Tips for scanning 35mm slides?

[Bill Dix]

I have many thousands of old 35mm transparencies (I'm sure a lot of you are in the same boat), and I would like to digitize many of these before they deteriorate further. I've had mixed success using a desktop scanner (Epson Perfection V500 Photo), but results are more often poor than good. Does anyone have a preferred scanner that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and/or preferred post-scanning workflow that they would care to share. I know that the equipment and workflow, and ultimate degree of success, will depend in large part on the film type, condition and nature of the individual slide, but I'd be interested in any advice folks would like to offer.

[ChasMcRae]

Hi Bill,
I use a Nikon 5000 super coolscan for 35mm slides and negatives. According to what I have heard probably best for value although may be a newer model. You can get a 16 bit scan which ends up being a greater than 100 MB file or use 8 bit for smaller TIFF scan. I always do a TIF file and go from there.
From what I read a scanned slide file needs more sharpening than a digital file at its final output. Of course as you sharpen you increase noise and have catch 22.
My biggest problem has been with film grain since I use to take ASA 50 film and push to a 100 or 200 ASA. When I run all the noise reduction I lose detail in feathers,etc.
I would like to hear from others who have struggled with this. I presently use Nik software for noise reduction.
Just a few unconnected thoughts for others to build on.
Chas.

[Chris Knight]

I have been using the HP Scanjet G4050 to do my wifes family slides. It has a holder that does16 at a time. Saving them as jpgs at about 1mb per capture. Very nice results for as old as they are.

[Jeff Donald]

I would buy one of the better Nikon scanners designed for slide and negs. They do as good as job as possible without going to the expense of a drum scanner. They also hold their value very well and can be sold on eBay or other photo related forums for what you paid for it after your scanning job is complete.

[Tony Whitehead]

I have had some success using a light table and macro lens setup on a tripod for copying some of my old B&W negatives. I haven't tried slides yet but if you have the gear it avoids the expense of a scanner and I have been happy with the results from the negatives.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . My biggest problem has been with film grain since I use to take ASA 50 film and push to a 100 or 200 ASA. When I run all the noise reduction I lose detail in feathers,etc.
I would like to hear from others who have struggled with this. I presently use Nik software for noise reduction. . . .
Charles,

I think the answer is simple, though the implementation isn't: masking. Create a mask so that grain reduction is not applied to the detailed parts of the image (it's the grain that creates the detail) but only to areas of smooth color where grain is apparent and objectionable. Even with a bird against a blue sky, however, making a selection isn't as simple as it appears. Select > Color is better than the Magic Wand, but even it can lose fine feathers, especially on the throat, and often these must be painted into the mask by hand.

I use the Photoshop plug-in version of Digital GEM. (Using the Digital GEM built into the scanner softens everything, so I turn that off.) Grain is very different from digital noise, and I'm unfamiliar with Nik, so I have no idea whether it works well on grain or not.

[ChasMcRae]

Thanks everyone for comments.
Cliff, I will ck my settings on the Nikon Scanner software-what other settings do you think work better than others on the Nikon scanner ?

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . what other settings do you think work better than others on the Nikon scanner ?
Charles,

My process is very time consuming. You wouldn't want to bother with much of this except for your best selects. Also, some of the following will be repetitive with my previous post, as I'm copying from a response I sent recently to another photograper.

I'm using a 4000, a 5000 might be slightly different. Starting with the most basic things, I select Positive except when scanning the odd, older Kodachrome, and Calibrated RGB. Under Preferences, Gamma stays at the default 2.2 and Color Management is set to my current monitor profile. On the Tools Palette, I set Resolution to 4000 ppi. Because my particular scanner scans somewhat blue, I cut Blue in the RGB levels box to .90, while boosting red to 1.03 and magenta to 1.01. I set Unsharp Mask to 40/20/6, numbers recommended long ago by Tim Grey. Other people, like the late Bruce Fraser, say you should do no sharpening in the scan, sharpen later with PK Sharpener or a similar product. But the PK Sharpener's 35mm film scan sharpener hasn't impressed me.

Continuing down the Tools Palette, I set Chroma at 1.10 to more nearly match the look of my slides, though clearly I could boost saturation later in Photoshop as an alternative. I set Digital ICE to normal, but turn off Digital GEM and Digital ROC (more on Digital GEM later). I set multisampling to 4x when scanning for highlights or midtones, 8x or 16x when scanning for blacks (see next paragraph). I scan at a bit depth of 14.

