Re: Slide Scanning

**"James Allison" j*@aquapic.com**

On 25 Jan 2005 at 9:01, gardenwriters-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> What do you recommend for slide scanning?  What do you think of batch
> loaders?

Thanks Saxon for your interesting comments on the stock photography 
market.

As to Chris's question, I used a Nikon Coolscan III for a number of 
years. It's a dedicated slide/negative scanner, scanning at 2700 dpi 
and giving a file size of around 24MB. 

The scanner's optional technology (ICE) uses an extra sensor to 
detect dirt and scratches on the surface of the transparency, and 
automatically cleans up the scan. This slows up the scan process but 
is very useful for older or damaged slides, giving better and faster 
results than trying to clean up images in Photoshop. It's worked well 
on my slides (mainly fujifilm) though it is said to have problems on 
Kodachrome types of film.

On the whole I was very pleased with the scanner, but the software 
took a little getting used to in order to get the very best scans. 
Also, if the scanner wasn't rock-steady on a solid surface, the tiny 
amount of shudder could create small ridges in the final image. 

The biggest problem was dust getting into the unit and landing on the 
internal lenses. This causes a bloom or halo in the final image. 
Cleaning the internal lenses is not straightforward and an airgun has 
given only temporary improvement. I've read of other users who keep 
the whole scanner sealed up in a poly bag when not in use, to 
minimise this problem - I'll be doing this in future. 

Some of the Nikon scanners are available with optional (expensive) 
batch loaders, but I've heard of folk having problems with them as 
they struggle to cope with unusually thick or warped slides, and can 
jam if slides stick together. Also, you need a powerful computer to 
cope with the multiple scan output. I also find that most single 
scans need to be tweaked individually between prescan and scan to get 
the very best results, so batch loaded scans are always likely to be 
something of a compromise.

I've also used an Epson Perfection flatbed scanner with a built in 
transparency hood. It will batch scan 4 transparencies at 1600dpi. 
The software has been easier to use than the Nikon, and the colour 
has been good, but the resolution falls noticeably short. Better 
flatbeds are around now, but they will usually give poorer results 
than a dedicated slide scanner as most of these have no flat glass 
bed to get in the way of the scan.

I'm planning on getting one of the latest Nikon SuperCoolscans to 
finish off scanning my slide collection. They have improved quite a 
bit over the past few years, giving better resolution (4000dpi),  
better colour density and handling of contrast, and faster results. I 
suspect that the impetus of manufacturers to develop new ranges of 
dedicated slide scanners will diminish in future due to the fast pace 
of the switchover to digital cameras. I myself 'went' digital last 
year, and most of the magazines I deal with have recently changed 
preference from slide to digital supply.

James Allison
jallison@aquapic.com 

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
&quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters