Digitalized 35mm Kodachrome slides

[Old school]

Dear ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS,

I have 1000s of Kodachrome 25 & 64 & Ektachrome 100 slides I have digitized using a PACIFIC IMAGE ELECTORNICS POWER SLIDE 5000 set at optimum pixel, color, etc format.  Resulting digitized images are 200+ megapixel high resolution images I downloaded to a dual layer disk holding 8.4 gigabit formatted to 7.8 gigabit.  My question for ALAMY FORUM Contributors, has anyone digitized their 35mm slides and submitted to ALAMY?  If so, what happened?  For any contributor who has digitized Kodachrome slides knows there is a lost of fidelity from the original slide to the 'digitized' image assuming the slide is photographically and technically excellent to begin with.  What did you say to ALAMY regarding this loss?  NIKON produced a slide digitized machine several years ago that is no longer in the market...price: $8,000 U.S.D. way beyond my budget.  I am frustrated at having 1000s of slides that are on disks sitting in boxes.  Commercial companies that 'digitize' slides to disk are too expensive.  Suggestions and lessons-learned are welcome.  Cheers, Paul Jones

[Pakodominguez]

On 08/02/2021 at 11:30, geogphotos said:

I've been copying amateur Kodachrome and other slides using a macro lens holder.

 

I'm submitting them as Archive images because most are not of high enough technical standard to pass normal QC.

 

I've done around 2000 since March 2020.

How well it sells?

[kimba]

I've digitized some slides with an iPhone app and submitted through Stockimo. They've all been accepted. I marked them as vintage, travel images. Many of them are washed out and wouldn't be useable, but Stockimo goes by other QA rules. They show up in Alamy search, I think.

[M.Chapman]

17 hours ago, kimba said:

They've all been accepted. I marked them as vintage, travel images. Many of them are washed out and wouldn't be useable,

??

[geogphotos]

On 11/02/2021 at 16:18, Pakodominguez said:

How well it sells?

 

Copying old slides is a method of making images available. That's all. 

 

 

[NYCat]

18 hours ago, kimba said:

I've digitized some slides with an iPhone app and submitted through Stockimo. They've all been accepted. I marked them as vintage, travel images. Many of them are washed out and wouldn't be useable, but Stockimo goes by other QA rules. They show up in Alamy search, I think.

 

They do look for a rather filtered look so I can see how they would pass for Stockimo. What is the app?

 

Paulette

[Pakodominguez]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Copying old slides is a method of making images available. That's all. 

 

 

the question is if it worth the effort to do so.

[noelbennett]

There are Apps that turn your iPad/iPhone into a lightbox. I  have been using an App called Lightbox Extra on an iPhone. Might interest somebody. They are all inexpensive.    

[geogphotos]

7 minutes ago, Pakodominguez said:

the question is if it worth the effort to do so.

 

 

Depends if the images are saleable.

[M.Chapman]

14 hours ago, noelbennett said:

There are Apps that turn your iPad/iPhone into a lightbox. I  have been using an App called Lightbox Extra on an iPhone. Might interest somebody. They are all inexpensive.    

 

Indeed - I use an app called MyLight from the Apple App store. I've found that using it with my iPhoneSE makes a better* light source when copying Velvia slides using my G7 Lumix camera, then almost anything else I've tried (sunlight, projector lamp, GePe Lightbox, white LED). I do support the slide about 30mm above the phone to ensure any dust and the screen pixels are totally defocussed (avoids moire effects).

 

 

*Better means gives the lowest HSL errors when checking a calibrated IT8 target reference slide. Although I suspect this might be a fortunate fluke where the spectral profiles of the tricolour iPhoneSE light source align particularly favourably with those of the RGB sensor filters in my camera and the RGB transmission profiles of Velvia YCM film dyes.

 

The MyLight app also allows the colour of the light to be altered using Hue,Saturation and Luminance, sliders which may be useful. Although I leave it on white and see a WB around 6,000K

 

Mark

Edited February 13, 2021 by M.Chapman

[kimba]

 

NYCat: The App is just called "SlideScan" They also have a negative scan app but I haven't yet tried that one. 

 

M.Chapman: ?? Not sure what you are asking. Most of the images I scanned were washed out, and would not be usable under normal circumstances. Definitely wouldn't get through Alamy QA. I also pushed the filters on them, Stockimo seems to like that. 