Though it's extremely time consuming, I scan all slides with any significant level of contrast two to three times at different levels of brightness. Usually the first scan to capture the highlights is done with the Analog Gain tool set to -.5. I save that as Image 1. A second scan is then done at +.7 (saved as Image 2), followed by a third scan at something between +1.4 and +2 depending on where the blacks fall on the histogram. For slides that have data off the right side of histogram even at -0.5, I'll go even darker on the first scan, then adjust the other two accordingly. Once the scans are done, in Photoshop I move Image 2 on top of Image 3, then copy Image 3 (Control A, Control C), and paste it into a contrast mask on Image 2 (Alt-click the mask, then Control V). I then move Image 1 on top of the combined image, and repeat, copying Image 2 into a contrast mask in Image 1. This results in an image that captures both the blacks and whites of the slide better than any single scan can. I usually put a Threshold layer on top of the three scans, then turn down Image 1 to produce the correct level of whites in the brightest spot (apart from specular highlights) in the image. Then the whole thing gets flattened and processed as normal in Photoshop. For the combination process to be done easily, you must be sure not to move the slide between scans.

Because I don't apply any Digital GEM in the scanning process, my scans are grainy, as are drum scans. To fix that, I bought Digital GEM as a Photoshop plug-in for about $100. One of the first things I do to an image after I combine the scans is apply Digital GEM to areas of smooth color like skies or out-of-focus greens. I start with whatever selection tool works best, then refine the mask by painting with black and white. I do a pretty good mask before applying the Digital GEM, then refine it afterwords. I generally prefer to have no softening of grain on the bird or other subject, except perhaps in dark shadows where grain is most apparent. On some images, like landscapes with no sky or other smooth areas, I find Digital GEM isn't needed at all.

[ChasMcRae]

Thanks Cliff ! It sounds like you have put some time and thought into the process.
Ill try this on a few at first to see how I do.
Hope you are doing well and in the field a lot.
Chas.

[Roger Clark]

I have several 35mm scanners but the time to scan is too much, so I have a few thousand slides that sit awaiting scanning. In theory a high megapixel digital camera, like a 5DII or 1DIV and a quality 1:1 macro lens could do better than most scanners, and very fast. The trick is to do a linear raw conversion, not the standard curve that is applied by in-camera jpeg or most raw converters. You could use DCRAW and batch convert. Does someone know of a good slide copying setup? I have a 5DII and 180 m macro. For color negatives, you need a color correction filter to compensate for the orange substrate. Without the color correction filter, you must apply a large color balance which increases noise. I tried some digital camera slide copying many years ago with a 6 megapixel 10D and it seemed to work fine, just not high enough resolution. The 5DII is higher resolution than 35mm velvia.

Roger

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Does someone know of a good slide copying setup? . . .
At least until now, a good setup has been hard (if not impossible) to arrange. Peter Krogh, author of The DAM Book, has been doing camera scanning for a while, using a Nikon bellows, somewhat modified, I believe. There seems to be nothing equivalent in the Canon EOS/EF system. Krogh is working with Really Right Stuff to get a proper film stage for quick, accurate alignment, and it looks as if the project is proceeding, though the price estimate is fairly high at about $500:

http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=f8a1db9d368c641157ac72604a5c38 8c&topic=2785.0

About the speed of camera scanning, one of the big pitfalls is dust, which is handled very well with Digital ICE in scanning, whereas every spec or scratch is said to be captured by a camera scan.

[Roger Clark]

About the speed of camera scanning, one of the big pitfalls is dust, which is handled very well with Digital ICE in scanning, whereas every spec or scratch is said to be captured by a camera scan.

I agree with that! If one has a dust problem, then a film scanner and ICE can save a lot of time even if it does take longer to scan.

Roger

[shilpaworld2]

The scanner you choose can make all the difference in how long this job takes you to complete. A multipurpose flatbed scanner with a slide/film scanner in the lid can give you the ability to scan not only negatives, but also hard-copy prints as well. In addition, it can give you the ability to scan and convert documents to text and save yourself a lot of typing. This versatility comes at a price---speed. Scanning film and slides with a flatbed scanner is time-consuming at best, and if you have a large number of slides, you have to consider whether its worth it to spend considerably more money to purchase a dedicated negative and slide scanner.

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 48pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="64"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64" height="17">Great offer and utilize this (http://sidewaysmedia.go2jump.org/SHC)</td> </tr></table>