Convert slides to digital

#2
I havnt used that one, but I have a slide scanner. An old one.

After considering the same, as I too have an entire drawer full of old negs and slides from my photography days, I concluded that paying a photo shop to do all the scanning for me was a much better idea!

I also have a pile of 4x5 negs, those I have been scanning myself with a high resolution flatbed neg scanner. Painfully slow process, mainly due to the required cleanliness.


That one you linked to, I didnt look too hard, but does it require to to dismount the slide from the holder to make the scan?
Not all scanners require this. Something to think about, as dismounting every single slide in order to scan is a LOT more labor, as well as adding handling that may damage the slide itself.
 
#3
I have used a flat deck slide scanner. Had to place one at the time, up to 4 slide per plate. Did around 1000 of them in a couple weeks, when ever I felt like it, with a good coffee.

I was not looking for poster quality, since the slides were probable from 55 to 20 years old. But really like the fact that now they are all saved on hard drive and cds.
 
#5
....That one you linked to, I didnt look too hard, but does it require to to dismount the slide from the holder to make the scan?
Not all scanners require this. Something to think about, as dismounting every single slide in order to scan is a LOT more labor, as well as adding handling that may damage the slide itself.
No it has different trays for mounted slides, and film sizes.

Thanks for all ideas so far.

Doug
 

pluton

Adventurer
#6
Buy it, but be prepared to return it if the results are crapola.
Flatbed scanners will give a nice looking scan of a 35mm color slide, except for one thing: The image will be low resolution, and will look soft if printed larger than about 4x6".
The results from that Amazon-sold scanner will look a bit grungy...compared to a $1000 laboratory drum scan, but may be OK for everyday use. The next step up would something like this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/980019-REG/plustek_783064365345_optic_film_8200ise_scanner.html
It is also possible to build a slide copying set up with your digital camera. Copying with a modern DSLR or other interchangeable lens mirrorless camera will have results as good or better than the $400 scanners. Also: copying with the DSLR/mirrorless camera , once you get the setup set up, goes way faster than any scanner. Scanners are...regrettably...slow. Using a flat-field "macro" lens is generally required for a good looking slide copy on DSLR.
 
Last edited:
#7
....It is also possible to build a slide copying set up with your digital camera.....
Thanks so much for the reply. I run across this method on youtube after I posted, why had I not thought of that. Also it gives me something to build, yes I'm
sick that way.:) (and retired)

Doug
 
#8
I've used an Epson flatbed negative scanner with pretty good results. The problem with most scanners is the amount of time and labor involved in the scanning, I gave up after a few thousand pictures because cleaning and loading takes forever. One reason I went with the Epson over others is for their automatic dust reduction technology, that will save a lot of time in post processing because unless you're in a cleanroom there will be dust.

If I had to do it over again I'd probably go with a converter that uses a digital SLR. The resolutions on even entry level DSLR are high enough to give decent results, and it's a lot quicker to snap a picture than scanning. You probably won't get the same resolution as a dedicated slide/negative scanner, but for most people it won't matter. A full resolution uncompressed scan is over 100MB per picture, so most people aren't going to need or want that quality level for old pictures.
 
#9
I was looking into to this recently as an older friend has thousands of slides lying around. After a bunch of research, it would seem that the Wolverine brand of slide scanners seem to be fairly easy and quick to use as they just scan right onto a SD card and done.
Short of spending the big bucks they also seemed to be the best over all reviewed. Several photo blogs and review sights also recommended them. Apparently, that extra 80 bucks is worth it to get better clarity, increased mega pixles, etc etc.

The one thing that I kept reading about was that most people will buy one of these scanners for digital storage, but the ones they really care about or the ones that they want to blow up, they send off to a professional service. It would seem that some places will do it for a dollar a slide, some more, some less depending on how good you want it to be
 
#10
The Epson V600 flatbed scanner does a pretty nice job - it has digital ICE technology to remove the dust spots. I've been experimenting with different (faster) methods using my digital SLR and a macro lens.
First I tried modifying a slide projector by replacing the main light concentrating lens with a piece of whit translucent plastic and removing the projector lens. The problem was the slides didn't always land in the same spot.
Next I used a copy stand and a small Logan LED 4" x 5" light box as a light source. I made a mask to hold a slide and that worked pretty well but it was a little fiddly.

