 Gary Wonning |
converting slides to digital I've been taking some slides to a local camera store to be scanned to cd's, however the resulting images are low in contrast and I haven't been able to get the results that I want in photoshop, any suggestions? Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Gary, When you take your slides to the local camera store, it is unlikely that the shop will have a printer/scanner/paper processor exclusively optimized for slide work. More likely, they will have a Swiss Army knife Unit” calibrated for their primarily workload, digital camera files and color negatives. What I am saying is, a well equipped lab can make take a slide and make a scan, print and make CD’s however their equipment may not be effectively calibrated. Once the machines at the one-hour shop were optical and chemical thus they needed to maintain a separate department for slides. Low E-6 and slide volume makes this investment unprofitable. The void is filled by shops that specialize in slide work. You are advised to use such specialty shops. Some jargon you might find useful: The one-hour shop scanner that are built into the printer was initially designed to output a file with a resolution only suitable for viewing on a standard TV. That file density is called “Base” and has a pixel density of 512 x 768. The next progression was to up the file density for HDTV 1024 x 1536 this file size is called “4Base”. As the machines continued to evolve “16Base” came next and the file outputted is 2048 x 3072 and intended for the production of moderate size prints. Lastly, “64Base” at 4096 x 6144 is in use when outputting enlargements. What I am saying is; you can ask to have a scan made at a higher density than normal for that lab. Sorry to report that the typical one-hour shop may decline as extra time is required. Also the typical lab technician might be remiss when it comes to knowing how to achieve these adjustments. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gary Wonning |
Thanks, I assumed something of that nature, Both Canon and HP have introduced flatbed scanners that have received high marks for scanning slides, do you know anything about these products. they are a lot less expensive than the Nikon, but I also realize that a person normally gets what he pays for. Gary
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi again, I know nothing about the Canon and HP flatbeds. When we illuminate a negative or slide for projection printing or scanning we must choose between three types of lamp houses. Most flatbeds are designed around diffused sources using florescent lamps behind an opal diffuser. All such lamp houses are used for dust suppression and temperature considerations. Regretfully a diffused source suffers from reduce sharpness and contrast. Look up Collier effect. Also, the florescent suffers due to a discontinuous spectrum, many missing colors that can’t be recovered via software. The other lamp house design uses a point source light bulb, usually a halogen lamp. The lamp outputs a continuous spectrum, warm in color and temperature but manageable. The lamp is mounted behind a pair of condenser lenses that cause the light to arrive at the subject plane in parallel rays (culminated). This light is most suitable as it enhances contrast and sharpness. The downside is dust in the illumination path shows up. Some lamp houses use the condenser system with a diffuser directly under the slide/negative. This partially diffused light lamp house is probably the best of both worlds. If we were choosing a slide projector or optical printer we would not choose florescent. Maybe the software of the scanner incorporates countermeasures that will make the florescent suitable. Seems to me, florescent is way down the quality list for a lamp house. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
A dedicated 35mm film scanner is always the best option, especially for slides that turn out to be a bit dense in the shadow areas. A BMW handles better than a Toyota Corolla, too. Epson's flatbed V700 (about $500) can scan 12 slides at a time, fewer for the older and cheaper 4990. The software is simple and intuitive. Scans are actually pretty good, although not quite as good as a $500 Nikon film scanner. The dedicated film scanner returns a little better scan and reaches into the shadows better. The flatbed returns acceptable scans for most purposes and doubles as an office flatbed for prints and documents. I have a review on this web site.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
See also a review on my web site: http://www.dougnelsonphoto.com/-/DougNelsonPhoto/article.php?ID=1793
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gary Wonning |
Thanks, I have a collection of slides and I want to scan them . I am making photo clocks from the best ones, and possibly sell some of the others as photos. Some of the scans that I take to Wolf Camera are real good, some are not so good. Most aren't as good as if they were an original photo,which I guess is understandable.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
I can think of two common problems with digital files from slides. Sometimes an image on slide film just isn't as sharp as it should be, for any of several common shooting errors. I've been burned on some treasured images that, on close inspection, or scanning and printing, just aren't sharp. Secondly, a truly gorgeous image may have detail in the shadows that the scanner and/or operator cannot bring out. If a skilled digital practitioner can't pull it off, you'd do better to pick another image to use.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||