| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 42158 | 2004-02-02 08:46:00 | Off Topic: 35mm slides - what resolution to scan? | tbacon_nz (865) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 212369 | 2004-02-06 02:09:00 | In the 'olden days' photo shops could print positive prints from 35mm slides. Have you enquired to see if it can still be done? | Peter (676) | ||
| 212370 | 2004-02-06 03:19:00 | They still can, but these days I'm pretty sure that by default they go the scan-print route. They used to create a negative from the slide and then print that. I just tried another photo processor, and this time thay scanned at their "High" setting, and the result was 20dpi according to Paint Shop Pro! I think I may have to find some one who does "digital imaging" rather than photo processing. Tony |
tbacon_nz (865) | ||
| 212371 | 2004-02-06 05:03:00 | Perhaps Peter meant printing direct from slides to paper e.g. Cibachrome, which gave beautiful prints compared to the pos/neg/print routine. Am out of touch but I imagine Cibachrome or similar is still around. It was quite expensive though. I am reading this with interest as I have about 1500 Kodachromes I would like to archive.... some day ! Tony2 |
tjc1 (985) | ||
| 212372 | 2004-02-06 07:37:00 | I have a Canon FS2710 film scanner. For a 10 x 15cm print, I would use one step down from the maximum available on my scanner i.e. 1360dpi. | rumpty (2863) | ||
| 212373 | 2004-02-06 21:11:00 | A further point I suppose I should add based on my experiences. A lot of the slides I am archiving, and printing some, are 30+ years old and are a mixture of Kodachrome and Agfa. They have been seemingly stored under pretty reasonable conditions but nevertheless have deteriorated somewhat over the years. This deterioration shows up in: (a) Increased inherent "fuzziness" (something like an apparent lack of focus) which shows up under high magnification. (b) Some loss in colour saturation, with some colours showing this up more than others. (c) Surface defects, mainly bits of mould, specs of dust, small hairs etc. that can sometimes show up on prints if they aren't removed first. (d) Possibly (I'm not sure about this) the slides warping somewhat over the years, ie no longer being totally flat, so that a scanner of whatever kind, or a standard photographic print-to-paper, may show up some parts as being in different focus to others. I find that the only reasonable way to resolve most of these (although I can't yet do much about(a)) is to do digital editing (I use Adobe Photoshop). This can inter alia restore the faded colour saturation to something pretty acceptable (close to the original?? - Chi sa?) I don't like the idea of leaving this editing in the hands of commercial organisations, since I would probably end up paying a fair bit for getting quite a lot of outcomes that I didn't really want. I greatly prefer making my own slide-by-slide decisions, since if anything goes wrong it doesn't cost much to remedy and I have only myself to blame. I think the cost to me of a good scanner was well worth it for the purpose. |
rugila (214) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||