Bulk scanning of slides

A number of thoughts: 1. Hire a local kid to do it with a mid-range scanner. Reasonable cost, give the kid a job, get them interested in photography. 2. At the same time, have the kid catalogue them (date, significant entity in the photo, category, etc.). 3. Get software to generate index pages on paper (or a website) 4. With this knowlege base, select the right slides for professional hi-res scans. With the catalogue, file the slides back properly (a few more hours for the kid maybe (2 grins)).

Just a thought. I've used this for business card filing.

Paul N.

I used the Nikon Super Cool Scan 4000 a bit. The optional auto slide feeder worked quite well for up to 50 slides. We did have some sort of make-shift fixes. A small plastic card was used (like a credit card but non-embossed) to limit the size of the slide feeder opening. This kept two slides from being fed at once due to labels, sticking cardboard mounts, etc.

Additionally, using the Nikon Scan software as opposed to Photoshop made good use of the AE function as well as saving each slide once scanned. I never used the batch scan on the LS-2000 so I really don't know what improvements there were if any (other than resolution). I do know they make a film feeder which I can't see why could not be used for uncut slides as well. But that's just a guess.

"give the kid a job, get them interested in photography"

Oh yeah, that'll really persuade them to see photography as a pleasant pastime!!!!!

Ok, a guy at Nikon told me that to use the LS4000 in bulk mode (leave and run!) you need loads of RAM. He reccomended 512mb minimum. 1GB preferably.

Photoshop has a contact sheet option that is pretty good too.

I could put 5"x4" worth of 35mm's in my Epson 1640 with the tranny adaptor (Shaves you smoothly, paints your toes, makes the pitch of your voice higher...), but for full page scans I think it would be difficult to find something for home use (I may be wrong). Perhaps a Mirror on top? or the lid left up?

Good luck, Mark.

Define "way too expensive"...PhotoCD scans from 35mm slides can be done for around $2.00 each. You might even be able to work better pricing with a provider in your area given the number you want done. You figure though with scanning and archiving this amount of slides you'll need both alot of time, media and patience. For myself, my time is definitely worth more than two bucks a slide. Plus, each CD will hold 5 different resolutions of about 120 images per disc.

Just a thought...

Edit judiciously and then find a lab that does good quality Kodak PhotoCD work and negotiate a bulk discount.

"Would a high end flatbed scanner be usable to scan a whole page of slides at once?" I asked this question in this thread. See in particular Peter Peter's answer. My understanding is that Nikon's SF 200 will jam if used out of the box, but can be tweaked to work. See details of the fixes by someone who scanned 5000 slides. Autofocus seems to be an issue with Nikon 2000/4000, but maybe it's not critical for low-res scans. So it seems that both solutions can work. As far as I am concerned, I am still undecided about which one to use. Renting a LS 2000/4000 and seeing how it works is probably the next option. Tuan/Terra Galleria images

Mr. Atkins... can you give us an order of magnitude on the number of slides? If it's a roll a week for 50 years, that's almost 100,000 slides. It might be hard to come up with any solution. PhotoCD is definitely out ("Hmmm... buy a house, or scan my slides?")

Define "way too expensive"

$2 qualifies, IMHO, if we're talking about bulk scanning. 10,000 slides @ $2 = $20,000. 100,000 slides @ $2 = $200,000. They wouldn't even be good scans! They'd still have to be re-scanned for critical use. Remember, this person was talking about 50 years worth of slides!

I would love to be proven wrong, but I believe for any reasonable number of slides the only answer is to buy a scanner and scan them yourself. And this is a logistical nightmare with current technology.

Karl Lehmann Lost World Arts

Transfer the damn slides to a VHS tape.

I had this dream once too. I've got a Dell P4 1.3GHz, 512MB Ram, 12x CD burner, W2K, Nikon 4000ED, 50 slide batch feeder, roll film adapter, Photoshop 6.0, and Vuescan. Even with my setup, I'm making trouble keeping up, let alone take care of my 15 year backlog.

