🚀 go-pugleaf

"awhiteford" <awhitefo@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:jINud.69383$K7.22492@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> The negatives and photos I inherited come from the period between the
1920s
> to early 1960s and are black and white.  There are a mixture of sizes in
> both the negatives and the photos.
>
> One lot of negatives are 7cm by 4cm (2.75 by about 1.5 inches) with two
> pictures on each of this sized negative.  The other size is 6cms by
6.15cms
> (2 by 2.25 inches) with one picture on the negative.  There are a number
of
> negatives which have been taken at night and have "120 or B20" written on
> the folder they're in.
>
> The photos include a range of sizes from 4cm by 3cm (1.5 inches by less
than
> 1.25 inches) and 3.5cms by 4.25 cms (1.5 by 1.75 inches) to the large
family
> portraits eg 21cms by 16cms (8.5 by 6.5 inches) or larger.  These are all
> black and white.  They appear to be in pretty good condition, have been in
> original camera shop envelopes and most aren't badly marked or creased.
>
> Apart from scanning those I also want to scan the family photos I've taken
> over the years or been sent by other family members.  This includes a
couple
> of thousand negatives or photos from the late 1960s on in a mixture of
black
> and white and colour.
>
> I've never used a scanner for this sort or amount of work before.
> Recommendations on the best scanner to handle this task appreciated.  By
> best scanner I'm thinking of ease of use for scanning multiple small
> negatives and photos and a reasonable quality output which won't require
too
> much fiddling.  I've looked at a couple of scanners with inbuilt negative
> handlers and am wondering how well these work.  Would they be suitable for
> the older style negatives and mixed sizes I have?  I would like to scan
> multiple negatives or photos at once so I don't spend the next 10 years of
> my spare time scanning.  Is this possible and if yes, what equipment do I
> need to manage this?
>
> I would also appreciate any tips about best handling this amount of work
ie.
> how best to set the scanner up for this, do I want highest level quality
> scanning or am I likely to take much less time for a reasonable output if
> I'm not too fussy. What sorts of differences will I get in the scanned
> material with this approach?   I have both Photoshop vs 7 and MGI
photsuite
> vs 8.05 - haven't used either of these previously which one of these is
best
> for working with the scanned photos/negatives?
>
>
> Thanks all
>
> Anne
>
Hi Anne,

Considering you need to scan 1000s of negative you should consider a proper
film scanner.

Not cheap but apparently pretty good is the Nikon CoolScan 8000ED.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_8000_ed/index.htm

Some reviews at -
http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_scanners.htm#8000

Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
news:41bc2a96$0$14481$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> Hi Anne,
>
> Considering you need to scan 1000s of negative you should consider a
proper
> film scanner.
>
> Not cheap but apparently pretty good is the Nikon CoolScan 8000ED.
>
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_8000_ed/index.htm
>
> Some reviews at -
> http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_scanners.htm#8000
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

nice scanner but won't do the job required unless it can hold single
negatives of weird sizes.

For the photos, any half decent flatbed should be ok, but you may need a
flatbed with neg scanning abilities for the weird sized cut negatives.  I
have many family negs from similar period and a lot of the single negatives
are not 120 roll film, but all sorts of weird sizes.

Whatever is possible, it's going to be a big job.

Nige.

"Nige" <post@it.in.thegroup> wrote in message
news:41bc3489_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
> news:41bc2a96$0$14481$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > Hi Anne,
> >
> > Considering you need to scan 1000s of negative you should consider a
> proper
> > film scanner.
> >
> > Not cheap but apparently pretty good is the Nikon CoolScan 8000ED.
> >
>
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/scanner/scoolscan_8000_ed/index.htm
> >
> > Some reviews at -
> > http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_scanners.htm#8000
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
>
> nice scanner but won't do the job required unless it can hold single
> negatives of weird sizes.
>
> For the photos, any half decent flatbed should be ok, but you may need a
> flatbed with neg scanning abilities for the weird sized cut negatives.  I
> have many family negs from similar period and a lot of the single
negatives
> are not 120 roll film, but all sorts of weird sizes.
>
> Whatever is possible, it's going to be a big job.
>
> Nige.
>
The alternative might be to approach a digital scanning lab for a quote.
With such a high number of negs to scan professional drum scanning might be
the better option.  I'm thinking not only the cost of a good film scanner
but the time to scan them involved.  Of course if personal time isn't an
issue I suppose doing them by hand is entirely feasible and economical.

I'm no expert on the Nikon 8000, but I'm sure it comes with a range of fixed
and adjustable masks for 120 roll film.  Having scanned both transparencies
and negative on a flatbed scanner with a proper film adapter unit I can
assure you it is a time consuming and tedious process I'd rather not have to
do again.


Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
news:41bc3905$0$15636$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> The alternative might be to approach a digital scanning lab for a quote.
> With such a high number of negs to scan professional drum scanning might
be
> the better option.  I'm thinking not only the cost of a good film scanner
> but the time to scan them involved.  Of course if personal time isn't an
> issue I suppose doing them by hand is entirely feasible and economical.


yep, worth the exercise to know what it would cost to compare against the
cost of buying something(s) and doing it yourself.

>  Having scanned both transparencies
> and negative on a flatbed scanner with a proper film adapter unit I can
> assure you it is a time consuming and tedious process I'd rather not have
to
> do again.

agreed!  I've got thousands of scans done this way.. but they've been done
over many years :)

Cheers, Nige

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:12:41 +1100, "Nige" <post@it.in.thegroup>
wrote:

>
>"Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
>news:41bc3905$0$15636$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >
>> The alternative might be to approach a digital scanning lab for a quote.
>> With such a high number of negs to scan professional drum scanning might
>be
>> the better option.  I'm thinking not only the cost of a good film scanner

My LS5000 ED with the bulk feeder didn't cost a fraction of what it
would have run to have over 20,000 slides and negatives scanned.

>> but the time to scan them involved.  Of course if personal time isn't an
>> issue I suppose doing them by hand is entirely feasible and economical.
>
>
>yep, worth the exercise to know what it would cost to compare against the
>cost of buying something(s) and doing it yourself.
>
I have a film/negative capable flat bed (HP 5470c) and a dedicated
slide/film scanner with the bulk feeder (Nikon LS 5000 ED).

Having slides and or negatives scanned runs a good 50 cents each
locally.  Some places run closer to a dollar.  Either figure makes
having more than a few scanned quite expensive, but as Nige says,
scanning is very time consuming. It's time consuming even with the
bulk feeder.  Then you get to edit/process them, develop some sort of
naming convention, and figure out what to use for a storage medium. 

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm might help a bit.
It covers a good part of the decision making involved in scanning a
lot of images.

>>  Having scanned both transparencies
>> and negative on a flatbed scanner with a proper film adapter unit I can
>> assure you it is a time consuming and tedious process I'd rather not have

Although my HP does a reasonable job on slides and negatives, it comes
up far short of the quality in the LS5000 ED, so I'd use the flat bed
for that type of work only if the dedicated one had quit working.

I started a project of scanning "the old family photos" last March.  I
have all the slides done and about 2000 negatives left to go (an
estimate).

I still have two large boxes of very old prints that range from
tintypes to the petrified cardboard.  Those boxes are at least 40#
each, maybe quite a bit more.

>to
>> do again.
>
>agreed!  I've got thousands of scans done this way.. but they've been done
>over many years :)

I had about 8 to 10 thousand done on a small scanner.  I re scanned
those along with the rest after purchasing the LS5000 ED

When working on a batch I usually use the computer to work on
something else from web browsing to programming.  This lets me do the
scanning more conveniently. Maybe not as fast, but still, it involves
less work.

Good luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Cheers, Nige
>

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:46:00 -0500, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:


The original post wasn't up when I made my previous post (strange how
the posts rarely show up in order) so I'd add the Nikon LS 8000 might
be worth looking into .

Actually, although not a great scanner, but popular, the old HP S-20
would probably do any of the photos and negatives up to  5 X 7" or
about 13 X 18 CM

I doubt you'll find a flat bed that will do a good job of scanning the
negatives of odd sizes.  Mine has a film holder and that is size
specific.

I'd do  a search on scanners to see what is available. 
http://www.nextag.com/ would be a starting place to list all scanners
then do a search on the specific scanners to find one with the
characteristics you want.

Another approach would be to contact one of the big retailers such as
B&H, or one of the big retailers on your side of the pond, and tell
them what you are after.  http://www.photosites.co.uk/projectors.shtml
in the UK

A google search on scanners film and print,  returns over 1.5 million
results so there is a lot of material out there.

Good luck

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
news:dc01s0pmkfekflqrrm0qaetr1f62jej2l8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:46:00 -0500, Roger
> <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
>
>
> The original post wasn't up when I made my previous post (strange how
> the posts rarely show up in order) so I'd add the Nikon LS 8000 might
> be worth looking into .
>
> Actually, although not a great scanner, but popular, the old HP S-20
> would probably do any of the photos and negatives up to  5 X 7" or
> about 13 X 18 CM
>
> I doubt you'll find a flat bed that will do a good job of scanning the
> negatives of odd sizes.  Mine has a film holder and that is size
> specific.
>
> I'd do  a search on scanners to see what is available.
> http://www.nextag.com/ would be a starting place to list all scanners
> then do a search on the specific scanners to find one with the
> characteristics you want.
>
> Another approach would be to contact one of the big retailers such as
> B&H, or one of the big retailers on your side of the pond, and tell
> them what you are after.  http://www.photosites.co.uk/projectors.shtml
> in the UK
>
> A google search on scanners film and print,  returns over 1.5 million
> results so there is a lot of material out there.
>
> Good luck
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com