old film camars and slides… what to do?

Good topic and question. I wish I had the answer, because I am in the same boat – a few thousand slides from days gone by…

I have noticed ads for scanners that are of moderate cost, less than $200, offering what seems like good resolution. With a bunch of slides, that initially seems like the most cost effective solution, especially if you don't factor in the cost of your time.

This is of interest to me because some of my slides are, and will be, of historical value. I say that because I spent a career in the National Park Service doing archaeology and history – in my experience, the photographs taken years ago were often more valuable and informative than written accounts and descriptions. I don't think that will change anytime soon.

I am sure I am not the only one with old pics hanging around. Consider that your photographs will be of great value to someone, often for what you have preserved inadvertently,not simply the ostensible point of the picture.

Ten years ago I decided to scan all of my slides–over 6000 of them from trips around the planet. It took all of one winter to scan them into digital format, 4 slides at a time, 3 minutes per scan. Whew. But it was totally worth it to me, and a reasonable way to pass the cold dark nights of winter. And it was far cheaper to scan them myself, rather than farm it out to a quality photo lab. If you choose to do them yourself, be prepared to spend a lot of time on it.

Yup. Set up a table where you can watch movies, get some canned air and a dedicated slide scanner and go to work. Burn DVD's and make copies to go in the safe deposit box. Likewise with the family heirloom photos. If disaster strikes, you can replace the couch, but not the photos.

Bill, your post reminded me of the boxes of slides I have upstairs getting old and degrading. Have thought about digitizing them for years, but I'm a terrible procrastinator. You've got me thinking about it again.

After a bit of research, I'm going to do one of two things:

1. Send them to ScanCafe (with US processing for quicker turnaround and with Pro resolution).

2. Buy a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE Film Scanner from B&H for $300 and scan them myself.

I'll let you know what I decide to do if you haven't made a decision by then yourself.

Thanks for putting this back on my radar.

I've done many of my old ones going back several decades. I don't know how many slides, but it was about three shoe boxes full.

I had a very good film scanner (Canon FS40000US) which will scan flat film or slides, but I had to get the computer set up with a new driver program. The original scanner interface has not been supported on the latest couple of operating systems. Once I got that going, then it was mostly a matter of time.

The resolution that you scan mostly depends on your intended use for the image files. If you intend to print, then you better get the resolution somewhere in the range of 300 dots per inch. If you intend to show them on a computer screen, then you can get by with less resolution. If you intend to edit and improve them in Photoshop, then get back to the higher resolution first. If you have some that might be serious gems, then also kick up the color depth at the scan. If you try to push the scan resolution much higher than 300 dpi, you won't have much to show for it except huge image file sizes and much more time spent. However, what you do for scanning depends a lot on the scanner that you select and the hardware interface that it uses to send data to the computer.

In general, a flatbed scanner is not what you want for slides. I admit to scanning a couple of slides with a flatbed scanner, but the results were generally poor as compared to a film/slide scanner.

Note that scanning time goes by the square of the resolution. In other words, if you see that a 100 dpi scan takes a minute, then the 200 dpi scan may take four minutes, and a 400 dpi scan may take sixteen minutes. With that in mind, a scanner with a super fast hardware interface may be worthwhile if you have a large number of slides. Which is more expensive, computer stuff or your time?

Additionally, by digitizing your slides this way, it will allow you to Photoshop-in some color corrections. I had many Ektachrome slides that were shot and processed in a third world country many years ago. Those had taken on an odd color shift. So, once you figure out the color correction for one, you can plug in the same correction to all of them. In some cases, the driver program will allow you to select what kind of slides (e.g. Ektachrome) they are, and it will plug in the color correction to all of the files for you.

Some slides will have minute particles of dust that you need to clean off. That works better than trying to let the scanner perform its magic anti-dust corrections. Some scanners will do an IR surface scan first to figure out where the particles are located, and then it will blur some of the scanned data after the fact to make it seem that the dust was eliminated. This works, but it requires a lot more time, and some of the sharpness may be lost.

When you save your result files, stop and think about what kind of media you want to use, DVD, CD-R, etc. I look back over time and see how many media types (e.g. Zipdrives) are now obsolete and unsupported by modern operating systems. If I had committed my slide scan files to those, I would be stuck. As a consequence, I keep my slide scan files in at least three physical places, typically as JPEG files on multiple hard disks (for easy access), plus at least one external storage device. If any of these start to go obsolete, I can transfer them all to some more modern thing. Be prepared to purchase some extra external hard disk drives, and those may be disengaged and locked up somewhere.

If you do jump into this, do not scan about a zillion slides and then go back to check on the result. You might get an ugly surprise about resolution, color depth, color shift, or something else. So, I recommend that you do a small number in the first batch, check them, then send them to a family member to have them check them. Then proceed to do all of the rest of the slides in the same manner.