Here is the process I use. Scan at 4000ppi using ice and GEM 3 in sRBG. Save as 68MB tiff, yymmdd-xN-1 to n (x = roll of film on this day, n = number of images on this roll.) For slides I edit and only scan the images I'm going to archive. I use the yymmdd-x-1 to n format for slides. Use PS 6 in automate mode to "Autolevel, resize to 1500x1000, save a copy as 1MB JPG. PS color scheme is sRGB. Use Vueprint from Hamrick.com to open jpgs, and delete duds. To go Explorer and delete all tifs that don't have a jpg. Then delete all jpgs. Open 6 tiffs at a time. Crop and save as tifs. Use PS 6 in automate mode to "Autolevel, save as LZW tiff, fit to 1000x800 pixels, sharpen 147%, 1.4 pixels, 4 threshold, save as jpg quality 10. Examine images and correct color, sharpening, cropping, etc. Burn to CD, delete tifs from hard drive. Store CDs in safe deposit box. This is a very time consuming process even though I've tried to be efficient and use the tools to maximum benefit. Because of the amount of idle time the operator has, the only way to get maximum productivity would be to have several identical computers, scanners, software all doing scanning and burning.

Just a couple of thoughts:

Chris Hawkins: one thing to remember is that CDR is, as photographers say, non-archival. I'm not sure how long burned CDs will remain readable but I doubt they'll last past 20, 30 years (and will CD players still exist then?) Of course, there is no easy answer to the problem of storing all that data, but hard disks aren't that expensive any more (remember to mirror, though). Banks, insurance etc. seem to trust WORM drives and some kinds of tape for archival purposes.

Yes, $2 per slide is expensive, but can you realistically do it for much less yourself, assuming your time is not worthless? Perhaps for $1 or $0.50, but if you've got 100000 slides, that's still a lot of money (and time.)

I wonder, how much would it cost to buy your own PhotoCD scanning machine? Does anyone know? Just a thought.

Scanning at 4000dpi takes a much long time, and is not necessary for a web page or even for 8x10's, I think. I scan everything at 2000dpi, into high qualiuty jpg's to maximize space. The ones I really like and want to print, I can rescan. How many different 8x10's can you hang on your walls? :)

I have been using Vuescan, an LS2000 and an SF200 for about twelve months with few problems. I scan each film I take for archive purposes. I have had very few jams. Vuescan gets the colour right on most images and I rescan the rejects using the Nikon scan software. Vuescan writes each scan to disk as it goes so memory shouldn't be an issue.

Edit ruthlessly? I sometimes wonder about questions like this. Do many (amateur) photographers really generate such a vast quantity of images worth keeping? Ok, there's personal shots one wants to keep for emotional reasons, regardless of photographic quality. Then there's the keepers, shots you'd be proud to show off - how many of those have any of us personally got, if we're truly honest with ourselves about their quality?

I've been taking photographs enthusiastically for the last fifteen years and there are about 300 images in my files that I consider worth keeping. Maybe I'm unusually self-critical...

I'm the family photo historian, so I've got a ton of those. These photos don't have the same standards as my art.

Anthony is right. CDR is not archival. That is why I have contact sheets with the names of the images underneath. I'll also transfer them to the new medium that replaces CDR.

Yikes, Bob - I have but a mere 25 years of personal work to archive. Suddenly I don't feel so bad. ;-)

For what it's worth, here's how I'm handling my situation.

At work, I use an Epson 1600 flatbed with transparency adapter to make digital "contact sheets" of each roll I shoot, be it negative or 'chrome. I save the files as moderately sized TIFFs so I can make decent enlarged contact sheets (11x14, sometimes 13x19" - the ease of making enalarged contacts is one place digital has it all over traditional methods). I burn the files onto CD-R (no, it ain't iron-clad archival, but little else in the electronic realm is, either...yet), and catalogue accordingly. Back at home, I eventually get to picking the significant stuff for high-res scanning and scan my brains out for a specified period of time, limiting myself to a specific number of projects.

