Working with digital images

[marsue]

  Can anyone help me with this project?  I have a Canonscan 5000F Scanner and have promised to transport my husband's collection of 35mm transparencies onto the computer.

Before I start I need some advice as to what resolution to use for each slide and the best way to tackle this enormous job.

Thanks
marsue

[Deb]

Hi Marsue! What a great project! I do a fair bit of negative and slide scanning (Nikon Super Coolscan 4000). You're right, it can be time consuming but it is well worth it.

What I'd suggest is for you to use the highest resolution your scanner is capable of if you plan to make enlargements off of them at some point in the future. If you are scanning them solely for the purpose of cataloging them (thumbnail size for instance), then you can go with a much lower resolution.

Since output demands on photo editing vary, I'd remove dust and scratches at the scanning stage but leave things like applying unsharp mask, etc. to the photo editing stage.

If you have plenty of harddrive space, you can keep your original scans on your computer. Once you have enough slides scanned, burn those original scans to a DVD or CD. These will be your backup copies in case your computer ever crashes. If you don't intend to leave them on your computer, then burn a second set of DVDs or CDs and store them in a protected place. Use the first set as your "working" set (editing, etc.).

If you have a photo browsing software or a digital file management software, I'd suggest adding identifying markers (digitally searchable labels) to those scans. This way you can search for specific images at a later date without having to scroll through each and every one of them. Perhaps you'd like to have contact sheets (index pages showing thumbnail sized images) of these scans too. If so, you can print these out and keep them with your DVDs or CDs either in a filing cabinet, in notebooks, or in boxes. The thing is to organize them in a way that works for you.  

Hope this helps get you started.

[Sue Barker]

 
This is really helpful Deb, I do appreciate your comments.  I have printed this off and will keep it by me when I start the transparency tranportation.  
My husband Peter will be pleased!!

I have plenty of harddisk space, but I will certainly make backup copies and then use my imaging prog, Paint Shop Pro to do any enhancing.  What is the "unsharp mask for"?.  I would like to make the initial scan in a high resolution, although I do not intend to print off all of the photos there is a likelihood that I would want to do some.

Thanks again, you have enthused me to get going!

Happy New Year to you all there.

[Deb]

You're very welcome!  

As for the "unsharp mask", that's a method for sharpening an image. It is a three facetted approach. You determine the amount of sharpening, the radius to which the sharpening will be applied, and the threshold or range of pixels you wish sharpening to ignore. Yikes! That was a confusing explanation. Sorry! In other words, it is a way to sharpen an image in a more subtle manner thereby maintaining the natural look of the subject matter.

There are softwares on the market that will do this for you automatically. NIK Sharpener Pro is one that comes to mind. Photo editing softwares like Photoshop Elements, and many others have an "unsharp mask" filter in them that you can use yourself. It takes a little practice, but, when done correctly, the results can be lovely.

Have fun with your new project! Holler back, if other questions arise.

Related reading:
Unsharp Mask
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/image-editing/image-sharpening.htm

[marsue]

I have checked with my Paint Shop Pro software and I have an unsharp mask there, so I will have a practice with this.  I have used the sharpen effect many times before, but not the unsharp mask.

Thanks again for all the information.

[Deb]

Glad to help.   I think you'll like the unsharp mask. You'll be able to finesse the degree of sharpening more readily.

Have fun!

[marsue]

Good Morning Deb,
I have used the unsharp mask and find this brilliant, thanks for introducing me to this.  Not understanding it before I have just stuck to the simple sharpen, but there is no comparison with the two effects.
I have started transporting the transparencies, but have another question I need advice with.  Would you save the pictures in a JPG or TIFF format?  My neighbour always uses the TIFF format and swears by this, but most of my pictures are in their original JPG format as they come from my Nikon 995 camera. and I do not convert them to TIFF.  

I want the pictures as "keepsakes" of family and holidays, I will only print out a few of the best and the rest I will view on the computer, or through a DVD player onto the TV.

Thanks again.

[Deb]

Hi there Marsue, glad you're finding the "unsharp mask" enjoyable! (Hint: the object when applying this mask is to sharpen the detail without creating halos around the edges and without causing the smooth areas to roughen up.   )

To answer your first question: Use the uncompressed TIFF mode for your new scans. You can work off of these later and "save as" any format you wish to suit your needs (JPGs for email, viewing on the computer, etc., optimized JPGs for viewing online). Always work off your original scans and keep them intact. For each editted image that you make from your original, use the "save as" rather than "save" option.

For the images you're taking with your 995, shoot in TIFF mode if you think you'll ever be printing from them. You never know what surprises you may have captured that you'll want to have in print form at a later date for your family album. Keep in mind that you may want to crop and enlarge a portion of that image so TIFF mode would be your best bet as it's uncompressed.

If you're going to be editing, don't "save as" a jpg, then edit that jpg a second time, etc. Each time you resave that image with compression you are degrading it further. Ick! So, always go back to your original intact file and work off of that one.

