Scanning Huge Archives - Help!

Hello! My mother was a long-time professional film photographer who traveled all over the world and published about 12 books. I inherited her huge photographic archive consisting of everything from B&W negatives, 35mm color slide, 120, 645, 4x5 color transparencies. 90% of her work are color transparencies. Her best work is on 4x5 color transparency.

I am just beginning the process of archiving her library - and, I must say, it is a stunningly beautiful body of work. I am very excited about preserving my mother's legacy and I appreciate her on a whole new level as a photographer and artist.

I also inherited her old Epson Expression 1640XL scanner which has the capability to scan all of the above formats. I tried the VuScan software with it and it works perfectly with the scanner.

I am also a long-time film and digital photographer, but scanning is a relatively new process for me. Especially at any sort of professional level. Is this old 1640XL an adequate scanner for this purpose? I would like the best scans possible for creating large prints at some point. It's a huge undertaking and I'd prefer not to waste my time using inferior equipment that will only end up with mediocre results.

I cannot afford a drum scanner (!) and I don't know if the newer Epson v800 is up to the task. My head is spinning with all the various resolutions, dpi, DMax. I was just about to sell the 1640, but then thought better of it when seeing that so many of the resolution claims by Epson were inflated anyway. Thoughts? Your input would be so helpful to me. Thank you!

If you are happy with the scanner in terms of performance, keep it, and then send off the important frames you want to print up to a professional to get the most out of them. This only becomes problematic if you need to scan hundreds of images at that quality level, at which point it would be cheaper to get a good scanner (but the Epson V800 will not give you great results on smaller formats), not to mention that the scanner operator is half the battle.

Hi Suzzane

Use the scanner you have to digitize your mothers work and once this huge task is completed you will have a better idea and experience in the whole scanner, PS editing , archiving process.
You will at some point know or conclude which images are important to print.. Then you can do selective high rez scans with a more appropriate scanner to make huge prints.

Bob

The Vivian Maier archives were started this way and over time the selects were made.

I've been charged with managing massive scanning projects and the best approach is to pare down the lot in a critical stepwise manner.

All slides can be viewed with a very good loupe on a light table. That has sufficed for editors for years. For negatives, scan at low resolution of the MF and LF media and just adequate resolution for 35mm. Lower resolution speeds the process greatly. Finally pare down the first pass. Choose the better for higher resolution scans.

For the best loupe I defer to the group. You want one large enough that fatigue does not become an issue.

Get back to us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

Hello! My mother was a long-time professional film photographer who traveled all over the world and published about 12 books. I inherited her huge photographic archive consisting of everything from B&W negatives, 35mm color slide, 120, 645, 4x5 color transparencies. 90% of her work are color transparencies. Her best work is on 4x5 color transparency.

I am just beginning the process of archiving her library - and, I must say, it is a stunningly beautiful body of work. I am very excited about preserving my mother's legacy and I appreciate her on a whole new level as a photographer and artist.

I also inherited her old Epson Expression 1640XL scanner which has the capability to scan all of the above formats. I tried the VuScan software with it and it works perfectly with the scanner.

I am also a long-time film and digital photographer, but scanning is a relatively new process for me. Especially at any sort of professional level. Is this old 1640XL an adequate scanner for this purpose? I would like the best scans possible for creating large prints at some point. It's a huge undertaking and I'd prefer not to waste my time using inferior equipment that will only end up with mediocre results.

I cannot afford a drum scanner (!) and I don't know if the newer Epson v800 is up to the task. My head is spinning with all the various resolutions, dpi, DMax. I was just about to sell the 1640, but then thought better of it when seeing that so many of the resolution claims by Epson were inflated anyway. Thoughts? Your input would be so helpful to me. Thank you!

---

The V800 and V850 are very competent scanners, I strongly recommend you acquire one for that job.

As you are to scan transparencies take the V850 as it includes Silverfast Multiexposure feature that it is very interesting for very deep shadows in the tranparencies http://www.silverfast.com/highlights...posure/en.html

If you take the V800 you may purchase separately a software upgrade to have the Multi-Exposure.

For 4x5 and 120 the V850 will deliver lots of image quality that may exceed what you need or what film had recorded.

For 35mm I would recommend a dedicated 35mm roll film scanner perhaps a Plustek, the 35mm 8x00 series is cheaper than the 120 that makes MF.


As the format is larger you need less optical performance, first because a large format scan have lots of image quality even at lower dpi, and secondly because small format lenses have more optical performance and in some cases (tripod used, sharp film and ideal aperture) a higher optical dpi performance makes a diference, also in smaller formats grain structure can be much important in the aesthetics, so a higher optical resolution make also make a difference because that.

It can happen that you find some transparencies with very deep shadows, it the image is worth and the very deep shadows are important in that image then you may use a drum scanner service for that specialized job. I know a good photographer that had a V750 and a top notch drum, he used the drum for 5% of the images, and he said that half of those times it was not clear if it was worth.

