Digital archiving of transparencies: queries

[parasko]

Hi all,

This is not a large format query but you people seem to know a lot about scanning etc.

These days I shoot 35mm Provia 100F and 400x almost exclusively (love those Leica cameras!). Can anyone advise on:
1. the lifespan of a transparency? My transparencies are not mounted and are stored in archival sleeves.
2. Is a Nikon 9000 scan good enough for digitally archiving transparencies or should I be saving up to gradually pay to drum scan my better images?
3. There is a lot of (confusing) information about the optimum resolution for scanning. If I am to pay the big bucks for drum scanning, I need to know the optimal resolution/file size for 35mm?
4. When transparencies are drum-scanned are they colour/exposure corrected or is this an additional service?
5. Are cds sufficient/stable for archival storage? Best brands? Other options?

Apologies if these questions are quite basic. :o

[Jeremy Moore]

Hi all,

This is not a large format query but you people seem to know a lot about scanning etc.

These days I shoot 35mm Provia 100F and 400x almost exclusively (love those Leica cameras!). Can anyone advise on:
1. the lifespan of a transparency? My transparencies are not mounted and are stored in archival sleeves.

Who knows... the only thing we know is a range for how long they should last, but that's based off of being in archival sleeves in a dark, climate controlled place. Odds are longer than you. If you're worried about this and want to do something about it don't ask photographers - you need to talk to a archivist/conservationist and odds are to do it right you will be looking at $$$.


2. Is a Nikon 9000 scan good enough for digitally archiving transparencies or should I be saving up to gradually pay to drum scan my better images?

Good enough for whom? I assume you mean good enough for you -- well, that's up to you. Send out a slide to be scanned on a Nikon 9000 (or do it yourself if you already have one) and send it out to be drum scanned. Don't skimp - pay for quality scans. Then make high-end prints - if you want to know EXACTLY what to expect do it and you'll know exactly what to expect.


3. There is a lot of (confusing) information about the optimum resolution for scanning. If I am to pay the big bucks for drum scanning, I need to know the optimal resolution/file size for 35mm?

If you're paying the big bucks for drum scanning then you should be working with a drum scanner who will advise you on all of this based on his experience working with his machine and your expected output. This question is beside the point as pixels per inch is just one factor and honestly one of the weakest in deciding final scan quality - we'd have to know exactly what scanner and what film you're scanning to even make anything more than a generic suggestion, imo.


4. When transparencies are drum-scanned are they colour/exposure corrected or is this an additional service?

Most places I know when they make a drum scan they match the transparency - if your transparency is incorrectly color balanced/exposed then that's post-processing work and not color/exposure matching. If you're talking correcting the color/exposure because it wasn't captured "correctly" in-camera then assume you will be paying for this as it is work above and beyond replicating your film with the scanner.


Apologies if these questions are quite basic. :o

No reason to apologize at all! We all have to learn somewhere and somehow. Maybe someone here can suggest some good primers/resources on scanning so you can start learning more of the in's and out's of the process.

[Lenny Eiger]

1. the lifespan of a transparency? My transparencies are not mounted and are stored in archival sleeves.

I have heard that transparencies can last as little as 7 years. However, I would agree with Jeremy that there are a large number of factors that affect this....

Lenny

[Oren Grad]

1. the lifespan of a transparency?

The best you're going to get for publicly-available information is here - see especially chapters 5 and 6:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html


5. Are cds sufficient/stable for archival storage? Best brands? Other options?

If you're going to use CDs, use gold CDs. One source - I'm sure there are other brands - is here:

http://www.mam-a.com/

But it's risky to assume that CD-ROMs of any type are stable for very long-term keeping under unpredictable conditions - the history of the medium just isn't long enough yet to have a high degree of confidence.

The safest approach to digital archiving is probably to store multiple copies on different hard disk drives, and to keep migrating to up-to-date hardware and if necessary software formats every few years. But this requires active management and ongoing investment. For very long term storage - decades and beyond - I don't know that there's any passive mode of digital archiving for which one can have a high degree of assurance that the physical media will be readable and the data formatting will be interpretable by readily available hardware and software.

So what do you mean by "archival"? Preserving files for your own use over the next 20 years, or preserving them for the generations?

[QT Luong]

> There is a lot of (confusing) information about the optimum resolution for scanning. If I am to pay the big bucks for drum scanning, I need to know the optimal resolution/file size for 35mm?

