Odd world, 35mm slide scanner land.
When we first started scanning 35mm slides we used an Epson 4990, with pretty good results. Sadly Epson never really made the grade with professional and serious amateurs, so as business picked up I decided to invest in a Nikon scanner. Brand new I think I paid just under £1,000. One of the best investments I've made.
Over the years our slide scanning business has grown, so I've added two additional Nikon scanners and upgraded the Epson to a V750 (the only one still available as new). We also added an SF 210 batch slide loader which has helped our throughput considerably. That unit was around £500 new, it has proved solid and reliable running almost every day for five years.
Now we need to upgrade our 35mm slide scanning capacity - there are two options, Nikon or Epson. As Nikons aren't available new I've been looking closely at prices on eBay for decent Coolscan 5000 scanners. I've also been watching the market for the slide scanner feeder, the SF 210. An odd pattern emerged. Secondhand Nikon scanners typically sell for more than I originally paid for our new Coolscan - it's not unusual for a decent Nikon 5000 to go for nearly £1500. Indeed I ended up paying over the odds. However the slide feeder is still available as new and unused. Today I've nabbed one, amazingly for less than the price I paid for a new one.
Taken together I think the new system (35mm scanner and 35mm slide feeder) has cost me just about the same as I paid for our other system.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
How big are the files?
Just look at our files they're THIS BIG! Just imagine the quality - so how big are our files?
If you're looking for a measure of image quality checking the size of data files is a very poor guide, let me try to explain. The basic variables that determine the quality factor are the number of bits / dots per inch, the number of bits used to express the colour of each bit, well that's about it. The third factor that comes into this is the file type - typically jpg or TIFF.
I hope it's obvious that when scanning a slide, scanning a photo or scanning a negative the higher the number of bits per inch the better the quality of the image. Well, to a point anyway. If we scan a print a 600 dpi image is inherently more detailed than a 300 dpi scan. However there does come a point at which increasing the dpi rating achieves nothing more, you're just taking a more detailed picture of the grain or paper fibres. From tests we've done, using the scanning devices we have here, the highest scan quality for a photo is 600 dpi and a 35mm slide / negative is 4,000 dpi.
Second, there is the question of the number of bits used to measure the colour of the dot the scanner sees. You need (for a colour image) a red value, a green value and a blue value. A 24 bit scan uses 8 bits for each value - that yields 256 different points between darkest red / green / blue and lightest value. The next step up from that would be 16 bits per colour per point, 48 bits. However this will generate a much bigger data file and you'll need software which can display this additional degree of subtlety.
So away goes the scanner, it looks at the number of points you've specified and gives them a colour value. The scanner will then output the result of all those measurements as a data file - which is where the choice of jpg or TIFF comes into play. The key difference is that a TIFF file is uncompressed (and so very large) while a jpg is compressed (and smaller). Somewhere along the way a programmer has written code which looks at all those point values and decides how a file can be compressed, with the goal of achieving a smaller file with minimal loss of quality.
Whilst the specification behind jpg compression is open to all programmers and software suppliers, the results of their work varies. From our experience there are noticeable differences between the efforts of Kodak, Microsoft, Adobe and Apple. And there are differences over time, and between products. If you take a TIFF file and save it as a jpg using an early version of Photoshop, a recent version and Photoshop Elements, you get a different result (for the same degree of requested compression). Today's version of Aperture creates smaller high quality files than did the first version of Aperture.
Put most plainly, a 4000 dpi 24 bit jpg saved across these products gives files of different sizes. Which is the "right" one? Take your pick - mine would be for the latest versions of Photoshop and Aperture. Should you necessarily conclude that a scan made using the same scanner but output via one rather than the other is better just because the file is bigger? I don't think so, so don't be mislead by this single factor.
If you're looking for a measure of image quality checking the size of data files is a very poor guide, let me try to explain. The basic variables that determine the quality factor are the number of bits / dots per inch, the number of bits used to express the colour of each bit, well that's about it. The third factor that comes into this is the file type - typically jpg or TIFF.
I hope it's obvious that when scanning a slide, scanning a photo or scanning a negative the higher the number of bits per inch the better the quality of the image. Well, to a point anyway. If we scan a print a 600 dpi image is inherently more detailed than a 300 dpi scan. However there does come a point at which increasing the dpi rating achieves nothing more, you're just taking a more detailed picture of the grain or paper fibres. From tests we've done, using the scanning devices we have here, the highest scan quality for a photo is 600 dpi and a 35mm slide / negative is 4,000 dpi.
