Professional scans

[Betty LaRue]

I went through some old negatives of mine looking for a particular one I want to paint a watercolor from. I had a print at one time, but my husband did things to the photo envelopes while he was suffering dementia. I can’t find the original 4x6 print, or the 8x10 I had printed, which won a photo contest.
 

But I did find the 2 negatives of the lobster shack images I want. I took them to a shop to get prints made. But he started talking dpi, what did I want. There I was, only knowing my mp of my camera, and the pixel size of 6000 on longest side that I see in PS. He couldn’t seem to tell me what pixel size a certain dpi would give me if I want scans to upload.  So I was talking French, he was talking German.

I want two 8x10 prints for painting reference. 
I finally went on the web awhile ago and found an article saying not to go over the native dpi of the scanner used. It only degrades the image. I don’t know the information about the scanner he uses. (I’ll find out, though)

I found that, should I want other scanning done for possible Alamy uploads, that scanning at 4000 dpi will give me a print up to 24x36”, pixel dimensions of 5200 by 3400, which is plenty big enough for Alamy, should I want to go that direction.

Is there anything wrong with these numbers? I’m like a babe in the woods, here.

I understand for the two 8x10 prints I want, I don’t need a scan of 4000 dpi. I just need something clear enough to paint from.
 

And yes, I’ve thought about doing my own camera scans, but I don’t have a holder. Most of what I’d be scanning would be slides, not negatives, then if I actually managed to do it myself, I don’t have a clue how to develop the resulting digital negative.

I’ve always said I’m not technical, and boy, is that true. I’m showing my ignorance here.

So...if I eventually have any of my negatives or slides scanned, is 4000 dpi ok? I doubt I can do many, too expensive.
Thanks, 

Betty

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Betty LaRue

[Sharon]

Betty, your question got me thinking about my own negatives and slides so did some digging and found this website... really easy to understand... and in answer to your 4000 dpi question the answer is yes.

One day I hope to scan all my archived (read stored in a shoe box) slides and negatives.

https://howtoscan.ca/scanning-tips/best-slide-scan-resolution.php

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

So...if I eventually have any of my negatives or slides scanned, is 4000 dpi ok

Betty, scanning at 4000 ppi is, as a rule of thumb, reckoned to get the most out of anything but the finest of grain 35mm negatives or slides, that's why so many reasonably affordable scanners ended up at that maximum resolution. If you were scanning yourself with one of these scanners, using up your own time, then it doesn't make sense to scan at lower resolutions than this so you never have to go back and rescan.

 

However, if you're paying a lab to do it then since in this case you probably only ever want a 10"x8" print then you can look at it this way instead:

 

You'll need to think about a 12"x8" print from the full frame, if you crop it to 10"x8" then that's up to you.

 

The standard resolution for printing is 300 ppi so for 12"x8" you'll only be wanting 3600 x 2400 pixels for the best quality.

 

So that means scanning at 2400 dpi.

 

In fact you'll get a print almost as good by printing at 240 ppi, certainly every bit good enough to paint from, or to put on the wall and that would mean scanning at only 2000 dpi.

 

Any minilab photo printing outfit should be able to do that on their minilab machine and they shouldn't really charge that much to do it, it's easy for them.

 

You're right that although camera 'scanning' would be the way to go if you were going to do a lot of it yourself, colour negative is a bit trickier as you have to reverse the colour image, deal with the orange base etc. etc. but that's what those minilab machines are built for, they do that all day long, any prints that you get from them are being produced by scans that the machine has made itself.

 

If this guy couldn't explain that easily I might suggest going somewhere else.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Chuck Nacke]

4 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I went through some old negatives of mine looking for a particular one I want to paint a watercolor from. I had a print at one time, but my husband did things to the photo envelopes while he was suffering dementia. I can’t find the original 4x6 print, or the 8x10 I had printed, which won a photo contest.
 

But I did find the 2 negatives of the lobster shack images I want. I took them to a shop to get prints made. But he started talking dpi, what did I want. There I was, only knowing my mp of my camera, and the pixel size of 6000 on longest side that I see in PS. He couldn’t seem to tell me what pixel size a certain dpi would give me if I want scans to upload.  So I was talking French, he was talking German.