In my experience, you don't gain anything but grain by scanning above 100MB (8bit) or 200MB (16bit).

> When transparencies are drum-scanned are they colour/exposure corrected or is this an additional service?

It is an additional service. Some scan operators provide files which are very flat looking because supposedly those are more conductive of further creative work.

> Are cds sufficient/stable for archival storage? Best brands? Other options?

They may be stable, but they are unpractical for storage of any significant quantity of data. I recommend multiple HDDs instead. I use http://www.archivalgold.com/ but not for storage, only for copyright registration deposits.

[Oren Grad]

In my experience, you don't gain anything but grain by scanning above 100MB (8bit) or 200MB (16bit).

Depending on one's taste and objectives, it may be desirable to clearly record the film grain. But if that's what's needed, one has to go to a drum scanner with a skilled operator, or possibly an Imacon/Flextight.

I'm not happy with the degraded, aliased representation of B&W film grain produced by my Nikon 9000. OTOH, the dye clouds of color neg seem to be more forgiving and those scans hold up better to my eye. It really does depends on the particulars.

So I have to second Jeremy's advice to the OP - have some sample scans of representative slides done by a skilled operator and decide for yourself how much information you need in your scans, based on your own taste.

This may be of interest:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/gigabyte-film-scans.html

[Lenny Eiger]

In my experience, you don't gain anything but grain by scanning above 100MB (8bit) or 200MB (16bit).

QT, this certainly depends on the scanner. Drum scanners that do 8,000 ppi optical (the Premier and the ICG 380) can easily do 5 times your numbers....

I wouldn't suggest to anyone that a scan be done that is only 8bit... the consensus is that 16 is extremely useful for keeping the quality up when doing ones' corrections in PhotoShop....

Lenny

[Steve Smith]

Can anyone advise on:
1. the lifespan of a transparency?

Much, much more than the life span of any scan you could make from it (which should not be considered as archiving).


Steve.

[Jeremy Moore]

Much, much more than the life span of any scan you could make from it (which should not be considered as archiving).

Steve.

"Large format cameras are only good for making big pictures. When digital gets good enough all film will go away. Painting is dead!"

What I wrote above sounds just as ignorant as your comment. The poster may not have the ability or the budget to do so with his files, but you are very, very misinformed regarding digital archiving. The digital world is different than the physical world so we not only have physical archiving problems, but digital ones, too - but on the flip side 1/0's will not degrade as quickly as a non-Kodachrome E-6 transparency if both are PROPERLY stored - and you can make 1 million copies of the digital scan and even send one to stay in a satellite around Jupiter to keep it safe while still having an EXACT copy here to use. That's the reason LOCKSS works (Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) - if one of the physical containers of the digital file goes bad it doesn't matter because every digital file is the same and you can grab it off of another physical container.

If your original transparency goes bad you are screwed. An E-6 dupe is not an original transparency and is NOT equivalent to a digital copy (which is a true, 1:1 copy).

Digital isn't for everyone, but there's no need to spread misinformation.

[parasko]

I have heard that transparencies can last as little as 7 years. However, I would agree with Jeremy that there are a large number of factors that affect this....

Lenny

Thanks all for your comments. Very helpful. I also read that transparencies have a lifespan of approx 7 years. Hence, my reason for investigating digital archiving.

I must say though that drum scanning ain't cheap, judging from internet prices, and it will cost a small fortune to scan all my 'keepers' in this way. I will have to be very selective.

Cheers.

[Cesare Berti]

This is a timely thread . I've just begun archiving my 35mm slides using a Nikon 9000 scanner.

The first batch of 15 I've scanned date back to 1971 and are Kodachromes and Afgachromes. They were stored in the original slide trays and stored in the basement for the last 20 years. Despite this the colors, contrast etc have held up surprisingly well. If pressed for a number I would say the worst are at least 80% of the originals.

The files I'm getting (JPGs) are 60 megs at 8 bit and twice that at 16 bit scanning at its max resolution of 4000.

A question on scanning practice. Is it standard (good) practice to leave the output size the same as the input size (aprox 24mm x 35 mm)? I ask because I don't understand what happens to the file size when I go to print lets say an 8x 10 of the slide and have to resize because the file becomes so big. I hope the question makes sense.