Oh, I agree with you for the most part, Randy...I've not demounted any of my
3,000 slides for scanning. However, if you do get slides that need cleaned
(i.e. sat in a slide projector for any amount of time), it is difficult to
clean
them decently with the mount on, and then you're faced with the task of
spending
a lot of time fixing the dirt damage and possible re-creation of an area.
For that reason, I am considering demounting a few of them, as they have a lot
of problems that could only be corrected by removing them from their mounts,
properly cleaning them (use photographic cleaning solution) then re-scanning
them.
If I ever get up to a Burlington meet, I intend to do a class on photo/slide
preservation/archival, but Randy is exactly correct...if you have old photos,
do
not waste time saying "I'll get to them". All it takes is one water leak to
ruin your entire collection.
Cheers!
Jan Kohl
castlegraphics.com
On 4/22/2012 2:42 AM, qmp211 wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Not trying to pick a nit but I would disagree with you on the idea that you
> must demount a slide to achieve a good scan. That might be true in older
> scanners but there are scanners starting at $200 that can do a nice job and
> for $250 dollars more they will auto focus. The $500+ Epsons can all do
> prepress scans but not as well as the $850 Epsons that come with better
> software in the hands of experience.
>
> All of Nikon's film scanners scan images wonderfully in frames due to a focus
> feature. But they have gotten prohibitively expensive since Nikon
> discontinued them.
>
> Out of 1,200+ images in The Burlington Waycars less than a dozen were
> demounted and wet scanned after we had some of them blown up in a photo lab
> as 5x7 film positives. Granted, if I had my druthers, I would prefer them
> flat on the glass even with our prepress scanner. But in order to obtain
> access to collections, you have to adhere to the owner's wishes. It's like
> hunting, ask permission first. I had no one deny permission to demount a
> slide. So I am very empathetic to Andrew's feelings. Plus, it takes an
> enormous amount of time to cut, prep, scan, clean and clean some more and
> then remount the film.
>
> I've found in the end there is usually more wrong with the negative, slide,
> photo or the emulsion than the scanner. I've looked at them with a loupe and
> microscope and there seems to be no other pattern of degradation other than
> less than optimal original material.
>
> Scanning is like racing, the faster you go the more it costs and those last 3
> or 4 mph will make you cry. It's a combination of optics, add-on software,
> high D-max and lots of storage space = a lot of money and time.
>
> I will repeat my warning to everyone with a slide collection. Get them
> scanned. The emulsions are starting to come apart. Even the Kodachrome unless
> stored under ideal conditions are beginning to have problems. The Fujichrome
> seems to have held up very well and is a wonderful film to scan.
>
> It takes a lot of time and experimentation. But the results are well worth it
> when that old cabinet card image pops up and you can see the background
> detail no one ever noticed in the print. Or that old red stripe mount
> Kodachrome pops up color like it was shot last week.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|