I want two 8x10 prints for painting reference. 
I finally went on the web awhile ago and found an article saying not to go over the native dpi of the scanner used. It only degrades the image. I don’t know the information about the scanner he uses. (I’ll find out, though)

I found that, should I want other scanning done for possible Alamy uploads, that scanning at 4000 dpi will give me a print up to 24x36”, pixel dimensions of 5200 by 3400, which is plenty big enough for Alamy, should I want to go that direction.

Is there anything wrong with these numbers? I’m like a babe in the woods, here.

I understand for the two 8x10 prints I want, I don’t need a scan of 4000 dpi. I just need something clear enough to paint from.
 

And yes, I’ve thought about doing my own camera scans, but I don’t have a holder. Most of what I’d be scanning would be slides, not negatives, then if I actually managed to do it myself, I don’t have a clue how to develop the resulting digital negative.

I’ve always said I’m not technical, and boy, is that true. I’m showing my ignorance here.

So...if I eventually have any of my negatives or slides scanned, is 4000 dpi ok? I doubt I can do many, too expensive.
Thanks, 

Betty

 

 

Betty,

 

I work with "scans" daily,  I am not a fan of photographing  negatives or slides with a DSLR.  If you want a quality 8 X10 print from a negative almost any scan over 2700dpi will work.

If you would like to see a 4000dpi scan from a 35mm FUJI chrome (Slide) take a look at image: 2CBXYKX  I could make a 16 X 20 color print of that if I wanted.  The easy way to do this, if you have the original slides or negatives is find someone who can do a 3,000 by or 4,000 by scan in aRGB color, if they can give you 16bit TIFF's it is better, but some do not.  There are some COSTCO's that still have a lab and some will do scans.  Some labs will want you to bring your own media (USB) or charge you for one.

 

I do know "high-end" pre-press labs that are running very high-end scanners and they charge a lot of money per scan, used by artists who want perfect color and prints over 60 by in 16bit aRGB color.

 

Keep in mind that it takes me from hours to weeks to prep (retouch dust spots and color correct) a scan for Alamy, way more than is needed for a simple 8 X 10 print

 

I will add that if you have a really unique or valuable image ( I know your husband's image) do not leave while they are scanning the original and demand that they clear the file after they have given it to you on whatever media.

 

Chuck

Edited August 26, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
addition

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I went through some old negatives of mine looking for a particular one I want to paint a watercolor from. I had a print at one time, but my husband did things to the photo envelopes while he was suffering dementia. I can’t find the original 4x6 print, or the 8x10 I had printed, which won a photo contest.
 

But I did find the 2 negatives of the lobster shack images I want. I took them to a shop to get prints made. But he started talking dpi, what did I want. There I was, only knowing my mp of my camera, and the pixel size of 6000 on longest side that I see in PS. He couldn’t seem to tell me what pixel size a certain dpi would give me if I want scans to upload.  So I was talking French, he was talking German.

I want two 8x10 prints for painting reference. 
I finally went on the web awhile ago and found an article saying not to go over the native dpi of the scanner used. It only degrades the image. I don’t know the information about the scanner he uses. (I’ll find out, though)

I found that, should I want other scanning done for possible Alamy uploads, that scanning at 4000 dpi will give me a print up to 24x36”, pixel dimensions of 5200 by 3400, which is plenty big enough for Alamy, should I want to go that direction.

Is there anything wrong with these numbers? I’m like a babe in the woods, here.

I understand for the two 8x10 prints I want, I don’t need a scan of 4000 dpi. I just need something clear enough to paint from.
 

And yes, I’ve thought about doing my own camera scans, but I don’t have a holder. Most of what I’d be scanning would be slides, not negatives, then if I actually managed to do it myself, I don’t have a clue how to develop the resulting digital negative.

I’ve always said I’m not technical, and boy, is that true. I’m showing my ignorance here.

So...if I eventually have any of my negatives or slides scanned, is 4000 dpi ok? I doubt I can do many, too expensive.
Thanks, 

Betty

 

 

 

Assuming your negatives are from 35mm film, the size of the exposed area of film is 36 x 24 mm.

For simplicity I'll approximate these dimensions as 1.5" x 1" which makes the sums easier.