–B.G.–

Bob,
we can always count on you for a thorough report. Thanks.

But it seems like a ton of time an effort. I mean, I probably have 5,000 slides to do.

What do you think of this strategy:

Send the slides out for low level scanning at a lower cost.

After they come back, then select the ones I want to have higher quality/more dots per square inch and either send those out for higher level scanning or put the time into doing those myself.? Does that make sense?

thanks,

Bill D.

And what about old film cameras? I have several point and shoot types. Are they worth anything? Or just toss them? It's hard to imagine ever using them again.

thanks for advice on that…

Bill D

"Does that make sense?"

Sure. It depends on the slide scanning service and how reliable they are, how fast they are (turnaround time), and the price.

A friend of mine once sent out a hundred slides to some no-name scanning service, and the files were expected back within the week. After ten days, he contacted the service to inquire, and he got the run-around. After three weeks, he raised hell with the service, and they had absolutely no idea where the original slides had gone. Plus, when he complained to the service management, they wanted him to prove that he had actually sent the slides to the service in the first place or that the service had received them. At the end of it, the service offered to reimburse him for the cost of the original slide film, and that's all. Very soon later, that service was out of business.

–B.G.–

"what about old film cameras?"

Not worth much. The very best film cameras of ten or twenty years ago have a tiny bit of value. Look at the used cameras available from B&H Photo or one of the other large camera companies.

I started shooting a 35mm film camera many decades ago. Absolutely none of those cameras have any value now except as collector's items.

I participated in a photography workshop in 2003 in one of the national parks, and the leader was so proud of his new 8×10 film camera. It had cost him so much money to purchase, and then he discovered how expensive the film was to purchase and to develop. Further, he discovered how incredibly difficult it was to shoot and get good results when the wind is rocking the tripod. Later, I showed him my results from a 35mm camera and new digital camera, and I think he then tried to sell his new 8×10 for a small fraction of what he had paid for it.

Yes, it is still possible to use those old dogs, but you have to be a serious photo nut. Nobody gives a damn if your camera cost $XXXX. They just want to see perfect results on-screen or on a print, and they don't care how you got it.

–B.G.–

I realize a necessary clarification about scanners. When I mentioned 300 dots per inch, I meant the necessary scan file size to produce 300 dots per inch -printed-. Now, if you think about it, a normal 35mm slide is 24x36mm. For rough estimates, that is about one square inch, and what you may need to print at is ten times larger than that in each XY dimension. That means that to get the necessary print resolution, you need to scan at roughly ten times the print resolution, or 3000 dots per inch. Scanners are often rated in Lines per inch, which is about the same thing. That is why most good scanners can produce files of 3000 or 4000 lines per inch. If you are only seeking to produce image files for on-screen use, then you can scan around 1000 lines per inch. Some cheaper scanners quote a scan resolution of 3000 lines, but that is Interpolated, which is sort of like an average between two lines. So, 3000 lines interpolated really means about 1500 lines.

–B.G.–

Thanks Bob.

So does anyone have hands on experience with a scanner they can recommend that comes up to Bob's specs?

And/or hands on experience with a reliable scan service?

thanks,

Bill D

If you go online to B&H Photo and then search for "slide scanner" it will show you a dozen or two dozen new models. Then if you read the description for each, you will see that some meet and exceed my numbers. There are several that fall a little short. But, that is just one vendor. Oh, and the prices are 10% to 20% of what I paid for mine.

Some scanners are highly manual, and the user has to insert one slide, scan one, fool around with it, and then output one file. Others are somewhat more automated, and the user inserts some number into a mechanism that quick scans each one, then allows the user to preview, and then it does a (slower) final scan that produces the output files.

The market is pretty limited for slide scanners, mostly because the only potential buyers are crusty old guys with thousands of 35mm slides hidden away in shoe boxes.

For some years, I actually had to go the other way around. I had digital image files, and I needed to have 35mm slides produced from them. There are some service bureaus (akin to Kinkos) that will do that service as well.

Several months ago at a meeting, I watched a slide show presented by one member. He shot 35mm slides in 1970 on a tough backpacking trip, and the slides still look good.

–B.G.–

If people buy scanners just go scan their old slides, it seems to me there should be some used ones for sale after they finish their scanning projects.

Or… perhaps there is the possibility that two or more could go together and share the cost of a really good scanner and then take turns.

Bill

"Or… perhaps there is the possibility that two or more could go together and share the cost of a really good scanner and then take turns."

Yes, I'll go first.

What I would suggest is to find some kind of camera club in your locality, and then find the crusty old photographers in the club. _They_ will have slide scanners that they used ten years ago when the world moved from film to digital. The really good scanners (like my Canon) cost the better part of $1K back in those days.

