Optimum size for Archive

[M.Chapman]

Most of the digitised* 35mm slides I've uploaded to Alamy (through the usual QC route) have either been 3,600x2,400 or 3,000x2,000 pixels. I find using a diffuse light source helps reduce the amount of dust spotting / scratch removal required. Also, not placing the slide directly on the lightbox (use a spacer), so that any dust, marks and scratches on the light box diffuser are out of focus helps too.  I've been pleased with the sales so far, but that's probably because I "cherry picked" the best of my slides from large collection.

 

*Digitised with a mirrorless DSLR with decent 45mm macro lens.

 

Mark

Edited March 2, 2022 by M.Chapman

[Chuck Nacke]

On 01/03/2022 at 12:48, John Mitchell said:

 

I always left the slides in their mounts (most of mine are plastic) and used a Q-tip to clean the slides with anti-static liquid. I never got around to counting the squirts of canned air, but I guess the cost could add up if you're scanning 10K slides. It would also be a lot of Q-tips.

I never scan a "mounted chrome"  you loose too much image.  Unmounted give you more image and is easier to work with.

 

Chuck

[Allan Bell]

A while ago I digitised some of my 35mm mono negatives and processed them. The original prints of these looked to be sharp yet when looking at the processed image on the computer screen they looked to be out of focus. Not just soft but OOF.  Yes I had focused on the negative grain so the digitised images should have been sharp.

 

The only conclusion I must come to is that they must have been OOF when I took them it is just the smaller size of the prints that made them look sharp. I have heard that a sharp print can be produced from an unsharp negative due to the process and smaller size of the print usually produced.

 

I not only processed my own film but also produced prints up to A3 size and they all looked sharp.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

21 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

A while ago I digitised some of my 35mm mono negatives and processed them. The original prints of these looked to be sharp yet when looking at the processed image on the computer screen they looked to be out of focus. Not just soft but OOF.  Yes I had focused on the negative grain so the digitised images should have been sharp.

 

The only conclusion I must come to is that they must have been OOF when I took them it is just the smaller size of the prints that made them look sharp. I have heard that a sharp print can be produced from an unsharp negative due to the process and smaller size of the print usually produced.

 

I not only processed my own film but also produced prints up to A3 size and they all looked sharp.

 

Allan

 

As the old saying goes "Circles of confusion everywhere"

Seriously scanning is ruthless on technique. We have to accept that some of our film images just weren't that sharp before AF- viewing at 100% is probably the equivalent of something like a 50" wide print on my monitor. Not a lot of 35mm would stand that and it didn't need to if you rarely went above 12x16 or even 10x8.

Edited March 9, 2022 by spacecadet

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

A while ago I digitised some of my 35mm mono negatives and processed them. The original prints of these looked to be sharp yet when looking at the processed image on the computer screen they looked to be out of focus. Not just soft but OOF.  Yes I had focused on the negative grain so the digitised images should have been sharp.

 

The only conclusion I must come to is that they must have been OOF when I took them it is just the smaller size of the prints that made them look sharp. I have heard that a sharp print can be produced from an unsharp negative due to the process and smaller size of the print usually produced.

 

I not only processed my own film but also produced prints up to A3 size and they all looked sharp.

 

Allan

 

 

 

How did you digitise the negs - what equipment?

Edited March 9, 2022 by MDM

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

How did you digitise the negs - what equipment?

 

At the time I was using the Nikon D750 and bought a Nikon bellows unit and Nikon 50mm macro lens.

 

Allan

 

Still have the bellows and 50mm lens which will be put to good use when I have another go at digitising more of my mono negs and colour slides.

 

ITMA

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Allan Bell

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

At the time I was using the Nikon D750 and bought a Nikon bellows unit and Nikon 50mm macro lens.

 

Allan

 

Still have the bellows and 50mm lens which will be put to good use when I have another go at digitising more of my mono negs and colour slides.

 

ITMA

 

 

OK - something is wrong if you were getting sharp A3 prints and your digitised images were really soft or apparently out of focus. Certainly digital copies or film scans need careful sharpening but it is not difficult to get sharp copies with care.  I suspect there must have been off with your setup - maybe the film was not flat in the holder. I always use f11 to maximise depth of field for that reason. 

[Allan Bell]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

OK - something is wrong if you were getting sharp A3 prints and your digitised images were really soft or apparently out of focus. Certainly digital copies or film scans need careful sharpening but it is not difficult to get sharp copies with care.  I suspect there must have been off with your setup - maybe the film was not flat in the holder. I always use f11 to maximise depth of field for that reason. 

 

Thanks Mick. It is some time since I did the digitising as you know I got rid ov the Nikon to go with Sony but I think I was using f8 at the time. Most likely the film was not flat in the holder.

 

There is a new film holder out which I might give a try. It is here.

[geogphotos]

Just to be a bore .....the topic is about the optimum size for digitised film copies for Archive.

 

One thing is for sure is that the bigger the original file size, and the better your equipment and copying technique, the more dust, scratches and other crud that you will have to face when viewed at 100% ( 200% in Mac).

 

I agree with the view that 3600 pixels longest side is probably about right and will cover most potential uses. 

[Harry Harrison]

7 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

Yes I had focused on the negative grain so the digitised images should have been shar

That's going to point to the essence of the problem if there is one, if you focussed on the grain then you should be able to see it in the 'scan' right into the corners, if not then something must have gone wrong. That Essential Film Holder seems to get good reviews, 'Skier' carriers seem very good and can possibly be purchased on their own rather than with the lightbox. Pixl-latr might be worth considering also though the diffuser is a bit close to the holder, but then it is with the Nikon ES-1 & ES-2 as well.