The object when archiving your images is to do so in a manner least degrading to the quality of the original image. Remember, these digital files are not unlike film negatives. Just as you wouldn't cut up a negative to crop it, you don't want to save over your original. Treat the originals with care and you'll have these for many, many years.

If any other questions pop up, don't hesitate to let us know.

Happy scanning and editing!

[marsue]

Again, thank you for an excellent, full of info reply, Deb.  I am pleased that you have advised TIFF as I have already done 8 slides in this format, but thought that I would confirm this with the expert and your reasons for choosing this.  

I will also take your advice and shoot photos in this format, as I do often print these out, but have thus far only used JPEG at the finest quality.  I print these out at 7x5 so have not noticed loss of quality, but it will be interesting to look at these side-by-side.

Speak to you again soon.

[Deb]

Happy to help.  

[marsue]

I have successfully completed 60 transparencies, but have hit a problem which I would like to discuss.  I scanned the 35mm transparencies at a resolution of 1200dps, saving them as TIFF's.  The size of these files is between 15.00 and 27.00MB.  I was about to burn some of the images to a CD for safe keeping, but at these dimensions I am only going to get around 25 images per 700MB CD.  Do you think it necessary to save the images at such a high MB?  I have hundreds of slides to transport in this way and I expected to get, say, 100 per 700MB CD.  Look forward to hearing your comments.

[Deb]

Hi Marsue, it all depends on your final use of these scans. If you want the flexibility of eventually having enlargements (11x14, etc.) made OR think that you may be cropping the image before printing, then I'd continue in the manner you are doing. Now you can either burn these scans to CD's or DVD's. Personally, I burn to DVDs. External DVD burners are relatively inexpensive (anywhere from $50 to $200 depending on the read/write speeds, etc.). Since they are "external", you can attach them to any computer (portable) and don't have to have a techie or yourself install them.  

[marsue]

Thanks for this Debs - Unfortunately I do not have an integral DVD, although I have been thinking about purchasing one, so now is the time by the sounds of it - or as you suggested a portable one.  I can't imagine that I will be making any enlargements of these old pictures, so I will have to have a think about how high a resolution I store them at.  I envisage that we will only be using them to view on the TV/PC.

Thanks for your help, again.

[ShutterbugGail]

I I scanned the 35mm transparencies at a resolution of 1200dps, saving them as TIFF's.  The size of these files is between 15.00 and 27.00MB.  I was about to burn some of the images to a CD for safe keeping, but at these dimensions I am only going to get around 25 images per 700MB CD.  Do you think it necessary to save the images at such a high MB?  

I'm wondering why you scan at 1200. That seems quite high to me. I recently bought a new hp scanner, and this is what the help files say:

"If you change the resolution, choose one no higher than the capabilities of the monitor or printer and one appropriate for the type of scanned image. For example, to print on a 600-dpi printer, choose 600 for black and white bitmap images, but choose only 200 for color or grayscale images. These resolutions produce optimal quality while keeping file sizes small.

"Selecting higher resolutions for color images increases file size but does not necessarily increase quality. If you double the resolution, the file size quadruples."

^{Emphasis mine}

I don't pretend to be an expert in scanning but from all I've read, I think scanning between 200 and 300 would be more than sufficient and give you much smaller file sizes.

[Deb]

Hi, this may help.

When you scan, you want to scan at the best resolution at 100% size (in this case 1200ppi at the size of the negative) if you want a widely flexible file. Remember this is your original (or "negative").

On the other hand, if you know your specific output needs for that file, then you scan at that resolution (say 300ppi for high quality printing, 200ppi for the 600 dpi printer mentioned, 96 or 72ppi for monitor viewing, etc.) at the dimension you intend (such as 8x10, 4x6, etc.). In doing this, you have now limited the degree to which this file is suitable for multiple needs. (Remember it is your digital "negative".) This won't be a problem if you ONLY intend to use the file for this purpose or for smaller (dimension or resolution) prints or viewings. So you only need to decide how you may want to use the file and scan accordingly.

To further tickle the brain cells, think of scanning resolution as on a sliding scale. For instance, 1200ppi at 100% size (the size of the negative) is comparable to 600ppi at 200% size, 300ppi at 400% size and so on. (Now I'm not talking about interpolation here; strictly scanner resolution. BTW, some scanners I'm told don't indicate clearly when they've kicked into interpolation mode. Others do. You can check the documentation that came with your scanner to determine what it's doing if you want to.)

Hope you find this interesting. Hope it helps.

[marsue]

Thank you Gail and Deb for these explanations.  I will now make a cup of tea and digest them further!   I scanned at a high resolution to keep the original transparencies in as good a quality as I could for archiving on CD.   Earlier in this discussion Deb also wrote to scan in as high a resolution as I could (my scanner could have done these at 2400dpi, but I chose the next resolution down).  The manual that came with the Canonscan is not very helpful on this subject.
Thanks again for all your interest, this is much appreciated and certainly keep the brain cells massaged.

