[rastapopolos]

July 23, 2009 at 9:35 am

jb7 wrote:

A viable option would be to use your DSLR to photograph the prints – or, using a slide copier, the negatives and slides.

If you want to make fine prints, this might not be the best way to go, but for making a record, it would perhaps be a lot quicker than scanning.

Hi jb7 –

I’ve done a bit more hunting around on this option – at first I discounted it because I didn’t think the quality would even be remotely tolerable – but contributors to the thread “OT – “scanning” negatives with a macro lens – UPDATED” over on Flickr consider it a good option as the quality is decent and most importantly, it’s possible to get through about 100 negs per hour.

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

July 23, 2009 at 9:08 am

stcstc wrote:

i could do scaning for you

are they mounted neg or slide or are they strips?

give me a shout and we can have a chat

Hi stcstc –

Thanks for your reply. They’re almost all strips – I have one or two sets of mounted slides.

I’ve had a look at your price list. I see you use an Epson V750 pro. That’s the kind of standard I’m looking for. What resolution do you scan at and how many negs do you scan for the €12.00?

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

July 22, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Hi jb7 –

Thanks for taking the time to compose a reply. You made some points, I thought it would be worthwhile clarifying my needs:
jb7 wrote:

Scanning is mind numbingly tedious-
so farming it out is an option.

Yes, it’s the option for me.
jb7 wrote:

However, you should ask yourself what you want from the scans-
if it’s just so that the files can reside in a virtual shoebox,
then the original shoebox might be just as good.

In a shoebox, the photos are not easily viewable, neither are they indexed, tagged or searchable. In a virtual shoebox they’re available for friends and family to see and are safe from time’s depredations (Yes, I expect the JPG format to be readable in fifty years’ time – you can still buy USB turntables that play 78s!) and of course all the benefits that accrue from digital formats apply.
jb7 wrote:

A viable option would be to use your DSLR to photograph the prints-
or, using a slide copier, the negatives and slides.

If you want to make fine prints, this might not be the best way to go,
but for making a record, it would perhaps be a lot quicker than scanning-

This assumes that my photos are in some sort of respectable order – they’re not. Some are in albums, many are in the envelopes they came back from the photo lab in.
jb7 wrote:

As a scan bureaux will charge a reasonable amount of money for smallish scans,
especially if you stipulate ‘good quality’
it can be cost effective too.

Sounds good. I’m looking for 10 megapixel-equivalent scans at 24 bpp or higher.
jb7 wrote:

I can’t recommend anyone for bulk scanning, never had it done-

joseph

Anyone got any recommendations?

[rastapopolos]

July 22, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Hi –

Came across this thread while researching negative scanning services in Ireland. I have twenty-odd years of casual amateur snaps taken with a Cannon 300 film camera. I’d like to archive these shots to digital format and store them online (I use Flickr).

It’s been suggested on this thread that buying a scanner is a cheaper way to go about it, but that doesn’t take into account the time it takes to manually feed the scanner with snipped-up strips of film containing four or five shots apiece. I’ve got thousands of negs, so scanning them myself would take a lifetime – and a shockingly boring lifetime at that.

So, can anyone recommend a good quality consumer-level negative scanning service here or abroad?

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 28, 2008 at 5:12 pm

The situation in the UK appears to be a bit more fraught than it is over here, with their constant fear of ‘terror’. Take a look at this piece from The Register:

The Register wrote:

Terror Laws due to be passed this autumn, could provide Police with a new and significant power to stop individuals taking photographs.

This follows reassurances from Home secretary Jacqui Smith that there is “no legal restriction on taking photographs in public places”, which is why she will shortly be issuing police with updated guidelines on … how to enforce legal restrictions on photography.

I sincerely hope we never reach these levels of idiocy in this country.

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm

jb7 wrote:

Well, whatever about the paper white of the windows, there are still blown highlights on the face-
which is probably a more critical area to get the exposure right-

If you cropped out the windows, the histogram would look far better-

I don’t mind the blown highlights through windows too much-
if it improves the picture- often for the reasons you mentioned.