So if these negatives are scanned at 2,000 Dots Per Inch (2,000 DPI) for example, the resulting scan will contain 3,000 x 2,000 pixels, or 6MP

 

Mark

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

When I needed a quick and dirty copy before I had the Illumitran I just held the neg up to the window (or a desk lamp) and photographed it as close up as I could get. PS has an "invert" somewhere and in LR you just drag the ends of the tone curve- highlights to shadows and shadows to highlights.

No good for bulk copying but it would do for the reference.

Edited August 26, 2020 by spacecadet

[Ed Rooney]

I used to own a Honeywell Repronar slide duplicator. The two dozen or so scans I have on Alamy were made with that. I had a couple of hundred slides set aside to scan, but the flash head burned out and I had not found a new one. All my film slides are gone now after the Mulberry Street fire. Here's one:

 

 

 

 

The Repronar was suggested to me by Pete Turner when I interviewed him for The Nikon Image Book. He used it to do special masked film copies at the time, which was before digital. 

 

I notice they have some of these copiers for sale on eBay

[spacecadet]

47 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

I used to own a Honeywell Repronar slide duplicator. The two dozen or so scans I have on Alamy were made with that. I had a couple of hundred slides set aside to scan, but the flash head burned out and I had not found a new one. All my film slides are gone now after the Mulberry Street fire. Here's one:

 

 

 

 

 

The Repronar was suggested to me by Pete Turner when I interviewed him for The Nikon Image Book. He used it to do special masked film copies at the time, which was before digital. 

 

I notice they have some of these copiers for sale on eBay

Ah yes- a lot like the Illumitran!

Sorry you lost your slides, Ed. Mine are unprojected for 20 years and all scanned now, but I couldn't part with them. Magical artefacts of a bygone age.

[Betty LaRue]

7 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Assuming your negatives are from 35mm film, the size of the exposed area of film is 36 x 24 mm.

For simplicity I'll approximate these dimensions as 1.5" x 1" which makes the sums easier.

So if these negatives are scanned at 2,000 Dots Per Inch (2,000 DPI) for example, the resulting scan will contain 3,000 x 2,000 pixels, or 6MP

 

Mark

 

What I needed to know, Mark. You always cut right to the chase. Thanks! 😘

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

When I needed a quick and dirty copy before I had the Illumitran I just held the neg up to the window (or a desk lamp) and photographed it as close up as I could get. PS has an "invert" somewhere and in LR you just drag the ends of the tone curve- highlights to shadows and shadows to highlights.

No good for bulk copying but it would do for the reference.

Interesting. I saw a reference to that, probably by you, in the past but forgot it.

[Betty LaRue]

On 26/08/2020 at 00:14, Chuck Nacke said:

Betty,

 

I work with "scans" daily,  I am not a fan of photographing  negatives or slides with a DSLR.  If you want a quality 8 X10 print from a negative almost any scan over 2700dpi will work.

If you would like to see a 4000dpi scan from a 35mm FUJI chrome (Slide) take a look at image: 2CBXYKX  I could make a 16 X 20 color print of that if I wanted.  The easy way to do this, if you have the original slides or negatives is find someone who can do a 3,000 by or 4,000 by scan in aRGB color, if they can give you 16bit TIFF's it is better, but some do not.  There are some COSTCO's that still have a lab and some will do scans.  Some labs will want you to bring your own media (USB) or charge you for one.

 

I do know "high-end" pre-press labs that are running very high-end scanners and they charge a lot of money per scan, used by artists who want perfect color and prints over 60 by in 16bit aRGB color.

 

Keep in mind that it takes me from hours to weeks to prep (retouch dust spots and color correct) a scan for Alamy, way more than is needed for a simple 8 X 10 print

 

I will add that if you have a really unique or valuable image ( I know your husband's image) do not leave while they are scanning the original and demand that they clear the file after they have given it to you on whatever media.

 

Chuck

Great advice, Chuck. My guy called yesterday and said he would scan my two images at 2800dpi. I should get the resulting 8x10s today sometime. I’m not worrying overmuch about color rendition because when painting in watercolor, I choose my colors and they don’t have to be true to reality. In fact, the painting usually makes the colors much more interesting.
 

Plus I remember the scene perfectly. My husband was driving down a 2 lane road in Maine, close to the ocean. We passed an old, weathered shack with old lobster buoys hanging on the front. I yelled, STOP! Nearly scared my husband and mother to death. I didn’t have but a minute for a quick two shots because of traffic.