If you had a scanning business the V850 it would not be the ideal flatbed, for the same reason a restaurant won't normally use the same microwave oven than the one I've have at home, but I would cook the same if having one or the other. Also V850 for personal usage spares a budget that can de used for drum service for the few cases a flatbed comes short.

Other flatbeds may not be in production, can have repair service problems and may lack drivers for modern operative systems. With the V850 you have 1 year warranty, official service and drivers for Windows 10.

Another thing is that V850 optimizes less the digital result so a bit of sharpening and curve trim is always effective in Photoshop, while some Pro flatbeds tend to be more intelligent, digitally cooking a bit the image to its best, but presonally I pefer a very raw scan, and perhaps I would apply a different sharpening strategy for the eyes than for the cheek in a portrait.

In short, I don't know a better choice than the V850 in the new gear market, in a budget, used pre-press gear is risky, and you may complement with a 35mm dedicated Plustek.

Another choice is buying a Hasselbald X1 and selling it when you finish, this is the luxurious way.

You can read this:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...de-800x549.jpg

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...ze-792x800.jpg

Another way to "scan" is to downshoot the negs/slides with a digital camera set-up rather than a scanner... You would have to rig a copy set-up, light box, and with holders for materials...

You would be able to "shoot" them at a short shutter speed, and move on to the next image, etc...

The images could be batch processed in Lightroom, archived, categories, etc as a group...

Check the archives for the ongoing (DSLR scanning) topic...

Good luck!!!

Steve K

Decide, first, why are you scanning? The end result will determine what's the best/easiest/least expensive method for attaining that result. If you're scanning to share on the web you'll have very different requirements than if you're going to put on a gallery show of your mom's work printed large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Decide, first, why are you scanning? The end result will determine what's the best/easiest/least expensive method for attaining that result. If you're scanning to share on the web you'll have very different requirements than if you're going to put on a gallery show of your mom's work printed large.

---

The OP mentions an archival purpose, for which it may be better to find a permanent home, such as an art institute or historical center, for the original material. Scans are not truly archival. Does anyone scan an important image and then throw that image away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

I cannot afford a drum scanner (!)...

---

That's like claiming that you can't afford a darkroom enlarger. People give them away, both darkroom enlargers and drum scanners.

You're going about this backwards: define your problem first, then look for solutions.

Well, 'archival' can mean a bunch of things. One of them would mean to make copies to minimize the chances of loss. Scans stored on, say, M-discs in various locations would lessen chances of total loss due to flood, fire..... But is the archive simply to allow people to see the photos on a computer screen, or is it so large prints can be made in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Well, 'archival' can mean a bunch of things. One of them would mean to make copies to minimize the chances of loss. Scans stored on, say, M-discs in various locations would lessen chances of total loss due to flood, fire..... But is the archive simply to allow people to see the photos on a computer screen, or is it so large prints can be made in the future?

---

Pretty much how I see it .. The OP needs to get a handle of what she has , and the equipment she has can do the job... Down the road, the techie's (myself included) would like to see the use of a better scanner for making large prints.

This is a pretty standard approach for large archives, to see what is there then after consultation decide what to do.

I have a 1640XL out where I work and find it completely adequate. Archiving and cataloguing is one thing, scanning for museum prints may be another. But the 1640XL can do that first step just fine. Then if curators etc. want large prints at maximum resolution you can do the expensive scans shopped out to folks who have that expertise. The 1640 is plenty good enough resolution for magazine articles and posting things on the web. Does your scanner have the heavy lid that has the light inside it for transparency and negative scanning? All I've ever needed was the software that came with the scanner. You've got what you need to get started.

If the idea is to simply have a catalogue of the images, then a digital copy camera system with one shot per negative could do a good job very quickly. Do all of one size at a time. This involves a little more setup than a scanner, but once that's done you can probably do a scans very quickly. This is especially appealing if one already has a good digital camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

If you are happy with the scanner in terms of performance, keep it, and then send off the important frames you want to print up to a professional to get the most out of them. This only becomes problematic if you need to scan hundreds of images at that quality level, at which point it would be cheaper to get a good scanner (but the Epson V800 will not give you great results on smaller formats), not to mention that the scanner operator is half the battle.

---

Yes - I think I'll just keep the scanner. I can do a lot of scans on it at once and can at least do some quick archiving and then, as you say, either purchase a good scanner or send out the best transparencies that I want enlarged. Thank you!

If you do go the "better scanner" route I think you should consider a large commercial flatbed rather than a drum scanner because the workflow of mounting is so much simpler and faster and results can be quite good indeed. Mounting is pretty simple - basically just laying or taping the film on the glass or on a mask sheet. Basically just load up the glass and let the scanner churn away. You could also get a mounting station and an extra sheet of scanner glass and just load up a couple of scanner carriers but the mounting time is so much faster than the scan time you might be OK with just one glass carrier.

