Professional scans

[Chuck Nacke]

12 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Michael and a few.

 

I responded to this thread for Betty's benefit.  What I wrote originally on this thread was a suggestion to Betty about my

opinion on working with digitizing film. 

 

If I did find a cost effective way to scan or digitize 35mm chromes that was better than the system that I am currently

using I would use the better system.  I will tell all right now that I did try photographing 35mm chromes with a NIKON Dxxx using 

a specifically adapted Bowens Illumitran and a Micro-NIKKOR 105 f4, sometimes adding a NIKON M2 extension tube and 

I prefer my scans from my CanoScan FS 4000.

 

Chuck

 

 

[Betty LaRue]

Come on guys. Let’s not fight. Please. Things are bad enough in this old world. 
 

[MDM]

6 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Come on guys. Let’s not fight. Please. Things are bad enough in this old world. 
 

Apologies Betty for the spillover from the argument with Chuck that started in the Canon slide copying thread. It was really just an academic argument about best ways to digitise slides where we have been sharing information about different methods and images for comparison. The issue with Chuck has been that he has continually asserted that his method of slide scanning is superior but has never said why and has refused to provide any images to back up what he was saying. So it should not be anything more than older men having a friendly discussion about how to best digitise slides which is what the other thread is about. We have actually learned a huge amount from our discussions so they have been incredibly positive. 
 

[Chuck Nacke]

14 hours ago, MDM said:

Apologies Betty for the spillover from the argument with Chuck that started in the Canon slide copying thread. It was really just an academic argument about best ways to digitise slides where we have been sharing information about different methods and images for comparison. The issue with Chuck has been that he has continually asserted that his method of slide scanning is superior but has never said why and has refused to provide any images to back up what he was saying. So it should not be anything more than older men having a friendly discussion about how to best digitise slides which is what the other thread is about. We have actually learned a huge amount from our discussions so they have been incredibly positive. 
 

Michael,

 

Very funny.  When you have images licensed that were shot from 1985 to 2020 in August of 2020 and that is just with Almay,  images shot on film and DSLR's from DCS-460's to D800's.

 

I will take your comments seriously. 

 

In my not so humble opinion, you need to spend more time on your own images and less on this forum....

 

Chuck 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
grammer

[MDM]

Deleted for peace. Time for a break. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by MDM

[MDM]

5 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by MDM

[Philip Game]

I've generally good scanning results with old 35mm transparencies fed through my Nikon Coolscan 4000, many if not all can squeak past Alamy QC. However I can't yet find a way to compensate for the golden halo effect which often results whenever a sharp boundary exists between light meets dark (e.g. bright sky, shaded wall) in the original image.   Perhaps I need a different approach to the scanner output settings.... can anybody suggest a remedy, please?

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Philip Game said:

However I can't yet find a way to compensate for the golden halo effect which often results whenever a sharp boundary exists between light meets dark

It would be useful if you could upload an example (perhaps upload to Dropbox or similar and provide a share link). That's a good scanner though I don't have one, but perhaps those on the forum that do might be able to comment. I'm wondering if the internal optics might need a clean after 15 years or so, I know my Microtek equivalent had attracted a film of dust on the mirror. Alternatively look at the other thread where there is a wealth of information on copying with a camera:

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12518-canon-slide-copying-set-up/page/33/

 

[Philip Game]

16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

It would be useful if you could upload an example (perhaps upload to Dropbox or similar and provide a share link). That's a good scanner though I don't have one, but perhaps those on the forum that do might be able to comment. I'm wondering if the internal optics might need a clean after 15 years or so, I know my Microtek equivalent had attracted a film of dust on the mirror. Alternatively look at the other thread where there is a wealth of information on copying with a camera:

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12518-canon-slide-copying-set-up/page/33/

 

Thanks, Harry.  I fear you are right about the need for a cleanup, as I've had to do so with earlier scanners.  Unfortunately, almost all 'non-essential' businesses are shut down here at present and that will surely including photographic services.   Anyway, here's a typical example, see the people sitting in full light with their backs to the photographer https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjq09p65tpo2ou1/DumaresqDamBBQ.jpg?dl

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Philip Game said:

Thanks, Harry.  I fear you are right about the need for a cleanup, as I've had to do so with earlier scanners.  Unfortunately, almost all 'non-essential' businesses are shut down here at present and that will surely including photographic services.   Anyway, here's a typical example, see the people sitting in full light with their backs to the photographer https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjq09p65tpo2ou1/DumaresqDamBBQ.jpg?dl

 

As Harry said.

 

wim

[geogphotos]

Best to go down the Archive route and bypass QC for images that have historical value. Easiest to use your camera to do the copying.

