Slide scanning questions

"Michael A. Covington" <look DeleteThis @ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:4157295d$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
 > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need
to
 > scan.
 >
 > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute
per
 > slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
 > saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
 >
 > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not
been
 > satisfied with the quality.
 >
 > My questions:
 >
 > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
 > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays
(in
 > the same positions)?

So you'd rather spend those same 6 hours...

Finding a service...
Driving to that service...
Paying your money for questionable quality results at that service...
Waiting...
Driving back to pick them up...
-And whatever other messing around you'll inevitably do...

Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"Mark M" <mjmorgan2.TakeThisOut@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote in message
news:ceG5d.337999$Oi.243969@fed1read04...

 >
 > Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
 >

That's about what I've concluded, because on each slide, I can do about 1
minute of scanning and 1 minute of image processing (my way), and save it
with a suitable name. That works out to 2 minutes per slide (or more)... a
fairly lengthy project... but high quality.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"Michael A. Covington" <look.RemoveThis@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:41573c96@mustang.speedfactory.net...
 >
 > "Mark M" <mjmorgan2.RemoveThis@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net> wrote in message
 > news:ceG5d.337999$Oi.243969@fed1read04...
 >
  > >
  > > Seems to me 6 hours isn't all too bad after all!
  > >
 >
 > That's about what I've concluded, because on each slide, I can do about 1
 > minute of scanning and 1 minute of image processing (my way), and save it
 > with a suitable name. That works out to 2 minutes per slide (or more)...
a
 > fairly lengthy project... but high quality.

Slide scanning is indeed a pain in the rear, but it's the only way to
maintain control of film images, as you say. I have a Nikon scanner and
have gotten a lot of great use out it, but there's no denying that it's a
pain...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
Laptop?
Thanks!



"Michael A. Covington" <look.DeleteThis@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:4157295d$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
 >I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need
 >to scan.
 >
 > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute
 > per slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed,
 > and saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.
 >
 > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not
 > been satisfied with the quality.
 >
 > My questions:
 >
 > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
 > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays
 > (in the same positions)?
 >
 > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III
 > in quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
 >
 > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
 > sufficient. I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust
 > and spot removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would
 > be very welcome.
 >
 > Many thanks!
 >
 >
 > --
 > Clear skies,
 >
 > Michael A. Covington
 > Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html</font" target="_blank">www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html</font</a>>
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"Michael A. Covington" <look.TakeThisOut@ai.uga.edu.for.address> writes:

 > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I need to
 > scan.
 >
 > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1 minute per
 > slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned, processed, and
 > saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour project.

Wow. That's spectacularly fast compared to my scanning rate. Partly
because my newer, higher-end scanner (LS-2000) is apparently much
slower than yours.

 > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not been
 > satisfied with the quality.
 >
 > My questions:
 >
 > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
 > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays (in
 > the same positions)?

I dunno about the trays, but for your purposes Kodak PhotoCD scans
would be just fine. Taking the slides from the trays and putting them
back would only take a few minutes.

 > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan III in
 > quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.

Yes, generally. The LS-5000 is advertised, at least, to be a lot
faster than my LS-2000, for example.

 > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
 > sufficient.

Oh, that's a big difference. I don't think I've ever scanned at such
low resolution.

 > I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic dust and spot
 > removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes (E-4) would be very
 > welcome.

Oops, that kills off the PhotoCD suggestion. You want ICE^3;
specifically you want the infrared-based dust-and-scratches
eliminator, and the ROC "reconstruction of color". ROC is also
available as a photoshop plugin from the maker, Applied Science
Fiction, but the dist-and-scratches thing is not because it depends on
an infrared channel in the scanner (and slows down the scanner).

Many of the Nikon scanners can take an automatic slide-feeder that
will run a stack through unattended. I've never had one, though, no
personal experience.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"Larz F. Kremer" <lkremer.RemoveThis@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:41573e35$0$4027$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
 > Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
 > Laptop?
 > Thanks!