 

 

[NYCat]

Thank you, Kimba. it seems my iPhone is (just barely) too old to get the necessary upgrade. Too bad. It sounds like fun.

 

Paulette

[Chuck Nacke]

On 10/02/2021 at 03:31, Cal said:

 

I believe you have a typo (well, two) in the title of image 2E9J6JB

Such as ?

[gvallee]

40 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Such as ?

 

Yeltsin/Yelstin??

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, kimba said:

 

NYCat: The App is just called "SlideScan" They also have a negative scan app but I haven't yet tried that one. 

 

M.Chapman: ?? Not sure what you are asking. Most of the images I scanned were washed out, and would not be usable under normal circumstances. Definitely wouldn't get through Alamy QA. I also pushed the filters on them, Stockimo seems to like that. 

 

 

 

I was just curious - If they are washed out and not usable under normal conditions, why upload them?

 

Mark

[NYCat]

4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I was just curious - If they are washed out and not usable under normal conditions, why upload them?

 

Mark

 

You can find hers in an advanced search and I like them. Stockimo likes a different look and some of the filters for iPhone images are similar to what she has done.

 

Paulette

[Old school]

On 08/02/2021 at 09:30, geogphotos said:

I've been copying amateur Kodachrome and other slides using a macro lens holder.

 

I'm submitting them as Archive images because most are not of high enough technical standard to pass normal QC.

 

I've done around 2000 since March 2020.

Dear Geogphotos, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.  Your submitting your images under the header of 'ARCHIVE' may be the only way we can submit our slides...we were not aware of the 'category' under ALAMY.  Cheers, Flo and Paul 

[Old school]

On 09/02/2021 at 00:54, Chuck Nacke said:

Paul,

 

I am "Old School" as well.  I would guess that about 25% of the images that I have available on Alamy are scans from 35mm K-14 chromes.  All were done using a CanoScan FS 4000 desk top scanner.  Now I am using VueScan to run the machine.  It is a lot of work, but I am happy with the results.  I do disagree with those who advocate photographing slides with a modern DSLR.  I would also never send out original chromes to be scanned.  Just for the record, I was a BETA tester for Kodak on the PKL emulsion (Kodachrome 200).

 

Most of my scans were submitted to Alamy via the standard route and passed QC with out a problem.

 

A good example of what I am talking about is Alamy image: 2E531YD  That was an early PKL emulsion pushed 1 1/2 stops.  It was used as a two page opener for a story in a U.S. national magazine in 1991.  The image on Alamy was scanned using one of my CanoScan FS 4000's and VueScan.  I do scan full size, 4000 DPI in 16bit aRGB and save as a TIFF, then import for Lightroom for exposure and color balance.  Then I do all of my spotting in Photoshop.  I NEVER use any auto retouching.  My target for a finished JPEG for upload is 50MB, which means that I do downsize the original a small amount. I also take the original chrome out of the mount before scanning and I also use PEC-12 and PEC PADS to clean all K-14's before scanning.

 

For the record I do see a good number of licenses a year from my scans.

 

Chuck

 

PS In my opinion the PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is not a very good unit.

Dear Chuck, Thank you for taking the time to reply.  Your skills far exceed my own.  My PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is at least 5-years old.  I am assuming your CanoScan FS 4000's and VueScan are more recent technology than My PACIFIC IMAGE scanner. Nikon had one for $8k which was too much for my budget.  I agree not to send my slides to an outside vendor.  Again, our thanks  Flo and Paul

[Old school]

On 11/02/2021 at 17:25, kimba said:

I've digitized some slides with an iPhone app and submitted through Stockimo. They've all been accepted. I marked them as vintage, travel images. Many of them are washed out and wouldn't be useable, but Stockimo goes by other QA rules. They show up in Alamy search, I think.

Dear Kimba, We thank you for taking the time to reply to our question.  Cheers, Flo and Paul

[Old school]

On 08/02/2021 at 09:31, Harry Harrison said:

Wim has given you good links to pursue. You'll find a lot of debate as to whether a scanner is better than a camera these days, but then you've already done it so maybe that isn't relevant. Basic maths suggests your Pacific scanned images are around 7200 x 4800 pixels at 16-bit. It's unlikely that you'd want to upload them at anything like that resolution, they would of course need to be 8-bit jpegs  anyway, and many downsize to around the minimum size (3000 x 2000 pixels) so that the retouching is minimised and the perceived quality compares well to digital. Alamy have high standards for images uploaded through the normal route and don't necessarily give any leeway if they are seen to be  scans from film. There is an alternative 'archive' route for which you need to seek permission and these will always have the warning to the effect that they may have imperfections. You probably need to consider carefully if your images have anything to offer over equivalent modern digital versions that are already available on Alamy, historical interest perhaps.

