egafd.com

While having my winter break away from taking any photos, I have got back to scanning my slides from the old film days which are now stored in my loft.

When I look at the results and I must say they don't seem to come up to the quality I expected.
It could be that I have expected too much and that they would look much like from a digital camera. Hence this post..

Has anyone who has scanned their slides had the same problem.
If so have you found that some slides do not scan well at all.
At the time I was taking a lot of art nude using a snoot for the lighting so of course they have lots of black in the picture. I find that these look awful when scanned.
Also does anyone find that the whites on their scanned slides tend to be burnt out?

My Slide scanner is a Veho VFS-004 and I use the highest quality JPG setting on 1800dpi.

I enclose a few examples of my results.

[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 11_001.JPG[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com
[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 11_002.JPG[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com
[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 11_003.JPG[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com
[img]http://www.rgbphotohost.com/images/0111 ... 11_011.JPG[/img]
Picture hosting courtesy of UKPussyTalk.com

Your problem is that the scanner you are using isn't up to the job.

PC Advisor rates its scans as "quite good" but basically to scan 35mm slides you really need a good dedicated slide scanner - though once you have spent around ?900 -?1.000 you will find that, though the results are excellent and can be enhanced by using Photoshop, the scanner can wear out rapidly - mine died after 6,000 slides and Nikon wanted ?400 to replace the slide feed.

I then bought an Epson V700 Photo flat bed as the next best option and at around ?400 it gives excellent results though it takes 80 or so minutes to scan 12 slides at a go at 4800 dpi. Ths gives the sort of results I want to achieve at 240 dpi when the photos are reduced to 1024 x for displaying on computer or for printing.

It's the old story, you get what you pay for.

Forgot to mention - Kodak K64 does not scan well on Nikon, better on Epson. 1970s Fuji and Agfa dyes tend to come out too blue or green and need colour correction in Photoshop.

You may also need Noise Ninja to deal with heavy grain noise.

Rachael Garley...wow what a beauty!

We have spoke about this before some time back, here are some examples of Epson and Minolta scanners
in use on 35mm chromes I shot some years back before Digital so you should be able to easily get to this
level and with scanners vastly improved now even better results.

If your stuck mail me and we can discuss a deal.

Minolta: Chrome was a bit blue not the scanning.

[IMG]http://www.britishvideosex.com/bgafd/vidpic280.jpg[/IMG]

Epson:

[IMG]http://www.britishvideosex.com/bgafd/vidpic281.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://www.britishvideosex.com/bgafd/vidpic282.jpg[/IMG]

....Epson V700 Photo flat bed as the next best option and at around ?400 it gives excellent results though it takes 80 or so minutes to scan 12 slides at a go at 4800 dpi....

wow 6 minutes a slide!!

Have you tried negatives? If so is it good and does it tale as long?

I have a book full of negatives I need to find the time to scan.

The scanner may not be upto the job you want, bu it could also be the software. Try downloading vuescan, it's a fully functioning, but watermarked trial.

The main thing is, we've been spoiled with the quality we get from digital and on the computer, and ancient slide film scanned is really not going to look the same.

I've just scanned 40,000 pics for a client, and whilst the results are good, they're never going to look like the digital images of today.

This 35mm neg was scanned on a V750 Epson with digital ice which can save hours in repro.

[IMG]http://www.britishvideosex.com/bgafd/vidpic283.jpg[/IMG]

Both negs and positives (both B+W and colour) are good.