Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Scanning Old slides - some questions
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Oct 28, 2019 11:30:06   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
When you determine the date or date range for a batch of scan put them in a folder named like "yyyy mo dd" with a short text description. I quickly discovered with the PP Elements Organizer that I could edit the date for each file so it would match when the photo was taken.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 11:50:52   #
peter.zimmerman
 
AndyH wrote:
I am not familiar with any 35mm systems that unspooled the film from the cassette before shooting, although many counters worked on a count down rather than count up dial. I have many of those.

What camera are you thinking of that worked this way? Other than the old "two spool" versions from the 1930s, I'm not familiar with any of them.

Andy


APS cameras, not, of course, true 35mm machines, spooled forward and then advanced by rewinding.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 11:54:17   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
RogStrix wrote:
interesting questions:
TIFF is best for file storage, as it retains maximum information, JPEG is a compression system, to save space, and you can lose information each time you open, edit then re-save, but if you plan on sharing via the web and quality isn't number one priority then convert from TIFF to JPEG, but always keep the original TIFF as a master. the other consideration is storage, Jpegs because they are compressed will take up a lot less room. As for post processing, the more pixels you start with the better and easier post processing can be.
interesting questions: br TIFF is best for file st... (show quote)

First, the number of pixels is fixed by the camera sensor. If your camera takes a 6000x4000 pixel picture, that doesn't change regardless of raw, tiff, jpg png or what ever. (re-reading this, since it is a scan, you can adjust the pixels to a point, and I agree, scan large, same as take photo's large.)

Secondly, if you keep the original jpg and do not save over top of it, it will never lose any information, no matter how many times you open and close it, just don't re-write the original, re-name the edited file.

How I would do it is save as a jpg.
If you decide to edit that file, save it as a PDF which is lossless and preserves your edits and layers, in case you want to re-edit it. I would not do this for simple edits that are easily repeatable, only for more complex edits that you may not be able to easily duplicate.

Reply
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Oct 28, 2019 12:08:13   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
BigDaddy wrote:

If you decide to edit that file, save it as a PDF which is lossless and preserves your edits and layers, in case you want to re-edit it.

Didn’t you mean PSD?

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 12:53:28   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
GoofyNewfie wrote:
PSD?


PSD is one of the file types you can use to save edits in Photoshop, Light Room, or Elements. It is re-editable in that all previous edits can be undone individually or totally and the original JPEG or TIFF file is not affected.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 12:57:31   #
RogStrix Loc: UK
 
pemmerson wrote:
... I think I remember being suprised when the numbering of the slides came back from processing the 'other way around'. Now the order is useful in trying to remember after all these years where the photos were taken!


Please confirm which numbers you are talking about? Those on the actual film positive or those printed on the slide holder, because there is no correlation between them. The number on the film is created during manufacture of the film, whereas the number on the slide holder is merely printed on by the dealer at the time of processing. Dependant on the way the machine deals with them will determine the order.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 13:52:44   #
Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara
 
Boy so many thoughts
What are you going to do with scanned images? If not printing then I’d use jpg to save space. If printing then tiff.

I also shot a lot with agfachrome. It had terrible grain! I scanned them for storage because I thought they were awful. But with the new software technology I’m shocked at how much I can fix. Topaz Studio 2 has a filter called AI Clear which does a magical job of getting rid of noise without softening the image. Then I use On1 resize to make the image as big as I want for printing. Just printed at Costco an image that had so much noise in the sky that it looked like it was snowing black snow. Was a small jpg. Printed an 18x24 print that is gorgeous. I’m now looking at a ton of old images (if my power comes back on - damn SCE) in a total new light

Reply
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Oct 28, 2019 14:05:05   #
flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA
 
AndyH wrote:
I don't know anything about the Agfa numbering, but as to this question, the TIFF file is lossless, while the JPEG is lossy. That means that if you edit and resave JPEGs, there is a loss of information with each save. I've seen this in as few as five resaves. The TIFF provides a lossless image, which you can work on in your processing software, then export as a JPEG, when no further changes need to be made. That's a very similar workflow to the way I process RAW files. If you don't plan on doing much work with the files, it's perfectly acceptable to save them as JPEGs, which take up a lot less disk space, but since I have a large amount of space and like to fiddle with my images, I'll continue to save the original files as originals. Others may have different thoughts and processes.

Andy
I don't know anything about the Agfa numbering, bu... (show quote)

Or you can copy your JPEGs and work on the copy, leaving the originals untouched (opening and closing JBEGs doesn't cause any loss of information).

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 14:06:50   #
MrPhotog
 
AndyH wrote:
I am not familiar with any 35mm systems that unspooled the film from the cassette before shooting . . .


Andy, All of the disposable cameras are sold this way. A conventional film cartridge is placed in the camera and in the factory the film is unspooled and wound onto a takeup reel. As each picture is snapped the exposed film is wound back into the cassette. This provides some protection against damage to the exposed images and eliminates the need for a rewind system on the camera, reducing complexity, cost, and errors.

Since the film is a standard roll and conventionally numbered, the first image will be created on frame 24 or 12, depending on the camera. The next pictures would have lower frame numbers.