Back then, my camera was a 35mm Cannon Sureshot, but I got beautiful images with it. The best thing going for me was a decent knowledge of composition for what I considered artistic photos.  It was years later when I got my first professional camera.
Thanks. I feel more confident about the 2800dpi now.
Betty

[Betty LaRue]

On 26/08/2020 at 04:03, Ed Rooney said:

I used to own a Honeywell Repronar slide duplicator. The two dozen or so scans I have on Alamy were made with that. I had a couple of hundred slides set aside to scan, but the flash head burned out and I had not found a new one. All my film slides are gone now after the Mulberry Street fire. Here's one:

 

 

 

 

The Repronar was suggested to me by Pete Turner when I interviewed him for The Nikon Image Book. He used it to do special masked film copies at the time, which was before digital. 

 

I notice they have some of these copiers for sale on eBay

I’m so sorry you lost those in the fire. Was it smoke damage? I thought I remembered that the flames didn’t reach your apartment.

[Ed Rooney]

"I thought I remembered that the flames didn’t reach your apartment."

 

You remember correctly, Betty. But the step-by-step details of what happened following the fire are complex and numerous. And some of it is personal. I'll just say that everything I did in my life before that day is gone. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Ed Rooney

[M.Chapman]

On 26/08/2020 at 06:14, Chucke Nacke said:

If you would like to see a 4000dpi scan from a 35mm FUJI chrome (Slide) take a look at image: 2CBXYKX

 

4000 dpi??  But Alamy only show low res previews/downloads with significant jpg compression.

It’s been suggested you post 100% crops of your scans before, but without luck.

Maybe you're hoping we'll buy a copy of 2CBXYKX, for personal use, so we can see the 4000dpi detail? 😉

 

Mark

Edited August 29, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Betty LaRue]

On 25/08/2020 at 21:11, Sharon said:

Betty, your question got me thinking about my own negatives and slides so did some digging and found this website... really easy to understand... and in answer to your 4000 dpi question the answer is yes.

One day I hope to scan all my archived (read stored in a shoe box) slides and negatives.

https://howtoscan.ca/scanning-tips/best-slide-scan-resolution.php

That’s an excellent, easy to understand explanation! Wow. I took notes. My prints were scanned at 2800 and I got two nice 8x16 prints. (Yes, Harry, I would have chopped something off with 8x10s.)

The article was for slides, not film, so for film, Harry’s calculations are pretty close to the 2800dpi my scan was done at.
Im definitely beginning to see the light. 💡🕯🔦
For film, I need the same explanation the article gave for scan dpi to get over 5000 longest side, in case I want to upload them. Film negative size is 36-24mm but that doesn’t translate to inches like the slides, which are .85 x 1.30”.

Ok, 36mm is 1.417” and 24mm is .944”.  Multiply those time a dpi number (2800dpi) to get pixel size. I think. Whew. 3948 x 2643 pixels? That doesn’t seem right.
So for a pixel dimension of 5313.75 longest side I need a scan of 3750dpi? Which would get in the range of my camera output which is 6000px longest side. Sometimes I downsize to 5000 or 5200. Or less with the occasional doubtful images.

Correct me if I’m wrong, please. I want to understand this.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Betty LaRue

[Betty LaRue]

On 27/08/2020 at 14:29, Ed Rooney said:

"I thought I remembered that the flames didn’t reach your apartment."

 

You remember correctly, Betty. But the step-by-step details of what happened following the fire are complex and numerous. And some of it is personal. I'll just say that everything I did in my life before that day is gone. 

😞😥 So very sorry, Ed. You have had a very hard row to hoe, but it shows a lot of grit to get where you are now. You didn’t give up or give in, which is the easy way. You are the epitome of “True Grit”.

[M.Chapman]

22 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Ok, 36mm is 1.417” and 24mm is .944”.  Multiply those time a dpi number (2800dpi) to get pixel size. I think. Whew. 3948 x 2643 pixels? That doesn’t seem right.

That's about right. The exact number of pixels depends on rounding errors etc. For a 36 x 24mm slide scanned at 2800 DPI I calculate 3,969 x 2,646 pixels.

 

26 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

So for a pixel dimension of 5313.75 longest side I need a scan of 3750dpi?

Agreed.

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

10 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Ok, 36mm is 1.417” and 24mm is .944”.  Multiply those time a dpi number (2800dpi) to get pixel size. I think. Whew. 3948 x 2643 pixels?

