Shel B

Thanks for all the suggestions. I think Grey Ghost has the best option. Most of my images are from Japan and Europe...taken during my military career. I sorted for several hours yesterday and culled probably 90%...I mean, they were ok photos but not worth the effort or expense. I think I will post a shot in the photo gallery of one of the images made from a 35mm slide using a slide copier and macro lens. Thanks again for all the suggestions.

Shel B

Thanks.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

As high as it will go.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you use an Epson V600, realize that the EFFECTIVE resolution usually tops out somewhere around 1800 dpi. (equivalent to an 1800 PPI file, if scanning the original at actual size). So setting resolution to 2400 is as far as I ever went with mine when I had it. You can use higher settings, such as 9600, but they just enlarge the canvas without supplying any additional detail. It's much faster to resize a 2400 dpi full frame file in software than it is to scan a 9600 dpi file at the scanner.

Better ACTUAL resolution requires a scanner that can actually be focused on the grain or dye cloud in the emulsion of the film. Most of the flatbeds don't have that feature.

You need to use 2400 dpi for scanning a 35mm original, if you want 8x to 10x prints. 1200 dpi is okay for the larger of the 120 formats (6x7 and 6x9).

therwol Loc: USA

I use 2400 dpi for black and white 35mm and 3200 dpi for color negatives and slides. Anything higher is a waste of time and produces very large files.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I remember learning that doubling the resolution takes four times longer to scan... That's when I decided to use the camera to "scan" more than a handful of originals. I can scan an uncut roll of 35mm or 120 to raw in about five minutes. Conversion, cropping, cleanup, and adjustment in Lightroom Classic takes longer, but for the resolution, it's less overall time and hassle. (But I'm picky.)

Where I used to work, I ran a scanning lab from 2000 to 2005. We had nine $50,000 Kodak Bremson HR500 and HR500 Plus scanners. They were fast, high resolution, high volume devices. We scanned portrait film (Kodak Portra 160NC back then) 20 hours a day, six days a week in the Fall, running four-day shifts of ten hours each, with workers on staggered weeks. A 2000x3000 pixel image took about 4 seconds to scan from 645 format 120, or 46mm long roll, or split-70mm long roll film. I scanned about 30 of my Kodachrome slides to 4500x3000 pixels, on an HR500 Plus, which had Digital ICE, once. THOSE were gorgeous scans! (If you scanned emulsion side towards the sensor bar, ICE worked to remove dust spots from that side of the film.)

Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

I used this technique before I ever learned that it was possible. I bought an artist's light box for tracing drawings, two 8x10 sheets of Lexan from Home Depot, and a couple of pieces of foam to lift the sheets off the light box which had multiple LED sources that would have shown in the end product. Handheld the camera (maybe not the best approach but clicking off a few shots gave me a "keeper). This was on 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 negs from my father's 1930-40 output from his Graflex. Results are as good as I would want. All B&W so color is not an issue.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

henryp is correct. And flatbed scanners can do 35mm slides and negatives and up to 8x10 negatives. Any of the scanned images should be capable of 20x24 prints.

fosis Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

My Epson V600 goes to 9600 but I believe that above 2400 it "interpolates" the data rather than actually resolving up to that detailed level. I scan at 2400 which was the best resolution until it seemed to "top out" above that.
Use the tools that tune the scanning curve to ensure best exposure and range of values from black to white.
The lid on this scanner has a light source that will cover 2 1/4" wide, and I've occasionally scanned a 4x5" negative in two positions and digitally blended the images into one file.

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

Fotobridge & others......

I think it is best to let someone who does it full time do the work.

Instead, go for some hikes, maybe a trip with the time and angst you have avoided.

Seems crazy to purchase equipment for a one time project.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

It is my experience that whenever you get a new tool you find lots of things to do with it that you never considered before.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

One thing does tend to lead to another. Creative minds will pervert the original intended use of most tools, to do the unexpected.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

I went through this a while back. Researched the heck out of it. I decided to use a service called Digmypics. They send you a box, throw all of your slides and movies in it, ship it to them, then very shortly thereafter, they post to your private portal your images and movie. You decide which you want and they send you back digitized images and you original analog film.

Saves so much time. Knowing my attention span and how many I had to scan, this was the best solution. Never would have been able to finish the project.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Actually, that's pretty close to the original way I came across the saying:

'Whenever you get a new tool you will find uses for it that it was never designed for'.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

_________________________(reply)

As far as I know there is only one good flatbed scanner for your sheetfilm. And that is the Epson V700 series--(V700 or V750) But you need all the negative holders---all quite expensive. I have one for my large negatives above 35mm sizes. This scanner will go to 8x10 in double scanning. Get a book on high res archive scanning, also. You obviously have your "winter's work" cut out for you? But that is the only way ----i.e. for the artist to do his own scanning.--------------ew