I haven’t seen any disposables that were loaded with transparency film, or ones with 36 exposure rolls. They might exist.

If your slide mounts are numbered in the reverse order of when the photos were taken it is probably an issue with the photo finisher. The slide mounting was mostly automated. A person would line up the first frame and the machine would either use a sensor to determine where to cut, or it would just advance about 40 mm ( to the midpoint between frames) and cut. If they fed in the beginning of the roll then the first frame was numbered ‘1’, and the numbers went up until the last frame. Of course, if the lab operator put the film in to the mounting machine starting with the tail end, then your 36th frame would be the first for the machine, and as your frame numbers (printed on the film) decreased the slide mount numbers would increase.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 15:02:51   #
AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
 
MrPhotog wrote:
Andy, All of the disposable cameras are sold this way. A conventional film cartridge is placed in the camera and in the factory the film is unspooled and wound onto a takeup reel. As each picture is snapped the exposed film is wound back into the cassette. This provides some protection against damage to the exposed images and eliminates the need for a rewind system on the camera, reducing complexity, cost, and errors.


That's interesting. I admit that I've never shot or developed film from a disposable, but it makes sense. I think we have a couple of them lying around the house, that the kids shot years ago. I had no idea there was a 35mm canister inside. Thanks!

Andy

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 15:40:40   #
MrPhotog
 
If the film is exposed and all wound back, try to pry open the plastic camera after sliding it out of the cardboard wrapper. The film cartridge is sitting right under the film wind knob and ready to be processed.

If you haven’t damaged the camera back you can reload the camera. Reset the frame counter to 24, use a bit of tape to hold the leader from a fresh roll of film to the takeup spool ( if there is one) and pop camera and film into a changing bag. Roll out the film as you wind it onto the spool, handling it by the edges. Then place spool into camera and close it up. A few drops of glue or tape hold it together. Enjoy again.
If the camera has a flash you can replace the AA battery before adding film.

I used to get the old cameras and rather than reload them I’d salvage the batteries and electronics from the flash units.

Replacing the battery is safe, but I don’t suggest others try playing with the flash units, though. They have a kick like a cattle prod if you touch a charged wire.

Reply
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Oct 28, 2019 16:11:29   #
AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
 
MrPhotog wrote:
If the film is exposed and all wound back, try to pry open the plastic camera after sliding it out of the cardboard wrapper. The film cartridge is sitting right under the film wind knob and ready to be processed.

If you haven’t damaged the camera back you can reload the camera. Reset the frame counter to 24, use a bit of tape to hold the leader from a fresh roll of film to the takeup spool ( if there is one) and pop camera and film into a changing bag. Roll out the film as you wind it onto the spool, handling it by the edges. Then place spool into camera and close it up. A few drops of glue or tape hold it together. Enjoy again.
If the camera has a flash you can replace the AA battery before adding film.

I used to get the old cameras and rather than reload them I’d salvage the batteries and electronics from the flash units.

Replacing the battery is safe, but I don’t suggest others try playing with the flash units, though. They have a kick like a cattle prod if you touch a charged wire.
If the film is exposed and all wound back, try to ... (show quote)


Very interesting. I'd always wondered what was inside those darn boxes, although it's pretty easy to dissect one. But I don't think I'm going to go into the recycling business using this model. With film prices what they are, I'd rather put any film into something beyond a cardboard box with a plastic lens. The Lomo/Diana look has never appealed to me.

Andy

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 16:39:12   #
JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington
 
One possible approach would be to scan in jpeg and after you review the slides, the ones that you really like and think you would edit and maybe print, go back and rescan the limited number and save as Tiff. An extra step but would reduce your hard drive storage.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 16:39:15   #
Photoguy120
 
pemmerson wrote:
I am scanning boxes of old slides covering many years, using a CanoScan9000 and Silverfast v6. I then usually have to do some minimal post processing using PhotoGallery or PSE. The program allows me to save the scan output as a JPEG, a TIFF file or a PDF. Normally I save them as JPEGs because I cannot tell the difference between the quality of the scans of the JPEG and the TIFF format files, and the TIFF files are much larger. However, is there any benefits to the TIFF format for post processing, in the same way that there is for RAW files over JPEG, for photos?
The second question I have is more specific. I used Agfacolour slides. These numbered the slides in reverse order (37/36 - 1), when I finished using slides (2006) but my earliest slides (1980s) I am sure are numbered forward (1-36). Does anyone know when the change was made?
I am scanning boxes of old slides covering many ye... (show quote)

Can’t speak to slides but the negative film had the number pre-exposed in the margin. Depending on the cut prior to canister loading, the number sometimes appeared in the space between what became the frame after exposure.

Reply
Oct 28, 2019 18:59:39   #
wrangler5 Loc: Missouri
 
IIRC, my Ricoh GR-1 pulled all the film out when you loaded it and wound it back into the cassette as you exposed each frame. That was the best shirt-pocket film camera I ever had, with a first class autofocus 28mm/2.8 lens that collapsed when you turned the camera off, and made for a very slim package. I had to lay out the film strips from bottom to top (opposite of my normal practice) when I made contact sheets.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.