Dear Harry, Flo and I thank you for taking the time to reply to our question.  We asked ALAMY regarding submission of digitalized slides but no reply.  One alternative is to re-calibrate our PACIFIC scanner to a JPEG setting and select images we hope would digitalize to a more manageable pixel rating somewhere between 20 and 30 megabits.  Submit and see what happens. Cheers, Flo and Paul

[Old school]

On 08/02/2021 at 09:59, wiskerke said:

My first 155 images are scans with the Nikon Coolscan 5000. There have been more, but since deleted. Some because of embarrassing quality, others because nobody was interested let alone buying.

I really should kill off at least half of the remaining ones.

 

wim

Sad to hear no one 'wanted to dance' with your images.  Cheers, Flo and Paul

[Old school]

On 08/02/2021 at 23:40, David Pimborough said:

 

 

If you are willing to spend the time then a decent desk top scanner will do the job.  I use the Epson V550 as it has a slide and negative scanning option plus holders for the same.  Its cheap and easy to use.  Though for thousands of negatives you'll have to invest a lot of time

in processing.

 

You should request an archival submission account from Alamy you can find the link on your dashboard under 

Additional Revenue Options.

 

I've scanned a number of B&W and colour slides I found in old albums with reasonable success.

 

 

 

 

Dear David, Great suggestion...it hadn't occurred to us to request permission from ALAMY for an archival account.  At the moment, we are still struggling with figuring out how to use the 1000's of digitalized images we already have...if it is possible at all...to send to AMAMY.  If not, we are back to re-calibrating our PACIFIC IMAGE machine to a more manageable JPEG format and submit as Archival.  Again, our thanks. Flo and Paul

[Old school]

On 09/02/2021 at 23:34, sb photos said:

Before I upload digitised images via the archive route, what is the consensus wether it might be best to use a different pseudonym. I currently use only one for all my uploads. Would this depend upon the expected number of uploads, mine would likely be hundreds than thousands. The worry is a new pseudonym would start with the lowest CTR.

Dear sb photos, We thank you for your reply.  We are still wrestling with efforts to try to use our already digitalized images...but, we suspect the file is too large.  Many ALAMY contributors have successfully submitted digitalized slides to ALAMY under Archival files.  We are slowly coming to the conclusion we will need to select a group of our slides, re-calibrate our PACIFIC IMAGE scanner and see what happens with smaller digitalized files in the 20 to 30 megabits instead of 250-megabits, submit under archive and see what happens.  We would be delighted to be able to benefit from 1000's of slides.  Cheers, Flo and Paul

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Old school said:

We are slowly coming to the conclusion we will need to select a group of our slides, re-calibrate our PACIFIC IMAGE scanner and see what happens with smaller digitalized files in the 20 to 30 megabits instead of 250-megabits, submit under archive and see what happens.  We would be delighted to be able to benefit from 1000's of slides.

If you already have high quality, dust free 35mm slide scans, and just need to change the format to jpg and downsize them to 6MP then there are plenty of software routes to achieve this without rescanning. Photoshop Elements may still have a batch convert option (my old copy does). Alternatively, import a batch into Adobe LR, select the whole batch and export. I expect there are numerous other options. However, if you want to submit via the normal QC route, they will need to be high quality originals taken on low ISO film with good lenses, and the scanner needs to be good, ot they risk failing QC. If they aren't then archival is the better route.

 

Here's a review of various image convertors

https://www.lifewire.com/free-image-converter-software-programs-2622865

 

Mark

Edited February 13, 2021 by M.Chapman

[wiskerke]

The PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is not such a bad scanner. Originally it is a German Reflecta DigitDia 6000 (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaDigitDia6000.html ).

Do you maybe have one or a couple full size, uncompressed not resized images somewhere where we can look at them or even better download them? You could add a watermark or a couple of lines across them, if you think somebody would nick them.

 

wim

Edited February 13, 2021 by wiskerke
typo

[Chuck Nacke]

10 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

Yeltsin/Yelstin??

Genevieve,

 

Thank you, I really hate it when I misspell a name, specially that one.....

 

Chuck