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, Philip Game said:

Anyway, here's a typical example, see the people sitting in full light with their backs to the photographer

Thanks for doing that Philip, I'd say that it was definitely internal dust/haze. Those scanners have a very good reputation and I'm sure they wouldn't have earned it by producing results like that. I don't know if a Google search will bring up a method for doing it yourself, I managed to do my Microtek very successfully, might be worth looking. I seem to remember that with mine the culprit was the front-surfaced mirror.

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Best to go down the Archive route and bypass QC for images that have historical value. Easiest to use your camera to do the copying.

+1.

If you already have a pretty decent scanner setup, it's probably worth sticking with (clean), unless you have a huge number to do, in which case the DSLR wins hands down.

 

[Harry Harrison]

13 hours ago, Philip Game said:

I fear you are right about the need for a cleanup

Here's a couple of links that at least shows you what might be involved:

 

http://www.pearsonimaging.com/articles/howto/ls5000cleaning.html

 

http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Nikon_5000_mirror_cleaning.htm

 

It really depends upon how confident you are with taking things apart, it could all go horribly wrong of course.

 

The surface of a  front surface mirror is very delicate, more so than a sensor I would say. I can't remember whether I attempted a wet clean, mine was difficult to get at because of the transport mechanism so I think I used a suitable sable brush from a distance, very carefully of course. Unlike a sensor the image is not in focus so you'll get that halation rather than spots or marks. This link is about cleaning an LS-40 but it really shows the improvement after cleaning:

 

http://www.sebsgarage.com/2005/11/cleaning-nikon-coolscan-iv-ed-ls-40-film-scanner/

Edited September 25, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[MDM]

14 hours ago, Philip Game said:

Thanks, Harry.  I fear you are right about the need for a cleanup, as I've had to do so with earlier scanners.  Unfortunately, almost all 'non-essential' businesses are shut down here at present and that will surely including photographic services.   Anyway, here's a typical example, see the people sitting in full light with their backs to the photographer https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjq09p65tpo2ou1/DumaresqDamBBQ.jpg?dl

 

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Here's a couple of links that at least shows you what might be involved:

 

http://www.pearsonimaging.com/articles/howto/ls5000cleaning.html

 

http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Nikon_5000_mirror_cleaning.htm

 

It really depends upon how confident you are with taking things apart, it could all go horribly wrong of course.

 

The surface of a  front surface mirror is very delicate, more so than a sensor I would say. I can't remember whether I attempted a wet clean, mine was difficult to get at because of the transport mechanism so I think I used a suitable sable brush from a distance, very carefully of course. Unlike a sensor the image is not in focus so you'll get that halation rather than spots or marks. This link is about cleaning an LS-40 but it really shows the improvement after cleaning:

 

http://www.sebsgarage.com/2005/11/cleaning-nikon-coolscan-iv-ed-ls-40-film-scanner/

 

That would not be something I would attempt myself as I would probably make such a mess it would end at the other end of my garden. It is very difficult to get these scanners repaired professionally now as Nikon stopped making the parts some years ago. However, I found a guy in England who does repair Nikon scanners so my old LS4000 is currently with him awaiting repairs. He is very reasonable price wise - around £100 for a service plus replace the firewire connection (he has spare parts). I don't know if there is anyone doing the same in Australia but it might be worth trying to find out. 

 

But to be really honest, camera digitisation is far faster and far better in terms of quality for reasons too numerous to mention but do have a look at that thread that Harry mentions. And depending on your existing gear, it might well be cheaper than repairing the scanner.

 

[spacecadet]

Assuming ready access, cleaning with a cotton bud and isopropyl alcohol (much cheaper than Eclipse fluid)  is not too scary to attempt. It's easy to see if the mirror is cloudy, and likewise if the cleaning has been effective.

As Harry says, the front- silvered coating is delicate, so softly softly catchee monkey. The cleaning may need repeating from time to time- I suspect there may have been a protective coating originally which has long quit the scene.

My archive collection is far, far more lucrative than my general collection, but it is small (under 2%) and chosen with care.

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by spacecadet

[Philip Game]

Thanks for the comments, everyone, I do appreciate the detailed advice. However, not at all sure that I fancy dismantling the scanner myself.  One of Melbourne's few surviving camera repair technicians once cleaned this unit or an earlier one for me, and soon I'll be able to ascertain whether his business has survived the lockdown.  At present almost every 'non-essential' business is operating behind closed doors, if at all.  Ditto for purchasing new lenses or other gear, except by mail order. 

[Philip Game]

Now that we're allowed to fan out as far as 25km from home, I've been able to drop off my Nikon Coolscan3000 for a professional clean-up.  In the meantime, it has once again earned its keep with this month's sale by Alamy of 5 scanned archival transparencies from the 1970s (backpacker hang-outs in SE Asia) and the 1980s (Abu Dhabi skylines and streetscapes). 

[Betty LaRue]

Glad you can now get it done.