It requires a SCSI interface. Do they make PCMCIA SCSI cards? I think so.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"Michael A. Covington" <look.DeleteThis@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:41575af4@mustang.speedfactory.net...
 >
 > "Larz F. Kremer" <lkremer.DeleteThis@starpower.net> wrote in message
 > news:41573e35$0$4027$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
  > > Can anyone tell me if the Coolscan III would work with a Dell Inspiron
  > > Laptop?
  > > Thanks!
 >
 > It requires a SCSI interface. Do they make PCMCIA SCSI cards? I think
so.

Yes.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

On 2004-09-26 16:32:29 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
<look.TakeThisOut@ai.uga.edu.for.address> said:

 > I have a substantial number (240) of slides from 30 years ago that I
 > need to scan.
 >
 > I have a Coolscan III, which produces beautiful scans but takes 1
 > minute per slide. I figure I can average 40 slides per hour scanned,
 > processed, and saved with meaningful names. That means it's a 6-hour
 > project.
 >
 > I also have the slide copying adapter for my Coolpix 990, but have not
 > been satisfied with the quality.
 >
 > My questions:
 >
 > (1) Can someone recommend a commercial slide scanning service that can
 > accept slides in Carousel trays and return them to me in the same trays
 > (in the same positions)?
 >
 > (2) Are newer slide scanners faster? Something equal to the Coolscan
 > III in quality but 3 times faster would be very welcome.
 >
 > BTW, these are relatively casual snapshots and 900 dpi scans are
 > sufficient. I'm more concerned about exposure metering and automatic
 > dust and spot removal. Automatic compensation for fading cyan dyes
 > (E-4) would be very welcome.
 >
 > Many thanks!

If you are satisfied with the scan quality, it seems to me that 6 hours
is not a lot to invest.
--
Michael Weinstein | "Those who cannot remember the
Nashua, NH | past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[....]

 > I dunno about the trays, but for your purposes Kodak PhotoCD scans
 > would be just fine. Taking the slides from the trays and putting them
 > back would only take a few minutes.

If I had this job, I'm pretty sure I'd get a second slide carrier, and
be loading that while the first carrier is being scanned. Cut the time
in half for the cost of a second carrier.

[....]

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality" you
are wasting your 6 hours.
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

"bmoag" <apquilts DeleteThis @pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:GlI5d.3455$nj.1493@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
 > If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality"
 > you are wasting your 6 hours.

No, I'm not. I still want equal resolution all over the frame, as well as
careful adjustment of density and color balance. The scans are going to be
viewed on the computer, and the original slides are not all that sharp.

There is more to quality than just number of pixels. One megapixel can make
a fine picture on the computer screen.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:33:58 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts.DeleteThis@pacbell.net>
wrote:

 >If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality" you
 >are wasting your 6 hours.
 >

Not always, resolution is a function of need, if your simply going to
scan an view on screen, or a web album. then 900DPI might be quite
reasonable. If your scanning to make 11x14 or 16x20 prints, then you
obviiously need more, but few if any people print EVERY photo into big
prints, I have about 2.5m of empty wall in-front of me, and am
considering getting 3 or 4 biggish prints made to cover it. This is
out of the 350 or so frames shot (so far) this year.

So, the issue comes down to a simple question, do you scan everything
at 5400DPI and use up a lot of storage space, or scan everything at
900DPI and use relatively little storage space, rescanning the ones
you want for big prints.

W<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions 

  >>If you are only scanning at 900 dpi and you think that is "high quality"
  >>you
  >>are wasting your 6 hours.
 >
 > Not always, resolution is a function of need, if your simply going to
 > scan an view on screen, or a web album. then 900DPI might be quite
 > reasonable...

Right.

In my case, many of the pictures are not sharp enough to justify scanning at
higher resolution. (They are travel pictures, many of them taken hastily at
slow shutter speeds and wide apertures.) But as I was saying, I still
benefit from the edge-to-edge uniformity of a good scanner, as well as
exposure control, color balance, and so forth.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Slide scanning questions