In this case, you might ask yourself are the windows that important,
and is there another composition that removes the problem,
and perhaps improves the picture too-

As it stands, this picture might tolerate a sliver off the left,
to remove that red bin…

j

Hi jb7 –

Good points. Here’s the picture again with just the bucket lopped off (…is
that really what it is? Funny that, I didn’t want to see it, so my brain ignored
it.)

…and an even tighter crop, placing Aisling at the nodes of the ‘rule of
thirds’, just out of curiousity:

(I use picnik for quick and dirty modifications.)

Thanks for taking the time to look at these and comment. I appreciate your input.

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 22, 2008 at 11:48 am

Jess the Springer wrote:

I brought this subject up myself a while ago.

https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=21599

Hi Jess, thanks for the link. I’d done some searching on this forum but the
search functionality isn’t great – it doesn’t return the actual sentence
containing the keyword(s) you search for.

Interesting discussion on there. The key point is “control of these scene”. In
the shot I took, you can see I didn’t have that – I exposed for the jacket, not
the face.

Seems to me that when photographing people (even full-length) the person’s face
is always the subject – that is, the entity in the photo from which you take
your exposure reading. I mostly shoot manual and will often step in close to get
the exposure reading I want from a particular part of the scene.

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 21, 2008 at 11:24 am

There’s also the Canon 1000D, which I’ve read good reviews of:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_1000D/index.asp

http://www.pcw.co.uk/computeractive/hardware/2224832/review-canon-eos-1000d-camera

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 20, 2008 at 9:06 am

Hi alancotter –

I can certainly see the reasoning; nothing bugs me more than a crooked horizon. I’m not sure the rule applies to “straight-up” – there’s no horizon above your head!

I bet there’s some minimal angle (greater than 15 degrees?) after which the brain accepts a skewed angle and goes “yeah, that look OK” – think of intentionally skewed TV shots – models on a catwalk listing over at impossible angles comes immediately to mind. A shot in which the horizon off by five degrees looks manky.

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 18, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Hi –

I find it interesting that so few posters in this thread differentiate between the hardware (Mac or PC) and the operating system that runs on it (Most often Windows or OSX). For the last few years Macs have been using the PC architecture, so really the only difference is in the operating system and the apps you choose to run on it.

There is a third way – it’s called Linux. You can use commodity hardware (I’m using a Dell XPS420) and install a rock-solid operating system which will scale up to handle any workload you can throw at it.

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Hi bingbongbiddly – did you get your sensor cleaned in the end? If so, where did you go, were you happy with the result and what did it cost you?

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Thanks very much to all of you for the great welcome! I appreciate it!

cheers
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Hi John (guthrij) –

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I appreciate your input.

I’m curious as to why you reckon the image looks better straightened and with more saturated colours – do you think the skewed angle is too ‘accidental’ looking? Perhaps it’s too static straight?

Also, I’m torn between thinking of this picture (or any of my pictures) in terms of impressionism (by which I mean “this is what it feels like to me”) and straight documentary (“this is what you’d see if you were here”). As you say, it’s a question of what feels right to the viewer, but I’d appreciate it if you could cast some light on your own aesthetic thinking process.

Regarding the colour boost or curves adjustment you suggested; I generally avoid Photoshop – I’ve seen too many photographs photoshopped to hell (and I wonder how many Photoshop users are actually compliant with the software license :? ), but being a Linux head I do use the Gimp to fix white balance and adjust contrast when it’s necessary. Maybe this is something I should look into more.

Please don’t take any of this as criticism of your input; I’m here to learn and your comments are very welcome.

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 17, 2008 at 9:29 am

Hi –

Thanks for your feedback, guthrij and proach.. I’m curious why you think it would look better straightened? (I won’t bore you with my own justifications, I’m keener to hear yours!)

I’ve straightened the photo here – obviously the way it was originally framed means that to crop it to a rectangle would mean losing so much of the image as to render it useless.

regards
Ben

[rastapopolos]

October 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Thanks for the welcome, slang61 and Deebo. Guess I have to pluck up the courage now to select a few shots for critique… OK, here we go…

cheers
Ben