Back then, as I shifted about looking for a high quality scanner product, I went through two inferior/awkward scanners. Those are totally unsupportable in operating systems now, so they have gone to recycling.

–B.G.–

Bill

I recently scanned my parent's slides from the early 60's, just over 3 thousand of them.

I bought an Epson V700 which can scan 12 slides at a time. It can do these quite quickly if you turn off the digital ice dust removal and set at a lower resolution. You can then select the best ones for scanning at a higher resolution.

It took me every evening for just over a week, but I was doing other things while the scanner chugged away. When I was finished I sold the scanner on ebay for almost what I paid for it.

The Epson V700 can get very good results, once you get the settings right. I have made several 20" x 16" prints from these scans and they are very sharp. There is an Epson V700 flickr group that has a lot of useful information on how to get the best out of this machine. The key is to set the slide tray at the right height, as the scanner does not have adjustable focus.

del

WEll… maybe… but digitizing your slides does not destroy the original media…

and I absolutely NEVER look at my old slides. I find the digital media MUCH more accessible and useful… for my viewing and for sharing with others…

besides, I won't live through more than one or two more new types of media :)

Bill D

In that regard, do you still have your old Kodak Carousel slide projector? Does it operate?

It must be difficult to find replacement lamps by now.

–B.G.–

del

Rick,
you make some good points.
In my case I have no children and it doesn't even enter my mind to save pics for the next generation.
I am converting my slides to digital files for ME.
They are MUCH easier to access. Like, I haven't looked at my slides in 25 years.
But as I get them scanned it's fun to email them to my old climbing buddies spread around the world and enjoy some memories… hard to do that with slides.
Further, not too far in the distant future I figure my hiking days will be over and it will be nice to have easy access to those memories while reclined on the couch sipping my hot milk and cookies…. and still sending pics to old buddies to jog some memories.

billy

Have you started scanning? What scanning solution did you end up with?

I sent in a test batch to two different scanning services.
Digmypics and Scan Cafe.

I liked Digmypics best and will be using them for more scanning.

http://www.digmypics.com/default.aspx?g=slide%20scanning%20service&gclid=CN29ycu3kb8CFXEF7AodyWcAoA

I think you could do a better job cheaper if you buy a scanner and have a ton of slides to do. But I've heard it is very time consuming and a learning curve on the using the scaner.

So my plan is to send them to Digmypics for scanning. Then process some of the better ones with Photo Shop. Good winter project.

Billy

Let me know how it turns out. Perhaps post some of your scans on the forums!

I'll assume that since you're referring to the old cameras as snapshot, that you're already using digital cameras with 12 MP or better and interchangeable lenses so have a yard sale, donate the old camera(s) to a scout group, or if your local high school has a beginning photo class like mine did, inquire if they're still using the film setup. Most are, because it teaches the kids more about exposure, pushing, and proper density than they'd learn using digital cameras. I donated 3 SLR film cameras to my old high school a few years back. They also would gladly accept point and shoot.

As for the slides, if anyone has more than 100 that they want printed or made digital, it's massively less expensive to do it yourself. With any of the dedicated modern negative / slide scanners on the market, you'll have options in the settings menus to go higher or lower resolution. Most have at least 3 settings. Some have up to 8. Just shop around, read reviews and specs. Look for name brands you have experience with and trust. Look for sales. Someone above suggested B&H Photo.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
An other solid choice is Adorama.
http://www.adorama.com/

I have no affiliation with either company. I've purchased 95% of my photography and videography equipment from them for 28 years and have never had any issues.

I'd suggest a scanner that will do at least 4800 resolution (true photo quality up to 8×10 print), 7200 would be better (true photo quality up to 11×14 print). These specs are optimized for 100 ASA / ISO film and slides. That's assuming that you might want to make prints at some point. If you're only interested in making digital copies to use as wallpapers and / or to post on facebook, then just about any would work.

An other perk to doing it yourself is the control you quickly have over the exposure and coloring as well as an instant ability to do special effects if you're so inclined.

Mine is a 15 year old Minolta model that has a max resolution of 9600 DPI. It still sees occasional use. I still use a film SLR on occasion. There are certain instances where I just have more control than I'd have using even the best digital SLR. So, I use the scanner after the fact for digitizing the images.

I should probably mention that I have a college degree in photography and that I've been a professional photographer (part time side business) for 26 years.

EDIT: I should mention that the 300 dpi that Bob mentions is different than the Hardware Resolution that I'm referring to. I'm referring to the maximum resolution the scanner will allow that's referred to as interpolated resolution which at it's highest setting will allow true photo quality enlargements the size that I mentioned above. Bob is right as to the 300 – 450 dpi resolution being a good scan rate setting.