Digitizing Slides
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
Next: Turn To Stone With The 24/1.4G!!
From: (PeteCresswell) on 2 Aug 2010 11:32 Per Skylamar Jones: >She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29 >cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which >is more than my mom wants to spend. > >I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for >digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than >Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home. Devil's Advocate Position: Have them printed (commercially, so the prints last), put the prints into albums, and move the slides to your place. Yes, now they're taking up even more space.... But the idea is for somebody to actually see them and my experience has been that once they get scanned to disc they effectively disappear for non-technophiles. -- PeteCresswell
From: Allen on 2 Aug 2010 11:34 Ofnuts wrote: > On 02/08/2010 09:04, Skylamar Jones wrote: >> Hi. I'm new to this group so I don't know if someone posted a similar >> question recently. >> >> My mom has 3000 slides taken by my dad, who has passed away. Because of >> the space the slides take up in her home, my mom is weeding through >> them, looking at them manually using a slide projector. >> >> She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29 >> cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which >> is more than my mom wants to spend. >> >> I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for >> digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than >> Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home. > > Digitizing slides at home is extremely labor intensive, unless you have > one of these very expensive Nikon scanners with all their expensive > options that make it just plain labor intensive. > > I'm facing the very same problem (except I'd be the one doing the > scanning) but I'm taking another route: reduce my Dad's 3000 slides to a > set of 100-200 worth passing to the next generations. > My first experience with this was 17 years ago, when I realized that almost all the pictures of my two children were slides. I rigged a gadget to hold my camera and a slide, and also, thanks to some adapters I had around the house, exopy cement and a bellows unit I decided that I would copy a hundred slides to print film and make up two books as Christmas presents for them. A hundred? Hah? I couldn't stop until I had copied 360. To be on the the safe side, I used daylight as a light source and bracketed each with three exposures, then selected the best of each and had 1,080 prints made (I also kept a copy for myself). This was a slow, tedious and expensive process. (Note that digital was hardly a good approach 17 years ago--no decent cameras, no decent color printers, no decent imaging software) About 5 or 6 years ago I decided to do something about all the slides I had, going back to 1946. This time I used my Canon 8400F scanner. I scanned at least 3,000 slides, to be printed as needed. Slow, yes--but so was the film approach, and scanning was much cheaper and the quality was better. Incidentally, that 29 cents at Costco is a very cheap price; I wonder what the resolution is? Allen
From: Peter on 2 Aug 2010 11:41 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:k4kd56t0um19o16sb4fkraehu6b7gn14q3(a)4ax.com... > I think most of us of a certain age have gone through this with either > their own slides or slides taken by a parent. I did, and I culled the > slides down to about 10% "keepers" and scanned them myself. > > The process of weeding them out is quite enjoyable. Going through the > slides brings back a lot of memories. The process of scanning is less > enjoyable, but can be done over a period of time. I agree, logically. However, I am too much of a photo hoarder to do any meaningful cull. I temporarily solved the problem by simply putting the culls back in a box, which I have trouble throwing out. The major issue was solved unhappily when we moved. The moving people lost a file cabinet containing shots from our wedding, slides of the kids growing up and lots of fond vacation memories. -- Peter
From: G Paleologopoulos on 2 Aug 2010 11:43 "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote news:q3pd569b5aenr6krass0iqae4invichnu4(a)4ax.com... > >....................................................... > Devil's Advocate Position: Have them printed (commercially, so > the prints last), put the prints into albums, and move the slides > to your place. > > Yes, now they're taking up even more space.... But the idea is > for somebody to actually see them and my experience has been that > once they get scanned to disc they effectively disappear for > non-technophiles. > -- > PeteCresswell Good point.
From: Jon Smid on 2 Aug 2010 12:51
Skylamar Jones schreef: > Hi. I'm new to this group so I don't know if someone posted a similar > question recently. > > My mom has 3000 slides taken by my dad, who has passed away. Because of > the space the slides take up in her home, my mom is weeding through > them, looking at them manually using a slide projector. > > She isn't that computer savvy but she told me that Costco charges 29 > cents per slide for digitizing them. For 3000 slides that's $870 which > is more than my mom wants to spend. > > I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions for other ideas for > digitizing slides such as using a company that's cheaper/better than > Costco or a buying/renting good scanner that my mom can use at home. > > Thanks, > > Sky I did get /acceptable/ results (certainly for family purposes) by using a dia duplicator onto an EOS400D. Shooting goes extremely fast (say 10 per minute or so) while the only parameter I monitored was the histogram (now and then compensating up to +/-1 stop). Afterwards I ran the *raws* through a program to process with : - automatic whitebalance - autoleveling That was done of course fully automatic. |