Glad you're pleased with your prints, it's odd really because you should be able to say what size prints you want and then he sorts out what resolution to scan, that's what he's there for, shouldn't be down to you really, he knows his equipment. 

 

The maths is right, that would be 10.5 MP if you'd like to compare it to a camera sensor as Mark did above. A repro house might scan to a specific dpi to arrive at a particular size, seems like your chap did so, but scanners work best at their natural resolution, or maybe main fractions of that, we don't know what scanner he was using of course.

 

So a full 36 x 24mm frame at 4000 dpi would give you 5668 x 3776 pixels, or 21.4MP, that's getting close to the 24MP of your Fuji but of course side by side you'd be disappointed with the film scan because of the grain and other factors so the comparison isn't entirely useful. Unless there's a massive cost implication I'd go for 4000 dpi. Bear in mind that many on here downsize film scans to 3000 x 2000 px to safely get through normal QC though I think that 3600 x 2400 would be fine, or even larger, but would they sell any better if they were larger I wonder.

[Betty LaRue]

Thanks, Mark and Harry. The guy did try to express himself but seemed to be a little challenged. At one point, when I suggested 4000dpi he said that would be a HUGE file, and I think he said something like 80mp, which I’m not sure of. He was the middle-aged guy, but when I went to pick them up, it seems this older guy in his 70s had done the work and knew what he was doing. Probably the owner.

 

Again, thanks for helping this technically challenged lady (Using the term loosely) to find my way through the fog. 

[Chuck Nacke]

11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

4000 dpi??  But Alamy only show low res previews/downloads with significant jpg compression.

It’s been suggested you post 100% crops of your scans before, but without luck.

Maybe you're hoping we'll buy a copy of 2CBXYKX, for personal use, so we can see the 4000dpi detail? 😉

 

Mark

Do not be ridiculous Mark,

 

Most of my images are marked do not license for personal use, do not remember if I had marked that image

that way yet.  I was simply showing a 4000 DPI scan from a 35mm chrome.  I do not post images for anyone 

on this forum to critique.  

 

FYI to all:  I do often scan 35mm chromes.  I do all of my scans with a CanoScan FS 4000 with VueScan, I also always take

the chrome out of the mount which gives me an original scan of 5700+ at 300DPI and after corrections and spotting I downsize 

to 50+MB as a TIFF before saving as a JPEG.  I do not use any auto retouching.

With VueSan I often do 3 passes on the chrome before saving as a 16bit aRGB TIFF.  It does take me a lot of time to

finish or spot the scan, but I am averaging five licenses a month on Alamy from my small number of 35mm scans.

 

Betty,

 

I would suggest to you that any images that you spend the time and money on should be 4000 by at 300DPIand if you

can get 16bit TIFF files.  That way you have an original quality image if you ever decide to put it up for license.

BTW the minimum file size for most other libraries is 50MB at 300DPI. 

 

Chuck

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Do not be ridiculous Mark,

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be ridiculous. But was struggling to understand why you made a forum post directing us towards an example of a 4,000DPI scan when we can't appreciate the 4,000 DPI aspect without buying a copy (it is for sale as PU). It's a great photo - I'm not surprised you get sales from your portfolio.

 

You often mention the pride and effort you put into your scans and say they are better than DSLR copies you can get. I'm sufficiently intrigued to see the quality of your scans that I've bought a PU copy of 2CBXYKX (have a beer or two on me ) so I can take a closer look and compare with the results I'm getting using a DSLR.

Mark

Edited August 29, 2020 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

On 26/08/2020 at 06:14, Chuck Nacke said:

 

I work with "scans" daily,  I am not a fan of photographing  negatives or slides with a DSLR.  If you want a quality 8 X10 print from a negative almost any scan over 2700dpi will work.

If you would like to see a 4000dpi scan from a 35mm FUJI chrome (Slide) take a look at image: 2CBXYKX  I could make a 16 X 20 color print of that if I wanted.  The easy way to do this, 

 

Chuck

 

 

From Nikon D8590 thread Aug 9 2020

 

To all:

take a look at  - Image ID: 2CAFK3R  That was a Kodachrome shot with a Nikkor 24 AF-D on Kodachrome 64.  The image was scanned using VueScan with a CanoScan FS 4000 (single pass).