This makes a lot of sense. I HAVE the scanner....so why not? It's going to be quite a learning process for sure! There are tens of thousands of images and I've already started the process of looking at them on a lightbox and seeing what I have. I REALLY appreciate your post. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

Hi Suzzane

Use the scanner you have to digitize your mothers work and once this huge task is completed you will have a better idea and experience in the whole scanner, PS editing , archiving process.
You will at some point know or conclude which images are important to print.. Then you can do selective high rez scans with a more appropriate scanner to make huge prints.

Bob

---

This makes a lot of sense. I HAVE the scanner....so why not? It's going to be quite a learning process for sure! There are tens of thousands of images and I've already started the process of looking at them on a lightbox and seeing what I have. I REALLY appreciate your post. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net

I've been charged with managing massive scanning projects and the best approach is to pare down the lot in a critical stepwise manner.

All slides can be viewed with a very good loupe on a light table. That has sufficed for editors for years. For negatives, scan at low resolution of the MF and LF media and just adequate resolution for 35mm. Lower resolution speeds the process greatly. Finally pare down the first pass. Choose the better for higher resolution scans.

For the best loupe I defer to the group. You want one large enough that fatigue does not become an issue.

Get back to us!

---

Yes, I purchased a lightbox - a very thin one - and can easily slip it under all the transparency sleeves. It's fabulous! And fast! I have a couple of loupes already, so this works great. Thanks much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

The V800 and V850 are very competent scanners, I strongly recommend you acquire one for that job.

As you are to scan transparencies take the V850 as it includes Silverfast Multiexposure feature that it is very interesting for very deep shadows in the tranparencies http://www.silverfast.com/highlights...posure/en.html

If you take the V800 you may purchase separately a software upgrade to have the Multi-Exposure.

For 4x5 and 120 the V850 will deliver lots of image quality that may exceed what you need or what film had recorded.

For 35mm I would recommend a dedicated 35mm roll film scanner perhaps a Plustek, the 35mm 8x00 series is cheaper than the 120 that makes MF.


As the format is larger you need less optical performance, first because a large format scan have lots of image quality even at lower dpi, and secondly because small format lenses have more optical performance and in some cases (tripod used, sharp film and ideal aperture) a higher optical dpi performance makes a diference, also in smaller formats grain structure can be much important in the aesthetics, so a higher optical resolution make also make a difference because that.

It can happen that you find some transparencies with very deep shadows, it the image is worth and the very deep shadows are important in that image then you may use a drum scanner service for that specialized job. I know a good photographer that had a V750 and a top notch drum, he used the drum for 5% of the images, and he said that half of those times it was not clear if it was worth.

If you had a scanning business the V850 it would not be the ideal flatbed, for the same reason a restaurant won't normally use the same microwave oven than the one I've have at home, but I would cook the same if having one or the other. Also V850 for personal usage spares a budget that can de used for drum service for the few cases a flatbed comes short.

Other flatbeds may not be in production, can have repair service problems and may lack drivers for modern operative systems. With the V850 you have 1 year warranty, official service and drivers for Windows 10.

Another thing is that V850 optimizes less the digital result so a bit of sharpening and curve trim is always effective in Photoshop, while some Pro flatbeds tend to be more intelligent, digitally cooking a bit the image to its best, but presonally I pefer a very raw scan, and perhaps I would apply a different sharpening strategy for the eyes than for the cheek in a portrait.

In short, I don't know a better choice than the V850 in the new gear market, in a budget, used pre-press gear is risky, and you may complement with a 35mm dedicated Plustek.

Another choice is buying a Hasselbald X1 and selling it when you finish, this is the luxurious way.

You can read this:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/160...s-500-scanner/

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...de-800x549.jpg

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...ze-792x800.jpg

---

Holy moly! This was incredibly helpful! Thank you for your generosity in sharing all this information. I have decided to go ahead and keep my old 1640XL as a second scanner. At the very least, I can use it to scan her old b&w negatives that I will not be making into large prints. I can actually run two scanners and two computers at once, and this will speed up my workflow. It makes sense to purchase the v850. Then, if there are images that just need that extra *umph*, I can always send out for a drum scan. It's all coming together for me now. I almost purchased the v800...but after your post and doing some more research, I think the v850 is the way to go. THANK YOU!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabRat

Another way to "scan" is to downshoot the negs/slides with a digital camera set-up rather than a scanner... You would have to rig a copy set-up, light box, and with holders for materials...

You would be able to "shoot" them at a short shutter speed, and move on to the next image, etc...

The images could be batch processed in Lightroom, archived, categories, etc as a group...

