Archive question again

[geogphotos]

I have asked this before and also asked Alamy. I didn't get a reply from Alamy and the thread trailed away here.

 

I'm using my camera to digitise lots of old slides. Many of the slides are quite grubby and even with careful cleaning there is lots left to do in Photoshop. Now these are not going to be sent for QC they are going into Archive. The minimum file size for Archive is just 5mb ( an image only around 1750 pixels longest length). But files that small clearly limit potential uses and therefore licenses.

 

Out of the camera the RAW file once rotated, straightened, and cropped is 30-50mb ( 4500+ pixels longest side). Almost instinctively I find that I start dust spotting and removing the scratches, and that takes more time than is probably needed when the whole idea of Archive is that the image may have/almost certainly will have imperfections.

 

So my question is this - how much effort do you put into minimising those imperfections through Photoshop and then sizing down? Or do you preserve the maximum file size, only correct the most glaring imperfections and send it in like that. When I see fixable imperfections I find that instinctively I want to get on and fix them but in terms of time and effort that may not make sense. Maybe it would be better to be less conscientious?

 

Any thoughts or experiences would be very welcome. Thanks.

Edited April 11, 2020 by geogphotos

[Avpics]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

...When I see fixable imperfections I find that instinctively I want to get on and fix them...

I've applied for the archive route and sent some examples but have yet to hear back, which I'll put down to orders of priority during difficult times. My thoughts would be as quoted, if I can, I should. I wouldn't expect a customer to be happy using an image with fixable faults. I've spent a lot of time cleaning up images frustratingly slowly, but make sure I don't have anything else on my mind or to-do list which would make me feel I should be doing those rather than waste my time chasing endless spots.

[Vincent Lowe]

I've started to digitise my old slides of various trips from way back, also using a camera (Nikon).  I'm using my normal workflow - raw, 16 bit tiff, tweak & clean, 8 bit tiffs.  I will eventually reduce the size to probably about 3000 pixels on the long side and then convert to jpegs.

 

These are only for my own use with view to producing audio-visual slide shows - they will not be going to Alamy.

 

However I have been meticulously cleaning them in Photoshop.  I use a graphics tablet (Huion H610PRO) and just dab away with the pen -  it's much quicker and easier than using the mouse.  I rarely spend more than 10-15 minutes on an image.  I have just finished working on just over 250 images from a trip to Spitsbergen that I did in 1996  - took me about two weeks but only doing 10 to 20 per day as it soon gets a bit tedious.  Some days I didn't do any, sometimes more

 

I'm also digitising some 6x6 transparencies which will be going to Alamy and these also will be cleaned.  A do have archival access but, except for a few which have some historical interest, I'm uploading them via the normal QC route.  I sent 4 as a test to make sure they pass - they went straight through via the 5 star route but I contacted Alamy to ask that QC take a look at them before I sent any more.  They did and said they were fine - https://tinyurl.com/w9gcp7p

[spacecadet]

 

I don't downsize for the archival route so they also end up about 4500-5000 long side. The worst of mine has only needed about 50 spots removed- many need very few- so I've evidently been fortunate, but of course only high-key slides show much dirt anyway. It's a blow with the rocket blower and a wipe with the anti-static brush each side and on to the next.

I'm not putting up anything that could have been taken now, just proper archival.

So the answer to your question- full size, spotting, some but not obsessively. I have very few scratches as they've always been in files.

Just as an aside, from what I've seen of your samples I think they would pass QC. They are very good. If I hadn't already done the job I would consider buying a macro lens very carefully.

I have them in a separate pseudo, so I can see that in terms of sales per image, my very few archival images outperform my general collection by an order of magnitude. I wish I had more.

Edited April 12, 2020 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

58 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

I don't downsize for the archival route so they also end up about 4500-5000 long side. The worst of mine has only needed about 50 spots removed- many need very few- so I've evidently been fortunate, but of course only high-key slides show much dirt anyway. It's a blow with the rocket blower and a wipe with the anti-static brush each side and on to the next.

I'm not putting up anything that could have been taken now, just proper archival.

So the answer to your question- full size, spotting, some but not obsessively. I have very few scratches as they've always been in files.

Just as an aside, from what I've seen of your samples I think they would pass QC. They are very good. If I hadn't already done the job I would consider buying a macro lens very carefully.

I have them in a separate pseudo, so I can see that in terms of sales per image, my very few archival images outperform my general collection by an order of magnitude. I wish I had more.

 

Thanks, some would probably pass QC but then within the same set others probably wouldn't. 

 

I am grateful to the all three of you for your replies. For now I think I am going to stay at the maximum size I have and just do a reasonable job of spotting. 

 

Realistically I can't imagine that these images would be used above quarter page or less and most likely these days for web use. 

[spacecadet]

Yes that thread did get a bit angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin like at times.

The buyer can always do it himself. No-one expects 60s stills to look like yesterday's. Archive movie film often does look very clean but it's always been ultrasonically cleaned or with particle transfer rollers at least. Not an option for us.

Edited April 12, 2020 by spacecadet

[TeeCee]

19 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 When I see fixable imperfections I find that instinctively I want to get on and fix them but in terms of time and effort that may not make sense. Maybe it would be better to be less conscientious?

 

 

 

I clean everything as best I'm able before hand, after which I only correct obvious errors in Photoshop. This means that some of my images contain fairly obvious flaws...

 

 

Most of mine are digitised using on an old Jessops zoom slide copier, I leave the files at full size (5472 x 3648px), though I might trim the edges a bit if necessary.

Would I do better if the images received a more thorough treatment - I doubt it.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by TeeCee

[geogphotos]

47 minutes ago, TeeCee said:

 

I clean everything as best I'm able before hand, after which I only correct obvious errors in Photoshop. This means that some of my images contain fairly obvious flaws...

 

 

Most of mine are digitised using on an old Jessops zoom slide copier, I leave the files at full size (5472 x 3648px), though I might trim the edges a bit if necessary.

Would I do better if the images received a more thorough treatment - I doubt it.

 

 

 

I think that you are probably right. It's the subject that is going to sell images like this not whether it has a few blemishes or not. 

 

 

[Michael Ventura]

I too leave the archive photos at full resolution.  As for cleaning them up, I try to do the best I can without spending all day...I just take out the obvious and annoying imperfections.

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, TeeCee said:

 

I clean everything as best I'm able before hand, after which I only correct obvious errors in Photoshop. This means that some of my images contain fairly obvious flaws...

 

 

Most of mine are digitised using on an old Jessops zoom slide copier, I leave the files at full size (5472 x 3648px), though I might trim the edges a bit if necessary.

Would I do better if the images received a more thorough treatment - I doubt it.

 

 I would have done a little bit more spotting on that one. Just as I would have on a print. I see about half-a-dozen spots and a hair top right, but white spots always were more obvious.

Easier than ink and a sable brush nowadays fortunately.🙂

Edited April 12, 2020 by spacecadet