[Allan Bell]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Just to be a bore .....the topic is about the optimum size for digitised film copies for Archive.

 

One thing is for sure is that the bigger the original file size, and the better your equipment and copying technique, the more dust, scratches and other crud that you will have to face when viewed at 100% ( 200% in Mac).

 

I agree with the view that 3600 pixels longest side is probably about right and will cover most potential uses. 

 

Apologies for raining on your parade. Did not mean to tread on toes.

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Just to be a bore .....the topic is about the optimum size for digitised film copies for Archive.

 

One thing is for sure is that the bigger the original file size, and the better your equipment and copying technique, the more dust, scratches and other crud that you will have to face when viewed at 100% ( 200% in Mac).

 

 

 

Just leaving but before departure I must say that statement is highly inaccurate to put it politely. 

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Apologies for raining on your parade. Did not mean to tread on toes.

 

Allan

 

 

No worries Allan. 

[geogphotos]

17 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Just leaving but before departure I must say that statement is highly inaccurate to put it politely. 

 

What size are your digitized film copies and what thinking was behind your decision?

 

[John Mitchell]

17 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I never scan a "mounted chrome"  you loose too much image.  Unmounted give you more image and is easier to work with.

 

Chuck

 

That's true. Probably best to remove those old Kodachromes from their finicky cardboard mounts. Fortunately, I haven't had to scan many of them. I used to buy my slide film (various types) in bulk from a local lab, and they used conventional plastic mounts, which were easier to work with.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I agree with the view that 3600 pixels longest side is probably about right and will cover most potential uses. 

 

If memory serves, Aalmy's minimum file size was 24 MB (about 3600 pixels on the long side) once upon a time, so I guess they would agree.

 

 

[sb photos]

14 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's true. Probably best to remove those old Kodachromes from their finicky cardboard mounts. Fortunately, I haven't had to scan many of them. I used to buy my slide film (various types) in bulk from a local lab, and they used conventional plastic mounts, which were easier to work with.

 

 

 

I only started shooting E6 some time back after purchasing a Polaroid SprintScan 35 soon after they were introduced. After processing I had them cut into strips as they would never be projected. From memory the SprintScan only scanned at 2700 ppi. It lasted some considerable time, but the film strips holders didn't, they were flimsy. Thankfully I didn't have to deal with mounted slides.

[geogphotos]

On 09/03/2022 at 20:47, John Mitchell said:

 

If memory serves, Aalmy's minimum file size was 24 MB (about 3600 pixels on the long side) once upon a time, so I guess they would agree.

 

 

 

 

Thanks John, that is a very pertinent point. But it begs the question - why did they reduce it to 17 MB for Stock?

 

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

26 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Thanks John, that is a very pertinent point. But it begs the question - why did they reduce it to 17 MB for Stock?

 

 

 

Perhaps because of increasing electronic use of images -- websites, social media, etc.

 

 

[geogphotos]

12 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Perhaps because of increasing electronic use of images -- websites, social media, etc.

 

 

 

 

Sure but why 17 MB when it is just 5 MB for Archive.

 

I wouldn't have thought that the decrease from 24 to 17 marks a world of difference? But there must have been a reason/s.

[John Mitchell]

23 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Sure but why 17 MB when it is just 5 MB for Archive.

 

I wouldn't have thought that the decrease from 24 to 17 marks a world of difference? But there must have been a reason/s.

 

Sorry, I'm fresh out of conspiracy theories. 😎

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Sorry, I'm fresh out of conspiracy theories. 😎

 

I was thinking about file sizes for clients rather than conspiracies. 

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I was thinking about file sizes for clients rather than conspiracies. 

 

Yes, I was joking of course. The only other thing I can think of is that 3000 pixels (17 MB) is a good "middle of the road" size -- i.e. it is fine for electronic use and adequate for most editorial print uses as well. I remember sending some images to another photo library that specified 3000 pixels as the minimum size.

[geogphotos]

35 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Yes, I was joking of course. The only other thing I can think of is that 3000 pixels (17 MB) is a good "middle of the road" size -- i.e. it is fine for electronic use and adequate for most editorial print uses as well. I remember sending some images to another photo library that specified 3000 pixels as the minimum size.

 

 

That makes sense. 3000 pixels produces a 17-18MB file for the couple I just tried. 

 

What I am looking for is the 'optimum' in terms of compromise so that I can get more images digitized and on sale. 

 

The other compromise would be to reduce the amount of retouching for blemishes but I find that very hard to do. 

[Harry Harrison]

 

Assuming 35mm 3:2 proportions

 

Archive:

1620 x 1080 px = 5MB

 

3000 x 2000 px = 17.2 MB

3600 x 2400 px = 24.7 MB

 

4000 dpi film scanner:

5700 x 3800 px = 62MB

 

I suspect that 4000 dpi was chosen as the standard for a reason, I have an Imacon scanner that scans at 5000 or 6300 dpi and I would be very hard pressed to find a slide that benefitted from that extra resolution, and even more pressed to get anyone to agree with me. However higher resolution is definitely worth considering for our MOMA retrospectives.

 

Another aspect is that I think that with a good slide you stand a very good chance of hiding its film origins if you downsize to either 3000 or 3600 px longest side, after all full page repro from film originals was standard fare back in the day. 

 

I wonder if anyone uses those image size search filters on Alamy, they are set at 1, 5, 15, 24, 48 & 70 MB? So 3600 x 2400 px would be above the 24 MB threshold, possibly giving it an advantage over 3000 x 2000 px.