Thousands of negatives

Shipbuilder
26th May 2009, 17:03
During my time at sea, 1961 - 1992, I took literally thousands of B & W pictures. Although I developed them all myself, the majority never got printed and the negatives ended up in two large suitcases. Even when I got a negative scanner several years ago, it was a tedious process scanning them as each one took 30 seconds or more. Have just got one of the little portable scanners that plugs in the USB socket, doesn't even need an external power supply. It will scan colour or B & W in either positive or negative format. Each picture only takes about 5 seconds to scan! I am having great fun re-living old times by going through them and loading them into the computer. Here is one I have just done. Durban about 1973.
Bob

steviej
26th May 2009, 17:19
That's a pretty sharp photo. You must have had a reasonable Camera. BTW does it scan slides? What is the scanner called.

NoMoss
26th May 2009, 17:52
That's a pretty sharp photo. You must have had a reasonable Camera. BTW does it scan slides? What is the scanner called.

I would like to know about that too as I have a lot of old negs from my early days at sea.

Nick Balls
26th May 2009, 18:12
I had this problem with coloured slides. I brought a "top lit" scanner and have managed to copy all my old pics. A word of caution ! If you are going to do this then do it soon. My slides only date to 1970 but many were already degarding with age. Its a BIG JOB! but well worth the effort.

Shipbuilder
26th May 2009, 18:58
It is a summit Photofix Copier and it cost 79.99 including VAT. It copies all 35mm film, postitive and negative. There are two feed trays, one will take three mounted colour slides or negatives at a time. The other will take a strip of six negatives or positives still as uncut film.

My cameras used at sea were a Minolta SRT101 and also a Pentax, both SLRs.

Bob

duquesa
26th May 2009, 19:22
Big job!! - You can say that again. I have over 6,000 pictures,transparencies, B & W and very old sepia family shots. I am about a third of the way through sorting, editing & "discing" them. Very satisfying but, for me it is a winter job, so the rest can wait. I am using an Epson V350 and the results are fantastic if somewhat tedious. The transparencies in particular take some time to plod through.(Thumb)

K urgess
26th May 2009, 21:13
A review of this unit is here -
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Summit-Photofix-Copier-7595
I still prefer a top lit scanner with a high resolution but it looks OK for quick negative scans.
They weren't impressed with it's slide scanning abilities, apparently.
With 3,000+ pictures in the gallery I do a lot of scanning and the quicker and cleaner the better.

randcmackenzie
26th May 2009, 23:33
What one is best for slides,and at what price?

K urgess
26th May 2009, 23:48
What one is best for slides,and at what price?

I've always used Epsons and I've currently got a Perfection 4870 Phot that's getting on a bit.
I believe the latest equivalent is the 4490 which is available around 150.
Attached are two slides scanned on my Epson. My originals are much bigger.

Shipbuilder
27th May 2009, 08:42
The review of the Summit copier does not quite equate to my findings. When I scan a negative, it does appear in the scanning box as a negative, but when the "transfer" button is clicked, it goes off to the designated computer file where it arrives as a positive. I do not have to invert negatives at all. They invert themselves during transfer.
Bob

Shipbuilder
27th May 2009, 09:10
I have now scanned the same colour transparency on both devices and here they are. I would say that the Epson one is slightly better, but it took about a minute to scan, where the Summit only took five seconds. The slide incidentally, shows the SAGAMORE loading iron ore at Pepel, Freetown, in 1963.
Bob

K urgess
27th May 2009, 12:21
The review could well be an old one, Bob. I did notice it was a bit wishy-washy about some points.
The speed of scanning depends on so many variables that it's difficult to judge. It depends a lot on what processing you're using, what dpi, compression, etc., etc.
It's basically down to personal choice and the choice is very good nowadays. I would be lost without my Epson and one of the reasons I keep to the make is the software. It used to be constantly rated as the best by the reviews. Things have probably moved on since I got this one but I feel they're still the best compromise between dedicated film scanners and standard scanners. At full bore it takes a while to scan a slide but 7,000 pixels wide or thereabouts gives you a good chance of removing 40 years worth of blemishes. My original of the attached is 13519x11447 pixels but needs re-doing with some sharpness and descreening. The second is the orginal scan cropped to about the size of the first one. Just to show that you can be defeated by grain no matter what you do.
The first scanner I used was hand held and you had to scan an A4 page in strips then stitch them together. Also using one with a 386 was like watching paint dry.

K urgess
27th May 2009, 17:46
Forgot to mention in my last post that 7,000 pixels wide is average for a 35mm slide at 4800dpi.
The ones I attached are actually 1950s 3" x 3" glass slides. (EEK)

Roger Bentley
28th May 2009, 19:51
I've always used Epsons and I've currently got a Perfection 4870 Phot that's getting on a bit.
I believe the latest equivalent is the 4490 which is available around 150.
Attached are two slides scanned on my Epson. My originals are much bigger.

I work as a volunteer in archiving and conservation at the National Trust Fountains Abbey, the scanner we use is the 4990 - I have a 4490 - the 4990 has more refinements but both are superb for scanning Currently just finished doing a huge collection of lantern slides some of which were over a hundred years old. I think I paid about 120 for the 4490. The other is much more expensive. Cheers, Roger

andysk
1st June 2009, 17:40
I've been using an Epson 4990 for about 4-5 years now, in my view it's a wonderful piece of kit. I faffed about a bit when I received it getting it set up, given it's a complex bit of kit that's shouidn't be a surprise ! Now I get up in the morning, put 8 slides in the holder, press the go button, and go off to shower and have breakfast. By the time I am ready to leave for work, 45-50 mins later, it's finished. The finished file is about 300 x 2000, and between 3.5 and 6.5 Mb

So, 8 in the morning, 16 or sometimes 24 in the evening, 5 days a week, that's up to about 150+ per week, which soon gets through the collection.

And it's enjoyable looking at them all again ...

Most of the pics I've posted here are done in that way.