Check the archives for the ongoing (DSLR scanning) topic...

Good luck!!!

Steve K

---

I really liked that idea and checked it out - I looked at Peter Krogh's book and a few videos on the process. I just don't think I'm tech-savvy enough to pull it off! haha. : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Well, 'archival' can mean a bunch of things. One of them would mean to make copies to minimize the chances of loss. Scans stored on, say, M-discs in various locations would lessen chances of total loss due to flood, fire..... But is the archive simply to allow people to see the photos on a computer screen, or is it so large prints can be made in the future?

---

The actual purpose is best answered by the OP, but my comment was cautionary -- archival implies a permanent storage and preservation objective, and digital media is not very permanent without periodic maintenance to ensure data integrity and readability by future hardware and software. Institutions are set-up for this, but a one-time, one-person scanning effort may not incorporate the long-term maintenance.

These days, in my experience, original material (e.g., film, prints) at archives are considered to be artifacts after they are digitized, and the digitized version is what people use on a routine basis. Before digital media was operational, copy negatives of prints, or prints made from them, served the same purpose as today's digital copies. A rough distinction between an archive and a library is the sharing aspect.

Copies are great, especially if the original is lost in a fire, but preservation of the original is of course prudent. Analog copies are a better long-term hedge against disaster than digital copies, because they need much less maintenance and have a naturally long shelf life if stored reasonably well. In the present context, the main advantage of digital files is sharing via the internet, or making numerous prints, and the original material has limited wear and tear from handling once a good scan is obtained.

If it's worth scanning, it's worth saving, and the OP's material sounds like its worth saving.

Hollywood film archivists have a lot of experience with these issues. See "The Digital Dilemma" by the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. A more operational source is Frey and Reilly's "Digital Imaging for Photographic Collections", published by the Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

Yes, I purchased a lightbox - a very thin one - and can easily slip it under all the transparency sleeves. It's fabulous! And fast! I have a couple of loupes already, so this works great. Thanks much!

---

You are welcome. Please consider the process of paring down the collection, especially if you are considering publishing the best. The rest of the films will last another 100 years or better. Plenty of time to make another pass over the collection. We do what we can in our lifetime.

Very Best,
Jac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Decide, first, why are you scanning? The end result will determine what's the best/easiest/least expensive method for attaining that result. If you're scanning to share on the web you'll have very different requirements than if you're going to put on a gallery show of your mom's work printed large.

---

You are absolutely right! : ) Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Galli

I have a 1640XL out where I work and find it completely adequate. Archiving and cataloguing is one thing, scanning for museum prints may be another. But the 1640XL can do that first step just fine. Then if curators etc. want large prints at maximum resolution you can do the expensive scans shopped out to folks who have that expertise. The 1640 is plenty good enough resolution for magazine articles and posting things on the web. Does your scanner have the heavy lid that has the light inside it for transparency and negative scanning? All I've ever needed was the software that came with the scanner. You've got what you need to get started.

---

Ok, cool! I'm glad to hear of someone else using the scanner. And, yes, this scanner has the transparency lid on it. I've decided to go ahead and keep it to get started. I wasn't able to use the software that came with it, but used the VuScan software and it works just great. THANKS!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

If you do go the "better scanner" route I think you should consider a large commercial flatbed rather than a drum scanner because the workflow of mounting is so much simpler and faster and results can be quite good indeed. Mounting is pretty simple - basically just laying or taping the film on the glass or on a mask sheet. Basically just load up the glass and let the scanner churn away. You could also get a mounting station and an extra sheet of scanner glass and just load up a couple of scanner carriers but the mounting time is so much faster than the scan time you might be OK with just one glass carrier.

---

Hi, Jim - could you give me an example of what a large commercial flatbed might be? I'm assuming it's not the v850? I like the idea of loading up the glass like you say. It seems that could really speed things up! I'm a newbie at the scanning process...I've got a lot to learn.

I am concerned that some of our contributors do not understand the terrible burden of scanning everything. Simple arithmetic will show how unrealistic it it is to scan the whole collection. And to what end? The original media - slides, negatives will likely survive longer than their digital representations.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmerig

The actual purpose is best answered by the OP, but my comment was cautionary -- archival implies a permanent storage and preservation objective, and digital media is not very permanent without periodic maintenance to ensure data integrity and readability by future hardware and software. Institutions are set-up for this, but a one-time, one-person scanning effort may not incorporate the long-term maintenance.

These days, in my experience, original material (e.g., film, prints) at archives are considered to be artifacts after they are digitized, and the digitized version is what people use on a routine basis. Before digital media was operational, copy negatives of prints, or prints made from them, served the same purpose as today's digital copies. A rough distinction between an archive and a library is the sharing aspect.

