundemantal problem. Your second problem is that you have used a non-professional grade scanner and scanned a large number of images already without getting to grips with the basics of image editing. This is not manipulation, it is an essential part of the process.

 

It would have been a much more sensible and practical idea to select a much smaller number of slides for scanning (or copying as I said), choosing the best and leaving out similars. Looking at the pictures you have on Alamy at the moment, you seem to have taken a similar approach as with the slides )e.g. your bear shots). You have loads of similars, unedited straight from the camera and many of the pictures look like tourist snapshots which could have been taken on a phone even. A much better approach would be to choose a few of the best and upload them but it would be far better again to learn the basics of image editing which would enable you to greatly improve a small subset of your images and discard the rest in terms of uploading for stock.

 

 

3 hours ago, Old school said:

Dear MDM, Your note is our key of 'converting' our already existing TFF images on dual-layer disk to JPEG using our 'computer' to do so...in reading replies to our original question, that 'conversion' seems to satisfy our ability to use our alreading existing dual-layer files on DVDs and having our computer to the work...our dilemma is our computer capable and we simply have no idea at this time.  We'll have to as DATA DOCTORS who we have a maintenance agreement for help.  Again, our thanks for your recommendations. cheers, flo and paul

 

You don't need Data Doctors for this. You just need some basic image editing software and a tiny bit of widely available guidance to undertake what is an incredibly simple process. 

 

 

[geogphotos]

Given the ease in which several of you are reporting copying old slides using a camera rather than a scanner ( 100 per hour I see mentioned) can you point to any professional labs or similar  business providing this service.

 

Compared with film scanning I imagine that the prices are much more modest. 

[MDM]

16 hours ago, Robert M Estall said:

For sure Michael,  a session or two with a digital savvy pal isn't going to solve  all their problems but if they can make a start, they may see a learning path opening. You don't have to be an expert to get reasonable results. Some seem content with a very basic grasp, others learn complex  moves.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you on this Robert. They just need to open a door but they appear to be looking in the wrong direction and they have spent years on this already most likely on the wrong track it seems to me as in my post above.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

can you point to any professional labs or similar  business providing this service.

I suspect that you won't find many businesses revealing their methods unless it's very high end, Imacon/Hasselblad/Drum for example, no reason for them to do so. Most local minilabs will have a built in scanner anyway, Kodak/Pakon or similar but I think the resolution is limited to 3000 x 2000 px.

 

I see that this outfit claim to scan to 4000 dpi and only charge 40p per 35mm slide and they are "hand cleaned prior to scanning".

 

https://www.digitalconverters.co.uk/product/photos-to-digital/

 

Goodness knows how they can do it for that .

 

A business may well have a batch feed Nikon already but these tend to be expensive secondhand, they probably need cleaning/servicing and I think that once the bulbs go they're landfill .

 

If starting from scratch then doing it yourself by camera scanning is a better option, you also get RAW files as the output, I imagine that most labs supply jpegs.

 

This is what I would like for Christmas:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBvaBzvrTTo

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[geogphotos]

15 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I suspect that you won't find many businesses revealing their methods unless it's very high end, Imacon/Hasselblad/Drum for example, no reason for them to do so. Most local minilabs will have a built in scanner anyway, Kodak/Pakon or similar but I think the resolution is limited to 3000 x 2000 px.

 

I see that this outfit claim to scan to 4000 dpi and only charge 40p per 35mm slide and they are "hand cleaned prior to scanning".

 

https://www.digitalconverters.co.uk/product/photos-to-digital/

 

Goodness how they can do it for that .

 

A business may well have a batch feed Nikon already but these tend to be expensive secondhand, they probably need cleaning/servicing and I think that once the bulbs go they're landfill .

 

If starting from scratch then doing it yourself by camera scanning is a better option, you also get RAW files as the output, I imagine that most labs supply jpegs.

 

This is what I would like for Christmas:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBvaBzvrTTo

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

I have a Minolta Dimage Multipro but haven't used it for years. I guess at my peak workflow I was scanning perhaps 40 slides a day. 

 

I was just wondering if this camera solution was available commercially. Maybe one day I'll get organised to do it myself.

[Old school]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

This is your first and most fundemantal problem. Your second problem is that you have used a non-professional grade scanner and scanned a large number of images already without getting to grips with the basics of image editing. This is not manipulation, it is an essential part of the process.

 

It would have been a much more sensible and practical idea to select a much smaller number of slides for scanning (or copying as I said), choosing the best and leaving out similars. Looking at the pictures you have on Alamy at the moment, you seem to have taken a similar approach as with the slides )e.g. your bear shots). You have loads of similars, unedited straight from the camera and many of the pictures look like tourist snapshots which could have been taken on a phone even. A much better approach would be to choose a few of the best and upload them but it would be far better again to learn the basics of image editing which would enable you to greatly improve a small subset of your images and discard the rest in terms of uploading for stock.

 

 

 

You don't need Data Doctors for this. You just need some basic image editing software and a tiny bit of widely available guidance to undertake what is an incredibly simple process. 

 

 

Dear MDM,

Our decision NOT TO EDIT via PHOTOSHOP or any other such tools is a conscious one...we simply do not wish to 'learn' the PHOTOSHOP techniques or any other such tools...if that causes us to be doomed, then so be it!  Nor are we inclined to invest additional funds to buy a 'better' scanner or software.  A sizable number of ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS relay they use various 'scanners' and or software...while we can read the text, it has no meaning to us.  Whether the many suggestions are 'incredibly simple process,' for the ALAMY CONTRIBUTORs making the suggestions of 'how easy it is,' that is not true for us. Given our decision NOT to buy additional software or a better scanner, we will follow up with the 'vintage/archival' option with ALAMY.  if that doesn't work, we remain status quo.  Again, our thanks for taking time to recommend solutions.  Cheers, Flo and Paul

[MDM]

12 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks.

 

I have a Minolta Dimage Multipro but haven't used it for years. I guess at my peak workflow I was scanning perhaps 40 slides a day. 

 

I was just wondering if this camera solution was available commercially. Maybe one day I'll get organised to do it myself.

 

Copy 100 frames an hour with a camera - perhaps with a team of elves and three or four cameras. I think the Nikon camera option is the best but it is the slow cooking gourmet option as there is a lot of subsequent processing to do to bring the images up to scratch. Nikon now have the ES2 copier which has a batch filmstrip option but loading, focusing and shooting would slow it down a lot. To get images for uploading by the archival route, it would be better to use something like the 40p per 35mm slide option that Harry mentions. 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

22 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I was scanning perhaps 40 slides a day

Yes, and of course the retouching to 100% takes a long time also. that's why it's perfectly possible to put up with a slow scanner if the scanning time can be used for that.

[Harry Harrison]

27 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Minolta Dimage Multipro

That's a lot of scanner to have lying around, and I don't think that the bulbs have been available for a long time. They still fetch over £1000 on the popular auction site.