Archiving slides to digital: Blu-ray DVDs for storage? Scan quality?
continued from email...
Quote:
Let me pick this part piece by piece, and reply to each segment... Quote:
However, it should be noted that this assumes the film was fresh when used, shot well, and processed with good quality at the time. A lousy slide will make for a lousy print, scan, viewing, etc. Also remember that slides are relatively tiny, so be sure you're comparing images at comparable viewing sizes. Put it in a projector, close to a wall, to match computer monitor or TV viewing sizes. Quote:
Digital cameras use CCD or CMOS sensors, and these have historically been poorer than most films at certain settings. In fact, well-known photographers like Ken Rockwell like to point out how you can buy a used pro Nikon F4 camera cheaply second-hand (eBay, craigslist, photo forums, pawn shops, etc), buy some cheap 35mm film, and then have even a non-professional developer like Walgreenes handle the processing -- and then you will often end up with images that come out superior to many/most digital cameras, even ones sold new in stores today. On most SLR cameras (SLR = body with removable/swappable lenses), the sensor is about 66% the size of film. This harms some clarity and quality. Point-and-shoot "pocket sized" cameras are even worse. Cell phone cameras are crap. Beyond that, CCD and CMOS are highly sensitive to non-visible spectrums of light (infrared, ultraviolet, etc) and must have filters laid over the sensor, which further reduces quality, known as Bayer filtering. Film is typically much sharper, cleaner and color-rich compared to digital cameras -- professional series bodies and optics being the main exception. (But even pro bodies, like my new Nikon D3s, suffer from digital limitations that did not exist on film. Bayer, mostly.) Only in the past 3-4 years have cameras come out that can truly act at a level, or surpass the level, of film. The Canon 5D, for example, is probably the closest camera I've ever seen to film, in terms ISO performance. ISO 50 and ISO 100 looks a lot like ISO 50 or 100 film, which is why nature photographers love those bodies. And then ISO 1600-3200 was as clean as Fuji color film (800 push processed to 1600 or 3200). For digital photography, that was a welcome advancement, and it's only a couple of years old (from 2006). It wasn't until 2007 that digital has been able to overcome the quality of film, with cameras like the Nikon D3, Nikon D3s and Canon 1DsMk4. These new bodies can shoot exceptionally sharp images at ISOs that were once thought impossible. An ISO 6400-12800 image on a new SLR can look as good as 400-1000 speed film of yesteryear!! It's uncanny. I have a D3s, and still find myself in awe of how low of a light it allows me to capture images. (Note that I'm the photographer, so I'm still taking the images -- the camera isn't doing the photography, therefore I won't say "the cameras takes photos".) The earliest digital cameras from the late 1990s took great image, yes. Better than film, no, not at all. I have one of the earlier bodies, from 1999, the Nikon D1. I still have it, and plan to convert it to an infrared body in the near future (by removing the aforementioned CCD filter and replacing it with another that allows IR to pass). If you have slides and/or negatives that look fine at 4x6 (or comparable size to how you're viewing the scans), and the scans are lousy, then it's simply a lousy scanner -- be it the operator/person or the equipment! Quote:
Dedicated slides scanners from Minolta, or even consumer-grade (higher-end, not bargain-priced) Epson scanners work well for slides. For negatives, it's hard to beat a Nikon Coolscan! That Minolta sells for around $200-300 used, the Nikon is at least $500 used, with an Epson being around $100-150 new. Photoshop suggested, which adds another $500 or so (or $100 if you go for lower end Element consumer version). While this may not be an easy cost for you, it should be for any service at minimum. Sadly, many "businesses" use junk for equipment, and you get a lousy product because of it. I'd be curious on where you had these done. Scans of the printed paper photos should be wholly inferior to a clean scan of the negative or slide. Some of our new digital photography guides will showcase this, starting in a couple of months. Quote:
Direct link: http://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/show...isks-2021.html Quote:
Quote:
There are severals posts/threads/topics dedicated to archival media in the blank media forum. See http://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/foru...-media-19.html for those posts. Hope that helps. :) |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.