Copies are great, especially if the original is lost in a fire, but preservation of the original is of course prudent. Analog copies are a better long-term hedge against disaster than digital copies, because they need much less maintenance and have a naturally long shelf life if stored reasonably well. In the present context, the main advantage of digital files is sharing via the internet, or making numerous prints, and the original material has limited wear and tear from handling once a good scan is obtained.

If it's worth scanning, it's worth saving, and the OP's material sounds like its worth saving.

Hollywood film archivists have a lot of experience with these issues. See "The Digital Dilemma" by the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. A more operational source is Frey and Reilly's "Digital Imaging for Photographic Collections", published by the Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology.

---

Fascinating! Thank you for the perspective. I'm actually shocked at how, after 10 years in dark storage, the transparencies look as if they were taken yesterday. Some of them are 30-40 years old!!! If there is fading or color loss - I cannot see it. Yay for analog! : )

Large commercial flatbeds include the Screen Cezanne, Creo Eversmart series, iQSmart scanners, etc. - I have a Cezanne myself, as do several forum members. These are huge, heavy beasts that are about as good as it gets in terms of ease of use, throughput, and quality, but the expense, upkeep, difficulty in finding good working units, etc. is a problem. I wouldn't go down that route. You could pay for a lot of scans before you made it worthwhile, and you'd have to deal with the learning curve. Full disclosure: I have and continue to make scans for others on my Cezanne, so I might be slightly biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

Hi, Jim - could you give me an example of what a large commercial flatbed might be? I'm assuming it's not the v850? I like the idea of loading up the glass like you say. It seems that could really speed things up! I'm a newbie at the scanning process...I've got a lot to learn.

---

Not Jim, but I can highly recommend Micheal Streeter who sells refurbished Creo's , I have one of his Eversmart Supremes and many here use the different levels of this system.
He is extremely helpful in getting started and will maintain any problems online.
The software Oxygen and the platform itself is very easy to use after your experience with the Epson.


Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net

I am concerned that some of our contributors do not understand the terrible burden of scanning everything. Simple arithmetic will show how unrealistic it it is to scan the whole collection. And to what end? The original media - slides, negatives will likely survive longer than their digital representations.
.

---

I think the reason is for others than the OP can look at the collection, evaluate and help curate the work.. When one is dealing with thousands of images , it becomes difficult to evaluate what one has.. The OP may be wanting to show to curators that have different values when looking at work..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

That's like claiming that you can't afford a darkroom enlarger. People give them away, both darkroom enlargers and drum scanners.

You're going about this backwards: define your problem first, then look for solutions.

---

People give drum scanners away? I guess I don't know enough about them and am probably looking in the wrong places or don't know what to look for. I was looking at all the new Hasselblad, etc. ones and my jaw hit the table when I saw the prices. haha. I don't know if you'd be willing to share how to find one of these cheap, but, if so, I'd love to find out! As far as the "problem"...I guess it's simply that I'd eventually like to make large prints out of my mother's work - maybe a gallery show one day?? But if I'm going to take all that time scanning, I'd like to get as much bang for my buck - money and time-wise. Thanks much!!!

One more quick thought before I start my print session in the darkroom...

I don't think you mentioned what percentage of the images are 35mm in slide mounts vs. larger formats or unmounted. If a large percentage of your collection is 35mm mounted slides, you might take a look at this scanner:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Scan_6000.html

It's expensive, but it batch scans 50 slides at once. You could blow through your scanning and then resell it for likely 75% of the expenditure. I don't actually have experience with this scanner but have heard good things. That's what I would do if it were me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

It's all coming together for me now. I almost purchased the v800...but after your post and doing some more research, I think the v850 is the way to go.

---

The V800 and the V850 are nearly the same hardware, single difference is that V850 has internal lenses coated, this can make some difference in some particular conditions, but the most important difference is bundled software, V800 includes Silverfast 8 SE while V850 includes SilverFast SE Plus, if you purchase V800 then you also can Upgrade to SE Plus version, here explains it:

http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_...850-page3.html ... and the SE Plus version suports Multi-Exposure. The other included software, EpsonScan, does not include Multi-Exposure...

Silverfast Ai is the top versión, but find it not better to me than SE Plus.

V850 also includes "Two sets of film holders means you can prepare a second set of orginals for scanning while the first is still scanning." https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/e...r-differences/


Both the 800 and 850 uses a LED illuminator that does not need pre-heating, so it never delays starting an scan, and may require no calibration over time becuase LEDs are stable, the previous 750/700 model had a cold lamp...

And plus 100 for Michael. I got my refurbed IQsmart 2 from him and he provides a lot of support. Great guy.

