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.
Bookmarks