My latest experiment is working very well, I bought an Illumitran 3s slide duplicator off Ebay for $50 and removed the old column for the film camera. I set it up under my copy stand and I'm using my Canon DSLR with a 100mm macro lens to duplicate slides.
I'm still playing with the settings but I can copy 36 slides in under 5 minutes.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
#11
I was looking into to this recently as an older friend has thousands of slides lying around. After a bunch of research, it would seem that the Wolverine brand of slide scanners seem to be fairly easy and quick to use as they just scan right onto a SD card and done.
Short of spending the big bucks they also seemed to be the best over all reviewed. Several photo blogs and review sights also recommended them. Apparently, that extra 80 bucks is worth it to get better clarity, increased mega pixles, etc etc.

The one thing that I kept reading about was that most people will buy one of these scanners for digital storage, but the ones they really care about or the ones that they want to blow up, they send off to a professional service. It would seem that some places will do it for a dollar a slide, some more, some less depending on how good you want it to be
Re: slide converters. I did look at those before purchasing a negative scanner. They look really convenient, but I'd be more inclined to go with a standalone slide setup for an SLR or flatbed vs. the all in one solution. My reasoning was for <$200, how good could the optics and sensor be? People who have gone through the the trouble of using slide film and scanning slides probably have thousands of dollars in decent camera equipment, and I'd trust the optics and sensor on any SLR vs. the ones that come packaged in one of those converters. For decent quality, slides and negatives have to be scanned at much higher resolution than a photo, due to their physically smaller sizes, so the optical precision is much more important than for regular photography.
 

DiploStrat

Expedition Leader
#12
Been there, got scars ….

The gold standard for scanning slides has long been the Nikon Coolscan. I still have a Coolscan V and use Vuescan software.

Basically, if you want archival quality, that is, a slide that will rival a new, digital image, then:

-- You need a resolution of 3000 dpi or more.
-- You will need to scan to TIFF. This means each slide is about 100+MB.
-- You will need some form of infrared cleaning that will work with Kodachrome.
-- You will spend hours in some form of photo editing program cleaning up the best images.

Slides are hard as the original image is high contrast and the the scanning process will tend to increase that contrast.

In may personal case, as the slides spent many years in the tropics, a good scanner will reproduce emulsion cracks and mildew blooms in glorious detail.

Lots of examples here: http://www.pbase.com/diplostrat

Look at the Cameroon, Sahara, Peru/Bolivia albums, as well as the test scans album.

N.B. Most of these images have been much improved over the years, but I have not updated the site.

Some of them look like they were taken yesterday. (Except that it has been a long time since I had hair!)

(Image will enlarge several times. Original scan as TIFF, reduced to JPEG for ease of posting.)

40Years-23.jpg 40Years-26.jpg

The first image as originally posted on the web:


 
Last edited:
#13
Has anyone used this scanner. Been thinking about converting some of the 1000's of old slides I have. And a few negatives.
Or better option?

https://smile.amazon.com/Magnasonic...&qid=1517161908&sr=8-7&keywords=slide+scanner


Doug
Haven't used the particular unit you are looking at so I can't comment on how well it works. But if those slides are something you really value you might want to get something that gives top-quality results. A few years ago I wanted to scan some of the thousands of slides I'd exposed through the years and ended up buying a Plustek OpticFilm 7600i Film scanner. There are newer models of that now available, and they all come with Lasersoft Imaging's "SilverFast" scanning software. That software is a great help in that not only can it be set up to scan E-6 type slides but also Kodachromes, and has excellent dust/blemish removal capabilities. I've been very happy with this setup - research it on-line and see if this wouldn't do what you need done. But as other posters have said, get ready for some big files - you may need to invest in a separate, large hard drive!
 

DiploStrat

Expedition Leader
#14
Plustek appears to the the successor to the Cooltek.

Anything other than a good macro lens set up or a dedicated slide scanner is likely to have visibly lower quality. Of the flatbeds, Epson have consistently gotten the best reviews.
 
#15
Thanks for the input guys. The Coolscan is way out of budget for just hobby/family pics. I had thought of renting one but did not figure I would enjoy it when there was time frame hanging over my head.

I had seen the Plustek but was not sure what it did better than the one I linked to.

I think I am going to work on a DSLR setup. I'd rather spend $'s on a better macro lens that would get used more.

Thanks again
Doug
 
Top