[Deb]

Hi there,

The point to keep in mind here is that scanning resolution and size depends on your purpose of intent. You can scan for archiving purposes OR scan for the output device (whether it be a professional print lab, a home printer, for the web, or as an email attachment, etc.).

If you want to scan for archiving purposes, then you want the max. This will allow you the greatest flexibility of use. You will most likely be storing your film negative and so will be working from here on off of your original scan. This is also part of the reason why you don't apply any sharpening at this stage.

If you know that you only want to use this image for, say, an email attachment, and won't have a need for finer resolution, then scan for that output.

The idea here is to scan for intent.

Here's an example of what I do:
I scan negatives for archival purposes. I do so at 4000ppi (yep, 4000!) at 100%. I then file the negatives away in archival sleeves and store them. From here on I work with the original scan. This scan is my working electronic negative for anything from archival-grade enlargements to teeny tiny thumbnails. Sure I could rescan for each use type by why bother. I'd rather just do it once.  

Now, if I knew that I had an image that I'd never want to do much with but did want to, say, email it to a friend, then I'd scan it at 96ppi (many monitors are 72 but more and more are 96; Pro models are 150!) at roughly a 4x6 inch size. This scan would not be suitable for high quality prints but it's well suited for viewing in an email.

Just keep in mind that when scanning, the resolution and size you select will ultimately depend on the intent for it's use. There's no need to create monster scans if you only want to view them as thumbs on a monitor. If you are archiving, then you want those monster scans so that you have the greatest flexibility without having to resort to rescanning over and over again.

Hope this is worded a little more clearly; I was low on caffeine when I replied yesterday. Chuckle, chuckle!

Now enjoy your cup of tea, don't fret it and happy scanning!

[ShutterbugGail]

This is a very interesting and informative thread. Thanks for all the info Deb. Now I have some questions for you myself.

First, are you recommending large ppi scans because the negatives themselves are so small? In other words, if you didn't scan at that ppi you wouldn't be able to make a large print?

Here's an example of what I do:
I scan negatives for archival purposes. I do so at 4000ppi (yep, 4000!) at 100%.

If I could take breathtaking, professional photos like you, I'd scan at that resolution too. You have requirements for making high-quality, archival, large sized prints.

I'm not sure how many of our site visitors here have those requirements, however they may be interested in scanning negatives or film . Would it be appropriate for them to scan at a lower resolution such as 300 for, say, printing no larger than 8x10"?

Just keep in mind that when scanning, the resolution and size you select will ultimately depend on the intent for it's use.

Marsue, since large file size is an issue for you currently, what is your intended use of the slides you are scanning?

[marsue]

I have just read with interest all of the information Deb has set out (and printed this off for future reference and in case my friends ask awkward questions that I can't remember the answer to).  I gulped when reading that Deb scanned at 4000ppi and could hear my computer groaning under the strain of the size of the files I would be creating if I could scan at this resolution (2400ppi is my highest scan).

My intention for this project is for (1) storing the 35mm transparencies in a compact system  (2) to compile slideshows of the slides to view on either the PC or TV and (3) make the odd print of a particularly good photo at a size of, say, 7x5.

With this in mind and after reading all the information I had from you, I did a quick test this morning to find out what would be suitable for my needs.  I scanned 3 slides at 300 ppi and the same slides at 1200ppi, saving them as TIFFs.  I then cropped and saved the 6 scanned images as JPGs and burnt them to a CD.  I viewed these images both through a DVD recorder onto the TV and on my PC.  Visually there was hardly any difference between the two resolutions.  I then printed out the same image, one being the 300 ppi and the other 1200ppi as a 7x5 photo.  Again, both would be acceptable at this size.  I have not tried printing an 8x11 photo as I do not feel that I would want to go this large.  I am sure that the 1200ppi would give me better results at this size.

So after much deliberation and discussion with my husband as to his needs, whose transparencies these are, we have decided to try the lower resolution of 300ppi.  This will give us manageable files and images that look good when viewed.

Thanks again to both Deb and Gail for their wealth of knowledge.  This has been a fascinating and interesting subject.  Well done

[Deb]

Hi Shutterbug, yep, it goes back to that sliding scale I mentioned.

For instance, 4000 at 100% (negative roughly 1.409 inches by .898 inch) equates to 400ppi at 1000% or translates to 300ppi at 18.79inches by 11.97 inches. See what I mean?

If you want a scan suitable for a high quality 8x10 inch print, then you could scan at around 2400ppi at 100% (varies due to cropping; 8x10 isn't proportional to a 35mm negative) or you could scan at 300ppi at 8inches by 10inches.) The total number of pixels is the same. Now, if you are doing your own printing and the printer is of a lower resolution output (like the one mentioned earlier; 600dpi printer) you can scan at any combination that'll result in the output resolution you require for the dimensions you intend.

Does this help?