Advice Needed on Slide Scanning. Please

[nikonman]

Once again thanks for the info. everybody.

Here is a slide I have scanned in the TIF mode using the highest settings.
Only problem is that each slide uses a lot of memory.

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111/Image1.jpg[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com

[Riley]

No Pain No Gain it's an improvement !thumbsup!

[Mysteryman]

Certainly better. Many photo handling progs give the option to zip slides in TIFF, saving space.

The amount saved varies with the colour depth and lightness/contrast of the slide but I've just scanned a standard 35mm slide at 4800dpi and it came out at 52.8MB. Zipped in Photoshop withouit any work done to it or any size reduction it came out at 9.6 MB - and there is no need to unzip or rezip it when viewing.

[sparky]

I am impressed by your last scan from a relative cheap scanner.

Yes a 3600dpi TIF will be much bigger than a 1800dpi JPEG but you can try
conversion to jpeg at various quality levels.

I would just burn the TIF's to good quality eg Verbatim DVD's twice in case of a corrupt disc.

[Riley]

Just as a point of interest what are you planning to do with the content ??

I ask as I can't see why you're going for such huge file size/dpi to come down to a 135kb jpeg ? Why not scan for your needs and if the odd occasion arises for a super large scan/dpi do it when the needs be.

I know you could say why do it twice but the scan time and resources may outway that argument, just a thought.

[nikonman]

Riley,
These two slides have been scanned using TIF at a smaller size and lower dpi.
I am pleased with the art nude shot and would not expect to get any better from a slide scan.

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 11_001.jpg[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com
[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 1_015a.jpg[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com

[Riley]

Can you post a larger pic of the colour one, say 1280 wide ?? Hard to tell at the size you have there. A small compressed jpeg can crush a lot of detail, but certainly a lift on the first version.

Here is a B&W scan for comparison if it helps, different lighting I know.

[IMG]http://www.sexystockingtops.com/leginny ... 57_008.jpg[/IMG]

[Mysteryman]

The colour shot has a great deal of grain/noise in the background which is irritating. The B+W is full of it.

It really comes down to your scannr. BTW, what software ae you using?

[nikonman]

I scan using TIF and then use Paint Shop Pro.

I expect this will be the best I can get from the scanner. It if only a cheap one. Anyway compared with the results I was getting before my first post
there seems to be a great improvement.

The reason I want to scan some of the slides is that they a stored in boxes in the loft and I want to make some more room.
I had a water leak a few weeks back and had to move everything to get access to the cold tank, so thought i would try and do some scanning before I put them all back again.

I only wish to view them in the slide show mode on my computer which with my screen size will be a max. of 12 by 9ins.

I will try scanning another slide tomorrow and post the result.

[Mysteryman]

With the scanner you have you may not be able to improve on those though you will find that some slides surprise you and others disappoint.

Even with my Epson I cannot always predict the outcome, even with the thumbnail previews enabling changes in scanning quality to be made.

The truth is that only a very expensive drum scanner can really handle slides to produce output equal to the original - what we accept is a compromise but learning to handle the software can improve matters.

I've not posted any of my stuff on here because my 14,000+ slides are all of aircraft and are therefore off topic!! I only got into human subjects, other than family shots, after starting with digital in 2000.