I do not think many photographing 35mm chromes  can equal that?  Took me about 10 hours to finish this image. Original TIFF image was a 5570 by 16bit TIFF in aRGB color,

 

Chuck

 

 

4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Do not be ridiculous Mark,

 

I do not post images for anyone on this forum to critique.  

 

Chuck

 

 

15 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

On 26/08/2020 at 06:14, Chucke Nacke said:

If you would like to see a 4000dpi scan from a 35mm FUJI chrome (Slide) take a look at image: 2CBXYKX

 

4000 dpi??  But Alamy only show low res previews/downloads with significant jpg compression.

It’s been suggested you post 100% crops of your scans before, but without luck.

Maybe you're hoping we'll buy a copy of 2CBXYKX, for personal use, so we can see the 4000dpi detail? 😉

 

Mark

 

 

Somewhat contradictory statements there from Chuck, pointing us towards his images as examples of his work and then saying he does not post images on the forum for anyone to critique. What are we supposed to do? Take his word for it that his scans are so good that we shouldn't actually look at the images. If anyone is being ridiculous.........

 

Rest deleted for the sake of peace.

Edited August 29, 2020 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

Mark and I have been participating in a test whereby we copy the same set of  demanding slides (extreme highlight and shadow information, fine micro detail right to the corners etc.). I have done the 'scans' on my Imacon Flextight Precison II scanner, my Microtek 4000tf dpi slide scanner, together with my Canon 5D Mk. II & Fuji X-Pro1 cameras mounted with high quality enlarging lenses on a Bowens Illumitran. I'm finding even my own results quite surprising but I'm ashamed to say that at the moment this test is stuck with me because I haven't sat down and done the inevitable processing so that they can be uploaded to Mark's cloud storage. I fully expect that when I've done that we can share our conclusions, which may well not be what we expected to see. Michael's really bad experience with Long Covid has meant that he hasn't been able to take part but I'm hoping he might be able to scan a representative few with his Nikon D850 when he has the time and feels up to it.

 

I think it is very interesting and informative to compare this new method with traditional scanners and (spoiler alert) I've actually been very impressed with the results from my ancient Microtek scanner using Vuescan. However it shouldn't be divisive and I'd be very happy to scan a slide, not one on Alamy and not one that I would mind losing, but one that was perhaps sharp with a full range of tones and then post it to Chuck if he was in agreement, and make my 'scans' available to him to demonstrate, for better or worse, how my efforts compare with what he is able to achieve with his scanner. We could all learn something.

[M.Chapman]

51 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Mark and I have been participating in a test whereby we copy the same set of  demanding slides (extreme highlight and shadow information, fine micro detail right to the corners etc.). I have done the 'scans' on my Imacon Flextight Precison II scanner, my Microtek 4000tf dpi slide scanner, together with my Canon 5D Mk. II & Fuji X-Pro1 cameras mounted with high quality enlarging lenses on a Bowens Illumitran. I'm finding even my own results quite surprising but I'm ashamed to say that at the moment this test is stuck with me because I haven't sat down and done the inevitable processing so that they can be uploaded to Mark's cloud storage. I fully expect that when I've done that we can share our conclusions, which may well not be what we expected to see. Michael's really bad experience with Long Covid has meant that he hasn't been able to take part but I'm hoping he might be able to scan a representative few with his Nikon D850 when he has the time and feels up to it.

 

I think it is very interesting and informative to compare this new method with traditional scanners and (spoiler alert) I've actually been very impressed with the results from my ancient Microtek scanner using Vuescan. However it shouldn't be divisive and I'd be very happy to scan a slide, not one on Alamy and not one that I would mind losing, but one that was perhaps sharp with a full range of tones and then post it to Chuck if he was in agreement, and make my 'scans' available to him to demonstrate, for better or worse, how my efforts compare with what he is able to achieve with his scanner. We could all learn something.

Hi Harry,

 

I hope to get the test slides you sent copied on my setup sometime over the next 2 weeks. Now the evenings are getting darker, I'll have more time. Look forward to seeing your results too.

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

25 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I hope to get the test slides you sent copied on my setup sometime over the next 2 weeks. Now the evenings are getting darker, I'll have more time. Look forward to seeing your results too.

Thanks Mark, and I'll get mine uploaded in the next two weeks also.