As Bryan said, it might be best to start with what you have and send out the really best stuff. The only reason I brought up the Eversmart etc discussion was that it's another option that I think you should be aware of. These machines were originally used for high volume scanning of transparencies etc and the flatbed workflow is (IMHO) a lot better for high volumes than a drum scanner. The scanning bed on my IQsmart is 12 x 18 inches and there are precut masks that would let you easily mount 6 4 x 5's on the bed. The drawback is that they're old (like me!) and pretty slow (also like me!) I normally load up the machine in the evening and go to sleep while it scans. They're also big and heavy (Again - just like me!) and are in the neighborhood of 100 plus pounds and 2 x 3 x 1 feet in size. Not where I'd start as a beginner, but definitely something to keep in mind. I get good 4300dpi scans with my machine and some of the other machines get up to a true 5500. Drum scanners probably have a bit of an edge quality wise, but I think the workflow is better with the flatbeds which is why I got one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net

I am concerned that some of our contributors do not understand the terrible burden of scanning everything. Simple arithmetic will show how unrealistic it it is to scan the whole collection. And to what end? The original media - slides, negatives will likely survive longer than their digital representations.
.

---

Very true Jac, but I (for one) scanned my entire archive (40yrs+) at a medium resolution just to provide a computerised catalogue allowing me to easily check and find content. Essentially using the computer as glorified lightbox/contact sheet.

The negs/transparencies will be around for a long time, so if needed, I can pull anything from the archive and re-scan or fire up the enlarger.

We're talking about an archive of tents of thousands of images, mostly transparencies, and I understand in various formats. The issue of scanning quality has been discussed quite extensively already, but I think a much more relevant issue is that of the time investment. With this archive size, the real question becomes: how much do you value your time and to what extent do you find the process of digitization enjoyable (i.e. does the activity have inherent value)?

Of course, technical quality of the scans as a function of the intended purpose (how much detail and/or enlargement are required) is a qualifier for any chosen method. The chosen method must of course match the intended purpose and yield sufficient quality for this. As this is not explicitly stated (or I missed it in reading the posts, sorry if that's the case), it's a bit of an unknown factor.

As to the matter of time investment, I think it makes sense to compare the different workflows in terms of how much time they cost per image, as Jim Andrada also hints at. Then determine how much you value your time - does the time you spend on digitization come at the cost of your own work, or in other words: are there opportunity costs? Or is it time that you'd otherwise spend idling around and you can afford to invest the many many hours without any penalty on your private or professional life? Depending on this, it may be worthwhile thinking about what kind of investment in equipment would be justifiable to set up this operation. Taking an extreme: if technical quality is relevant and your time is pressure, it may be worthwhile investing in a high-resolution digital medium format system (at a large to gigantic cost) if it saves you a lot of time in the long run and your time is precious - provided you can handle the investment. If your time is less precious, technical quality is paramount and you actually enjoy the process, a drum scanner may be a viable option. Any approach to digitization will have its own profile in terms of capital investment, time per image and ease of use. Comparing the different methods and using your own personal requirements (image quality, available time, valuation of time, willingness to perform more complex vs. more simple tasks) is the only way to reach an answer as to what is the best approach.

In terms of workflow, arguably the easiest/quickest approach would be digitization through photography on a kind of 'digital copy stand' setup, which you can highly standardize for a given format, allowing for very quick capture of images. You will lose little time waiting for a scanner to do it's slow work and most of the time spent will be on actually handling film and pushing the button - i.e. you have little idle time. Depending on the camera system used, reasonable to very high quality levels are possible. But this will obviously also influence the capital investment required.

Drum scanning is at the other end of the spectrum in terms of time investment and ease of use, with mounting, dismounting and waiting time being fundamentally different from a camera capture approach. Capital investment really depends on how easy you'll get your hands on a working drum scanner setup - taking into account the fact that most drum scanners out there have been around for years or decades and getting maintenance services and spare parts may be a challenge.

Scanning with a flatbed scanner, at least for sheet film, is an obvious choice, with the process of mounting relatively straightforward, but especially at higher resolutions, you will spend quite some time sitting idle, waiting for the scanner to do its thing. Since you already have a quite capable scanner, capital investment may be close to zero, or still very manageable if you opt to buy a new 'prosumer' grade scanner like the V800 or 850.

Depending on the number of originals in different formats, it may or not may be worthwhile to differentiate between them and use different approaches for each format, and acquire different equipment for it.

In any case, the essence of my post is that given the size of the archive, technical quality is only one of the parameters to consider and taking into account the time investment is very relevant.

Edit: an example to make clear the impact factoring time and the value of time can have could go as follows (many assumptions made and quite arbitrary ones at that). Suppose you compare scanning to digital photography as a means of digitization, and you take 20,000 4x5's for which you save 4 minutes per image by photographing them, and you value your time at a very conservative $20/hour, you'd already justify a $25k investment in equipment to save this time. You see, with the number of originals you're facing, it is really worthwhile overthinking the entire project and determine which approach is feasible and justifiable to you.