Heed this well: if you're still shooting after all this time, yours will be a never-ending task of scanning, cataloging, selective high-res scanning and printing (and, if you've the nerve, presenting). I can think of worse things in this life...

get one of those nikon scanners with auto feeder is really the way to go. if he can afford it, get the ls-4000, otherwise, get the ls-2000. the auto feeder will work with either of them. the flatbed idea is good for making contact sheet, but not really that great for scanning tons of slides individually. if he doesn't have the right software, he'll have to go through each scan to crop out each slide individually, what a pain! obviously, the resolution is limited. plus, scanning 6 slides at once is still a big difference from scanning 50 slides at once.

like mentioned above, one thing to watch out for in using the auto feeder is to make sure the slide mounts are in decent shape. loose or warped mounts tend to jam the feeder.

Sounds like you first think hard to find good reasons not to scan to digital.

And that's a serious suggestion.

If you can get by with a way of photography for 50 years during which no scanning was either feasible or required, why is it suddenly needed now?

And what exactly does conversion to digital at this point achieve?

I went through this thought process in slow motion over the last few years, the prospective scanner being a potentially expensive (and potentially time consuming) acquisition.

Ultimately, the penny dropped when I realized I have had just a fine old time the way I've been going for the last 25-30 years, and that there is no reason at all to scan in bulk for the next 30 or 50, God willing. The few pictures I need to email off, I have converted to photo CD or got cheap Fuji scans at the drugstore.

As for the rest, I continue with selective enlargements (reversal and negative), occasional darkroom work of my own, the same old slide shows etc. My oldest Ektachromes are slipping a bit I admit, but only a handful inspire any regret. And those I can get scanned with an afternoon's culling and dropping off at a competent lab.

And I wonder, I have quite a few dusty 5 inch floppies in storage, with data that will never be read; they are but 15 years old, if that. Will I be able to take the trouble to find a service that reads my CDs 30 years from now. My slides and prints, or those of my grandparents from 80 years ago, I just pick up and look at.

Little in life that is material in nature has long term emotional value or meaning. This liberating truth dawns slowly with age, at least in my dim mind :-) Others may have grasped the point rather more quickly :-)

As an aside, Henri Cartier-Bresson, actually wanted to burn his negatives a few years ago, and was persuaded not to by a tearful publisher.

But he still thinks that for him, photography was but a phase (some phase!). If he can be that strong of mind, and so forward looking-well, that should give us desperately clinging lesser mortals some pause...

Hmm...let's see, it was on a Dell P3. Yes, a bunch of RAM but if you are serious about scanning images, it's a must anyway. Bob's original question (lest we forget) was to open up the discussion to higher resolution batch scans. Also, "Are the batch scan feeders reliable." For simple desktop viewing most flatbeds take far too long in my opinion. Some labs offer a Photo CD as part of processing and this may be the way to go. The batch feeder on the 4000 was reliable given the minor modification I pointed out. Also, I never had any trouble with system failures like some have experienced with the LS 2000. I loaded up the feeder and let it go. Of course that gave me the chance to dream about far more enjoyable things :)

This may sound silly at first, but stop and think about it....

get a good prjection screen and decent projector. You would need a room with controlled lighting (dark!, no background reflections)

Get a decent digital camera (2megapixel would be plenty, and those cost less for the same quality)

Project slide -- shoot camera -- repeat as needed.

Quaility would not be anywhere near as good as a scanner, but if the purpose is to look at them on a monitor, quality (particularly color) is out the window anyway.

With careful setup (and some experimentation) this could yield decent results, and has the advantage of being fast and cheap (assuiming the slides are already set up for slide shows)

I have played around with this with an Olympus 2100uz, a beatup old screen, bad light control and a poor projector, and it was only half bad. I think it could be made to work.

This would not work for "reasonably high resolution images". I wonder though if you could setup a copy stand with a D30?

Scott Frey Hyperion Studios

I've tried a variant of the technique suggested by Scott, using a Coolpix 995 with the slide copying attachment. It is possible to get decent low/medium res results (underexpose by 1/2 stop to prevent blowing highlights and then use an action with curves in photoshop to readjust the results) but it takes approximatively 1 min just to photograph two slides. Tuan/Terra Galleria.

