DDoug Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 When I first started with Alamy 10 months ago, I submitted the usual four images. Mine included a 35mm scan and a 6x9cm scan, plus 10 and 16 megapixel digital captures. All but the 35mm scan (shot with a Canon 200mm L lens on a tripod) were accepted. Since then I’ve been working through my digital backlog. The only 35mm scans I’ve submitted were archival, thus bypassing QC. I’ve got lots and lots of 35mm backlog, which will remain there since I’ve no interest in spending time in jail/gaol/sinbin. I guess I’m sort of a pansy when it comes to rejection of my photography. So, my question is, if 6x9 passes and 35mm fails, what about 645? Are any of you still submitting scanned medium format film (apart from archival)? Is a Nikon LS9000 scan of a 6x6 or 645 transparency good enough for Alamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I have scanned 645 trannies with a Nikon LS9000 and they have all passed QC but that was several years ago. Personally I wouldn't risk it now. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I think you're making a totally wrong assumption, Don. It's true that it's been a while since I've submitted any film scans (35mm), but I've never had one fail Alamy QC. (I'm interested in hearing how recent scans have been doing?) Images get shot down because there's a problem with them. You didn't say why your image was rejected. The use of a 645 is not a reason to fail an image. The problem is always in something you missed in PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 I can't find it now, Edo, but I think the problem was sharpness. Since I had a bunch of digital capture to upload, I figured I'd just leave it alone for a while. I'm quite slow on the uptake with new technology, still liked my typewriter when all my friends were using word processors, still liked film when all my friends were shooting digital. I think I would have liked Ned Ludd if I'd known him. Just got a smart phone, decided it wasn't for me and went back to a dumb one. The result, photographically, is that I have a lot of film images which I'd like to use but I'm leery of the sin bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Just remember this simple fact: after carefully assessing an image, inch by inch, at 100%, you will be in the best position to decide if it is technically perfect or not. If you have any misgivings, don't submit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Or down-size enough to reach sharpness equivalent to current digital capture. Your 16M files will be a perfect yardstick. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Are you downsizing, too, wim? Just a couple of years ago we were all upsizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Are you downsizing, too, wim? Just a couple of years ago we were all upsizing. No I never upsized scans. I did upsize 16M Canon to 21M I think. I now do downsize quite a bit RX100 and Nex3 images. And very rarely some not too sharp or grainy 21M from my 1DsMk3. 4002 x 3032 px RX100-II The downsizing has more to do with reckless picture taking than bad cameras or lenses. ;-) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Oh yes -- scans was the subject. Sorry. I missed my siesta today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Thanks for comments and suggestions. The 4k dpi scans are fairly large and could stand some reduction. I communicated with Alamy about scans at one point, in the process of getting approved for submission of archival images, and they recommended getting 50mb scans rather than downsizing. That would mean going back and rescanning a bunch of images, or rather having it done since lack the appropriate scanner, but it might be worth it. I'm going to take a trip to the States for a month in late March, so that would be the time to risk the sin bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It was quite a few years ago that I set about scanning my archive of mixed formats with an LS9000. Pretty good machine. Unfortunate that Nikon stopped making or supporting them! From a 35mm it would produce about a 54 MB file if edge to edge. There were also a good number of 6x7 trannies and a scattering of 645 in the collection. As Alamy have suggested, adjusting the settings to something between 50 and 60 MB before hitting the scan button was a good idea. Scanning a 67 at full resolution would produce a file over 200MB which would often bring my Mac to its knees and take forever to upload. The 35mm scans took most of 2 minutes to scan, the medium formats took five or six minutes at the reduced resolution which I considered just about tolerable. At full resolution a scan might take 20 minutes; intolerable! I never had a QC fail and that was before we had the "archival" option. These days, clients can opt for files in excess of 70 MB so you might consider trying a few scans aiming about 72 MB and see what it looks like. But it seems like 98%+ of sales are down in the 25 MB range and getting smaller year by year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davies Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Don, I have had scans from 35mm slides made by Scandig in Munich and am perfectly happy with the quality and price. No problems getting through QC, but must admit its a couple of years ago now! They can scan from complete tranny including the black borders in 16bit, which means you get a file of about 135MB. I have found them just a little bit too dark and magenta/blue, just a small correction in PS. I used to scan myself using an Imacon Flextight, but when that gave up the ghost a couple of years ago and I did not have the 16,000€ for a new one, I decided to call it a day. PS. I do not have any connection with Scandig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hi David, I've been fairly happy with results from Reinhard Choroba in Pirna (digitalcopy24.de), who uses a Hasselblad X5 in addition to the Nikon LS9000. I prefer scans from the Nikon, but have a few 4x5s which would go on the X5. That was a work medium for me in the old days, not recreation, so there aren’t many. I do 35mm scans at home with a Canon FS4000US, but don’t think I’d chance sending anything but archival images that have some historical value. Cheers, Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekVallintine Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I have a Mamiya 645 system for sale if anyone is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 Most of what I have here is archival, scans of 35mm and 6x6 Velvia, Provia and Fucicolour neg originals. I have never used the archival route. I have never had a QC fail. Begin again: What was the problem? Robert, I've had just one image fail since starting, one of the four images of the initial set. It was scanned 35mm. Since then I haven't submitted any in that format (except for archival). Also, I've read in this forum that several members no longer submit scanned film and would be reluctant to do so, even though film scans were submitted successfully in the past. Even with comparable resolution, a film scan will be different than digital with some emulsions showing pepper grain, etc. I was looking for and got opinions on it and thank all who gave them. I lean toward Pearl's "I wouldn't risk it now," but I'm glad to hear you're successfully submitting film scans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickJ Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I have uploaded 60 scanned 35mm slides in the last three months through the non-archival route. All passed QC. Alamy seems to understand film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I've recently been going through old submissions and reprocessing some that that could be improved. I've done quite a few of the scnas - mostly 645, some 35mm - and they've all passed. I think the new lower limit of 17mb helps - especially with 35mm (eg ED7JHY) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 I was mistaken in the comment above about file sizes and downsizing. The actual comment from Alamy was: "For best results we recommend the scans to be around 50 -70 MB which is what a 35 mm will be when scanned at 4000 dpi. Larger formats as you are working on can then be scanned on a lower dpi to achieve same results.You can read more about it here: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/scan-images.asp "We don't have a maximum file size, although the upload system might struggle if they are too large. I would try to keep them under 200 MB but also be careful if any compression has to be done as this can create artefacts in the images." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 "We don't have a maximum file size, although the upload system might struggle if they are too large. I would try to keep them under 200 MB but also be careful if any compression has to be done as this can create artefacts in the images." That is incorrect. There is an automatic 200Mb limit. Anything larger will be rejected during upload but will not cause a QC fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.