Could I sneak in a quick question about older flatbed scanners? If I buy, say, an Epson 4990 or 3200, would I need to upgrade my laptop's operating system? I'm running Windows 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Calwell

Could I sneak in a quick question about older flatbed scanners? If I buy, say, an Epson 4990 or 3200, would I need to upgrade my laptop's operating system? I'm running Windows 7.

---

Here you can download a TWAIN driver for Epson 4990, for Windows 98, XP, Vista, 7, 8, and 10...

https://epson.com/Support/Scanners/P...175012#drivers

If you want Silverfast for the 4990 you have it new for Vista, 7, 8 and 10, https://www.silverfast.com/get_demo/en.html , and I guess that , if you buy it used it can come with XP software.

In the same ewb sites you can also check it the 3200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Calwell

Could I sneak in a quick question about older flatbed scanners? If I buy, say, an Epson 4990 or 3200, would I need to upgrade my laptop's operating system? I'm running Windows 7.

---

I use a 4990 on a laptop with windows 7 coincidentally. The most recent Epson software works fine for this.

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

People give drum scanners away? I guess I don't know enough about them and am probably looking in the wrong places or don't know what to look for. I was looking at all the new Hasselblad, etc. ones and my jaw hit the table when I saw the prices. haha. I don't know if you'd be willing to share how to find one of these cheap, but, if so, I'd love to find out! As far as the "problem"...I guess it's simply that I'd eventually like to make large prints out of my mother's work - maybe a gallery show one day?? But if I'm going to take all that time scanning, I'd like to get as much bang for my buck - money and time-wise. Thanks much!!!

---

I have rented out my workstations on a monthly basis to estates to high and low rez their archives to competent , responsible people.
I see you are in Los Angeles, I can probably bet a few bucks and win that there are places, people in your city that do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuzanneH

Hello! My mother was a long-time professional film photographer who traveled all over the world and published about 12 books. I inherited her huge photographic archive consisting of everything from B&W negatives, 35mm color slide, 120, 645, 4x5 color transparencies. 90% of her work are color transparencies. Her best work is on 4x5 color transparency.

I am just beginning the process of archiving her library - and, I must say, it is a stunningly beautiful body of work. I am very excited about preserving my mother's legacy and I appreciate her on a whole new level as a photographer and artist.

I also inherited her old Epson Expression 1640XL scanner which has the capability to scan all of the above formats. I tried the VuScan software with it and it works perfectly with the scanner.

I am also a long-time film and digital photographer, but scanning is a relatively new process for me. Especially at any sort of professional level. Is this old 1640XL an adequate scanner for this purpose? I would like the best scans possible for creating large prints at some point. It's a huge undertaking and I'd prefer not to waste my time using inferior equipment that will only end up with mediocre results.

I cannot afford a drum scanner (!) and I don't know if the newer Epson v800 is up to the task. My head is spinning with all the various resolutions, dpi, DMax. I was just about to sell the 1640, but then thought better of it when seeing that so many of the resolution claims by Epson were inflated anyway. Thoughts? Your input would be so helpful to me. Thank you!

---

Back to the first post... Suzanne another possibility is to show this work to a competent curator to see if there is potential for the body of work. These curators if inspired have the capabilities to find funds to bring significant work to the public. As well place the work in the hands of technicians to scan and sort for you.

I have scanned over 300 high resolution scans of a Mennonite Series, after the son of the photographer did 10,000 scans of his fathers work via dslr capture.

This is a lot of work, energy and financial investment and you would be wise to show the collection to some of the right people in your area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

One more quick thought before I start my print session in the darkroom...

I don't think you mentioned what percentage of the images are 35mm in slide mounts vs. larger formats or unmounted. If a large percentage of your collection is 35mm mounted slides, you might take a look at this scanner:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Scan_6000.html

It's expensive, but it batch scans 50 slides at once. You could blow through your scanning and then resell it for likely 75% of the expenditure. I don't actually have experience with this scanner but have heard good things. That's what I would do if it were me.

---

Thanks for the tip! So far, most of her images are 120 color transparency. Mostly unmounted. Also, a large amount of 4x5 color transparency. I'm only about 10% through looking at the images, so if I run across a huge quantity of slides, I'll keep this in mind. Thank you!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

Back to the first post... Suzanne another possibility is to show this work to a competent curator to see if there is potential for the body of work. These curators if inspired have the capabilities to find funds to bring significant work to the public. As well place the work in the hands of technicians to scan and sort for you.

I have scanned over 300 high resolution scans of a Mennonite Series, after the son of the photographer did 10,000 scans of his fathers work via dslr capture.

This is a lot of work, energy and financial investment and you would be wise to show the collection to some of the right people in your area.