In Seattle, Pacific Color near Green Lake will scan slides or negs to PhotoCD for 1$ each. I've had good success with these folks. Still expensive if you have lots to do, but half the previously posted quotes.

BITE THE BULLET. Spend $2K (Bucks) on a neg scanner and upgraded storage capacity and then spend a few weeks/months scanning/cataloging the pics (Time). Is X-years worth of pictures worth the Bucks and Time or not? I have found that commercial scanning services are both too expensive (after the fact - the Kodak CD thing is cheap at first development), and take too long, and the scans are not always optimal. Life ain't always easy. Waahh.

Dennis

One possibility I saw the other day is the slide copy adapters for the Canon D30. Just put the slide in the adapter find a proper light source, click the shutter and dump the results to computer. Would be one at a time though.

Bob - I'm actually working through such a project with my father's old slides - I've probably got 2000 - 3000 slides to scan. I use Vuescan and an Acer Scanwit 2740s. I try to scan at least 5 boxes per week, and I'm just trying to nibble away at it over time.

I've also thought about hiring a local kid to do it, but just haven't found someone.

When I consider the $1 to $2 cost, obviously the $500 Scanwit plus my labor is a heck of a lot cheaper than the $2k to $6k it would cost me to have them scanned.

I did quite a bit of research on the net, looking for folks that might offer cheaper scanning - I thought that for sure someone has a bulk scanning machine that they'd be willing to drop the price if we're talking about thousands of slides, but I didn't have any luck.

If you find something, please post it here. I'm only about 20%through my dad's slides!

Why bother having these old slides scanned? I can think of a couple of reasons:

• duplicates that can be saved offsite in case of loss or damage
• great excuse to index the old stuff
• easier to share images with others

I've recently finished scanning over 1200 slides and 2000 prints from my family's photos. I brought a CD over to the last gathering and we had fun laughing over them. Many of the slides images have probably never been seen before in our adult lives. It's much easier to skip around on a computer (using a TV output so everyone can see) than with a projector. And the best part? I can give them all a set of CDs with a copy of every image so that they can then continue to share them.

This project has taken 4 years of on-and-off work. I've also been doing some of my personal stuff and have over 6000 images total so far. For my personal stuff, the major benefit will be the indexing. I'll be finally be able to find any image in a few minutes first on screen and then reference back to the original if needed.

I've not had the luxury of a batch feeder. However, with practice I found that both I and the computer are pretty good at multitasking. I can read e-mail, browse photo.net, and even read a book while still keeping the scanner fed. So it's not that bad.

I started out scanning everything at maximum resolution and saving TIFF files. I quickly realized that I was drowning in data management. Every file operation (copying, editing, backups) was taking way too long. And for what? 99% of the images are not worth doing at anything more than maximum screen resolution (e.g., 1600x1200). As long as I have the originals I can always re-scan. So I switched to lower resolution and JPEG and am much happier. Those images that deserve the full treatment still get it but this makes much better use of my time.

So, my advice: just do it. If you find your stuff is so boring that even you can't stand to look at it for the time it takes to scan it, then don't bother.

I think Nikon Coolscan LS 8000 might help you. It has ability to scan several slides in one time scanning. And, it has Nikon ED lens... so don't worry about the digital pic quality. It could scan the 120 formats too.

I am the one who posed the question, "How can we look all of the family slides we have collected over the past 50 years?" Hauling out the projector and screen each time is just too much work. Obviously the only way, is to put them all on a computer, where we can share with everybody.

I want to thank Bob Atkins for posting my question, and I especially want to thank all of you who have contributed all of those great ideas. It is not an easy problem to solve, and I know there must be thousands of families, just like ours, that long to find a way to bring back all those old memories.

I am not a professional, and am not able nor have the time to tweak each slide to perfection, so probably the vast majority of the images will never go any further than the computer screen. But I would want them to look as close to the original as possible. When we find that perfect image, we can always go back to the slide to have it enlarged and printed. Also I would bet that most of these old slides are stored away in a closet, stacked full of Kodak Carousels, just like ours.

