Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
"blue" <bluebowling@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2c0a3a91-ac0d-4c25-89a8-922de17c89d6@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
> pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
> around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
> slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
> it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
> quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
The original source is best.
Jim
On Nov 19, 12:43 pm, "Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "blue" <bluebowl...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:2c0a3a91-ac0d-4c25-89a8-922de17c89d6@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
> > pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
> > around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
> > slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
> > it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
> > quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
>
> The original source is best.
> Jim
Jim -- both the slide and the photos were taken independently, from
the original artwork. Not photos into slides or vice versa. So, they
are both original -- much of the artwork is no longer available to
take digital photos from. So, is there a preference -- slide to
digital or photo to digital?
"blue" <bluebowling@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4aca8970-10da-47b9-9bbd-9a0eb58d2d9d@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 12:43 pm, "Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "blue" <bluebowl...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2c0a3a91-ac0d-4c25-89a8-922de17c89d6@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
>> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>>
>> > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
>> > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
>> > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
>> > pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
>> > around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
>> > slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
>> > it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
>> > quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
>>
>> The original source is best.
>> Jim
>
> Jim -- both the slide and the photos were taken independently, from
> the original artwork. Not photos into slides or vice versa. So, they
> are both original -- much of the artwork is no longer available to
> take digital photos from. So, is there a preference -- slide to
> digital or photo to digital?
blue wrote:
> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
> pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
> around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
> slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
> it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
> quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
Slides have better resolution and color range than prints.
Scanning prints is OK if all you want to do is make prints
the same size or smaller. Otherwise, scan the slides. Time
and cost can be controlled by limiting yourself to scanning
only the best.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:31:14 -0800 (PST), blue <bluebowling@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 12:43 pm, "Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "blue" <bluebowl...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2c0a3a91-ac0d-4c25-89a8-922de17c89d6@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>>
>> > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
>> > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
>> > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
>> > pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
>> > around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
>> > slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
>> > it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
>> > quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
>>
>> The original source is best.
>> Jim
>
>Jim -- both the slide and the photos were taken independently, from
>the original artwork. Not photos into slides or vice versa. So, they
>are both original -- much of the artwork is no longer available to
>take digital photos from. So, is there a preference -- slide to
>digital or photo to digital?
If they were taken independently of the same artwork, then you'll have to
examine which of the two media types contains more detail, dynamic range, and
trueness of colors. The slide being able to contain higher dynamic range. If
there is more detail in the print of the same subject then you'll have to decide
which is more important to you, more detail or a few lost lights and shadows.
Quite frankly you'll do just as well using a high-resolution camera, 6-8MPX or
more, and using a slide-copier attachment and copy-stand for the prints as
you'll get from either dedicated scanner. Neither will put back in more detail
than what the originals have. If you don't have the negatives to those prints
then chances are very high that the prints contain nowhere near the same amount
of detail as the original negatives.
The other plus is that you can use your existing camera with an inexpensive
slide-copier adapter or use this as a perfect excuse to get a better camera.
Another plus is that making digitized copies is much faster this way.
"blue" <bluebowling@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4aca8970-10da-47b9-9bbd-9a0eb58d2d9d@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 12:43 pm, "Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "blue" <bluebowl...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2c0a3a91-ac0d-4c25-89a8-922de17c89d6@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
>> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>>
>> > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
>> > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
>> > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
>> > pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
>> > around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
>> > slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
>> > it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
>> > quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
>>
>> The original source is best.
>> Jim
>
> Jim -- both the slide and the photos were taken independently, from
> the original artwork. Not photos into slides or vice versa. So, they
> are both original -- much of the artwork is no longer available to
> take digital photos from. So, is there a preference -- slide to
> digital or photo to digital?
Do you mean a slide image vs a color negative image?
The reason I ask is that a slide is a photograph as is a color negative.
Which one of these two you should use depends more on the state of the
particular image than anything else.
If you mean by "photo" a color print, then it is highly unlikely that a scan
of it would be as nice as a scan of the original.
Jim
blue wrote:
> Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself or
> pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan slides
> around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a scanner for the
> slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and learn about how to do
> it and I've read some posts that go into great detail about poor
> quality or difficulty of scanning slides. What is the best thing to do?
Almost all the time scanning the slide will give the best image, unless
the slides have really faded or where poor in quality to begin with.
On Nov 19, 6:04 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> blue wrote:
> > Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself
> > or pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan
> > slides around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a
> > scanner for the slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and
> > learn about how to do it and I've read some posts that go into
> > great detail about poor quality or difficulty of scanning slides.
> > What is the best thing to do?
>
> Foist, when you say "photos" I reckon you mean "prints"; correct?
>
> If your prints are much larger than 8x10 inches, you may have some
> difficulty getting them scanned at 50 cents each.
>
> Otherwise, scans from original 35mm photoghraphy - positive "slides"
> or negatives - will give you more to work with when you make
> adjustments prior to generating a final product. Perfect transfer of
> detail and color is possible; a reasonable representation of what
> appeared before the camera in the film stage is more likely and much
> less expensive in time and money.
>
> If you don't actually have time to learn and do it yourself, you'll
> have to pay in money to have a high-quality outcome.
>
> Your money, your time, your judgement as to what is a good enough
> product for your uses.
>
> --
> Frank ess
For the time being I am going to scan the PRINTS and choose only the
most important slides to reproduce. I need them right now for record
keeping, and possible upload to my future web site. Maybe by the time
I really need images from slides the technology will be easier to use.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
On Nov 19, 9:52 pm, blue <bluebowl...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:04 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > blue wrote:
> > > Is it better to scan from a slide or from a 35mm print?
>
> > > I have some images of my art, both slides and photos, that I want
> > > change into digital. Both the photos and the slides are really good
> > > quality. The easiest thing to do would be to scan the photos myself
> > > or pay somebody 50 cents per photo to do it. The price to scan
> > > slides around here is 2.25 per slide. Of course I could buy a
> > > scanner for the slides but I don't have tons of time to jig and
> > > learn about how to do it and I've read some posts that go into
> > > great detail about poor quality or difficulty of scanning slides.
> > > What is the best thing to do?
>
> > Foist, when you say "photos" I reckon you mean "prints"; correct?
>
> > If your prints are much larger than 8x10 inches, you may have some
> > difficulty getting them scanned at 50 cents each.
>
> > Otherwise, scans from original 35mm photoghraphy - positive "slides"
> > or negatives - will give you more to work with when you make
> > adjustments prior to generating a final product. Perfect transfer of
> > detail and color is possible; a reasonable representation of what
> > appeared before the camera in the film stage is more likely and much
> > less expensive in time and money.
>
> > If you don't actually have time to learn and do it yourself, you'll
> > have to pay in money to have a high-quality outcome.
>
> > Your money, your time, your judgement as to what is a good enough
> > product for your uses.
>
> > --
> > Frank ess
>
> For the time being I am going to scan the PRINTS and choose only the
> most important slides to reproduce. I need them right now for record
> keeping, and possible upload to my future web site. Maybe by the time
> I really need images from slides the technology will be easier to use.
> Thanks for all the suggestions.
You loose a lot going from prints, which are 2nd generation images.
Either the slides or the original negative will give you a much
superior image. The resolution from a print surface, no matter what
size is only about 10 lpmm where a well exposed slide is around 60
lpmm. Also slide scanners are generally higher quality than the cheap
flatbed anyone charging $.50 per scan is using.
scan quality_slides or photos? 
Linear Mode