---

This is a wonderful suggestion. Living in Los Angeles - this would probably be easier for me than for most people. As I make my way through the work, I can start thinking about this. My mother was quite a "photographer of all trades" - she did aerials, underwater photography, architecture (this is where she made her $$$), landscapes and traveled to all the continents of the world. On top of that, she did beautiful still-lifes, collections of various kinds, calendars, notecards, books. So, it's very hard to pigeon-hole her as far as who would be interested in curating her work. But....that's a problem for another day. Thanks for your kind and thoughtful responses. Very appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

We're talking about an archive of tents of thousands of images, mostly transparencies, and I understand in various formats. The issue of scanning quality has been discussed quite extensively already, but I think a much more relevant issue is that of the time investment. With this archive size, the real question becomes: how much do you value your time and to what extent do you find the process of digitization enjoyable (i.e. does the activity have inherent value)?

Of course, technical quality of the scans as a function of the intended purpose (how much detail and/or enlargement are required) is a qualifier for any chosen method. The chosen method must of course match the intended purpose and yield sufficient quality for this. As this is not explicitly stated (or I missed it in reading the posts, sorry if that's the case), it's a bit of an unknown factor.

As to the matter of time investment, I think it makes sense to compare the different workflows in terms of how much time they cost per image, as Jim Andrada also hints at. Then determine how much you value your time - does the time you spend on digitization come at the cost of your own work, or in other words: are there opportunity costs? Or is it time that you'd otherwise spend idling around and you can afford to invest the many many hours without any penalty on your private or professional life? Depending on this, it may be worthwhile thinking about what kind of investment in equipment would be justifiable to set up this operation. Taking an extreme: if technical quality is relevant and your time is pressure, it may be worthwhile investing in a high-resolution digital medium format system (at a large to gigantic cost) if it saves you a lot of time in the long run and your time is precious - provided you can handle the investment. If your time is less precious, technical quality is paramount and you actually enjoy the process, a drum scanner may be a viable option. Any approach to digitization will have its own profile in terms of capital investment, time per image and ease of use. Comparing the different methods and using your own personal requirements (image quality, available time, valuation of time, willingness to perform more complex vs. more simple tasks) is the only way to reach an answer as to what is the best approach.

In terms of workflow, arguably the easiest/quickest approach would be digitization through photography on a kind of 'digital copy stand' setup, which you can highly standardize for a given format, allowing for very quick capture of images. You will lose little time waiting for a scanner to do it's slow work and most of the time spent will be on actually handling film and pushing the button - i.e. you have little idle time. Depending on the camera system used, reasonable to very high quality levels are possible. But this will obviously also influence the capital investment required.

Drum scanning is at the other end of the spectrum in terms of time investment and ease of use, with mounting, dismounting and waiting time being fundamentally different from a camera capture approach. Capital investment really depends on how easy you'll get your hands on a working drum scanner setup - taking into account the fact that most drum scanners out there have been around for years or decades and getting maintenance services and spare parts may be a challenge.

Scanning with a flatbed scanner, at least for sheet film, is an obvious choice, with the process of mounting relatively straightforward, but especially at higher resolutions, you will spend quite some time sitting idle, waiting for the scanner to do its thing. Since you already have a quite capable scanner, capital investment may be close to zero, or still very manageable if you opt to buy a new 'prosumer' grade scanner like the V800 or 850.

Depending on the number of originals in different formats, it may or not may be worthwhile to differentiate between them and use different approaches for each format, and acquire different equipment for it.

In any case, the essence of my post is that given the size of the archive, technical quality is only one of the parameters to consider and taking into account the time investment is very relevant.

Edit: an example to make clear the impact factoring time and the value of time can have could go as follows (many assumptions made and quite arbitrary ones at that). Suppose you compare scanning to digital photography as a means of digitization, and you take 20,000 4x5's for which you save 4 minutes per image by photographing them, and you value your time at a very conservative $20/hour, you'd already justify a $25k investment in equipment to save this time. You see, with the number of originals you're facing, it is really worthwhile overthinking the entire project and determine which approach is feasible and justifiable to you.

---

What an outstanding and thoughtful response. Thank you. I'm going to come back to this post often. You have put in real, quantifiable terms what exactly this would take and suggested factors that I hadn't considered - time being the biggest one. Also, my greatest fear (did you read my mind?) was that all MY work and what I'm trying to accomplish in this life would get put on the back burner. I really need to figure out how to balance all of this. However, after the 10th anniversary of my mother's death, it was time to sh*t or get off the pot if I was going to preserve her legacy in any meaningful way. Thank you again for your very thoughtful response. I appreciate it immensely. : )

Suzanne - you may want to post some images here over time, this forum is populated with a very giving community and a community that crosses many Genres of style, and experiences. The curators I speak of do not necessarily need to be in your home town.
Two prime examples of photographer work that has come onto the art scene in a very big way would be Vivian Maier of course, but also Fred Herzog from Vancouver.
I wish you well in your efforts to bring your Mothers work to the forefront.