I have read each of your replies, and have searched out the various suggestions. This is a work in progress, and I will report back on the final decision.

I have found one product on the internet, but have not actually seen it. It is the VideoMate 6100, at http://www.navitar.com/av/videomate_domestic.htm. This might solve the time-consuming problem of removing slides from the Carousel. However, it is designed to be used with LCD projectors, so I don't know if it would produce JPEG files that are acceptable, how fast it would be or what software is used. It apparently has a digital format and an output of 1024 X 768. The site has links to specifications.

Has anyone used this product?

Murray Dorsey, mddorsey@home.com November 16, 2001; 9:45 PM PST

I'd like to second the note above about JPG vs. TIFF. I've ended up scanning most snapshots (negs or slides) in lower res (usually around 1500 dpi), and in JPEG. Unless it is a particularly meaningful photo, or you're planning to print it out, don't waste time and space scanning snaps into TIFFs. This will make the conversion manageable.

For those of you who really need to scan more than a few thousand frames, and are considering the Kodak Photo CD, then it might be interesting to consider buying a bulk film scanner like the Sony UY-S90.

It sells for $7000 at BH with a slide feeder and scans 40 images in 10 minutes at 2000x3000.

The list price on the VideoMate 6100 is $9,300! I'm sure there are better and cheaper solutions. You could get a Nikon 4000 slide scanner and bulk feeder for way less than that.

Wow! Well, maybe I could rent it. What attracted me was that I hoped you could just set the Carousel on top and let it run automatically thru 140 slides. I still would talk to anyone who has ever used the VideoMate 6100.

How long will it take for the prices of bulk film scanners to drop down? Perhaps to all of us who are considering scanning old slides a good idea is to wait a couple of years before jumping into a never ending task. After all we are talking about recent technology. Soon, slide scanners will me much more efficient and a lot cheaper (I hope)…

With the Nikon LS 4000 + SF 200, it takes half-a-day to scan 50 slides at max resolution with dust removal. Provided that you have a computer you can dedicate full time to the task and you do three loads per day, the maximum you'll be able to do is 150 slides/day. Tuan Travel pictures

I have thought about that same problem myself and came to conclusion that, for all practical purposes, scanning slides to PhotoCD is cheaper than doing it yourself unless you have 1000 slides (color2000 in San Francisco gives you $100 for 100 slides, and good slide scanner with autofeeder, together with upgrade of computer to run it would cost >$1000 anyway.) My collection is around 3000 images, about half-and-half slides and negatives.

The proper strategy is perhaps select 100 best, scan them, then publish them on web and try to sell good prints - if you are good, that should pay for itself. Then continue. And if you do not have a single slide out of 100 you consider your best which nobody is interested in, well, you just wasted your time ;-) (This should work both as business model (you are trying to save money, right?) and a way to self-gratification...

I have a similar question. I have 20 years of 4x6 prints that I want on the web. But while batch feeders for slide scanners are plentiful, I haven't been able to find a batch feeder for prints (and page feeders on scannes don't work). Am I the only person who wants this?

So I'm looking for a basic lo-res but inexpensive solution to scanning thousands of prints.

Any ideas?

Well if you want low resolution (eg fast-to-scan) i'd say your best bet is to just buy a decent flatbed scanner and hire a kid to do it. Of all the things we use in life, a flatbed has got to be the simplest one... and you can't tell me that there aren't quite a few high schoolers who would happily sit and scan for two hours for $30. in two hours of fast low res scanning you can get quite a few scans in. Of all the people on this thread I think yours may be the easiest 'problem' to solve :)

I wish I was in your shoes, but sadly i'm in the "many years of family slides and even more unlabeled-but-possibly-precious negatives, all of which will someday be fought over by four senitimental siblings" category.

How about Capture Eternity (www.capture-eternity.com)? They can scan 500 photographs for 75 UK Pounds. Seems like a good deal to me.

They say they scan at 300dpi and provide jpeg files, which would be good enough for me.