Second, there is the question of the number of bits used to measure the colour of the dot the scanner sees. You need (for a colour image) a red value, a green value and a blue value. A 24 bit scan uses 8 bits for each value - that yields 256 different points between darkest red / green / blue and lightest value. The next step up from that would be 16 bits per colour per point, 48 bits. However this will generate a much bigger data file and you'll need software which can display this additional degree of subtlety.
So away goes the scanner, it looks at the number of points you've specified and gives them a colour value. The scanner will then output the result of all those measurements as a data file - which is where the choice of jpg or TIFF comes into play. The key difference is that a TIFF file is uncompressed (and so very large) while a jpg is compressed (and smaller). Somewhere along the way a programmer has written code which looks at all those point values and decides how a file can be compressed, with the goal of achieving a smaller file with minimal loss of quality.
Whilst the specification behind jpg compression is open to all programmers and software suppliers, the results of their work varies. From our experience there are noticeable differences between the efforts of Kodak, Microsoft, Adobe and Apple. And there are differences over time, and between products. If you take a TIFF file and save it as a jpg using an early version of Photoshop, a recent version and Photoshop Elements, you get a different result (for the same degree of requested compression). Today's version of Aperture creates smaller high quality files than did the first version of Aperture.
Put most plainly, a 4000 dpi 24 bit jpg saved across these products gives files of different sizes. Which is the "right" one? Take your pick - mine would be for the latest versions of Photoshop and Aperture. Should you necessarily conclude that a scan made using the same scanner but output via one rather than the other is better just because the file is bigger? I don't think so, so don't be mislead by this single factor.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
End of an Era, or Two
Today marks an end of a couple of initiatives / changes to our offerings.
First, the scanner buy back scheme is ending. We've run the scanner amnesty for several months and many cheap and nasty scanners have been sent to scanner heaven (or hell). I've spoken to a couple of people and if they get their scanners in to us this next week we'll honour their machines, but for the rest of you .... sorry, it's over.
Second, we're making changes to our video conversion services, details on the product pages. Given this has been a successful part of our offerings why stop? First, demand has dropped. Obviously there are only so many video tapes to be converted and there have been times when we've felt they've all been in the hutch. However volumes have been noticeably down since the early part of the year.
We have also seen significant growth across the other areas of our services. We're doing over twice as many photos as we were a year ago, and we're getting many more orders with fewer than 200 photos. This means we need more space for incoming / outgoing parcels and as the hutch doesn't have elastic walls, something had to give. Getting rid of all the boxes needed to convert videos will free up a lot of space.
The third reason is to enable us to concentrate better on the areas of the business that we want to grow - photo scanning and slide scanning. The growth here is significant and we don't want to spread ourselves too thinly.
First, the scanner buy back scheme is ending. We've run the scanner amnesty for several months and many cheap and nasty scanners have been sent to scanner heaven (or hell). I've spoken to a couple of people and if they get their scanners in to us this next week we'll honour their machines, but for the rest of you .... sorry, it's over.
Second, we're making changes to our video conversion services, details on the product pages. Given this has been a successful part of our offerings why stop? First, demand has dropped. Obviously there are only so many video tapes to be converted and there have been times when we've felt they've all been in the hutch. However volumes have been noticeably down since the early part of the year.
We have also seen significant growth across the other areas of our services. We're doing over twice as many photos as we were a year ago, and we're getting many more orders with fewer than 200 photos. This means we need more space for incoming / outgoing parcels and as the hutch doesn't have elastic walls, something had to give. Getting rid of all the boxes needed to convert videos will free up a lot of space.
The third reason is to enable us to concentrate better on the areas of the business that we want to grow - photo scanning and slide scanning. The growth here is significant and we don't want to spread ourselves too thinly.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Screencast Pro
A recent project has resulted in creating a number of large video files - we're talking 8 Gb. Long, high quality HD movies. How can we share them?
One of the options I looked at is our Screencast Pro account. The desktop uploader program just came up with a bland error message. So I did some digging on the screencast.com site to see what the maximum file size would be, but found no answer.
Well, if you need to know the maximum file size screencast supports is 2 Gb.
One of the options I looked at is our Screencast Pro account. The desktop uploader program just came up with a bland error message. So I did some digging on the screencast.com site to see what the maximum file size would be, but found no answer.
Well, if you need to know the maximum file size screencast supports is 2 Gb.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Slide Scanner - the Right Option
Looking for a slide scanner? That's us, if you're thinking of a service provider, but last week one potential client contacted me to say we're too cheap.
I can't remember the last time that happened, if at all, but in conversation a few interesting points emerged. In essence we covered the key dimensions of slide (or negative) scanning.
First, dpi - dots per inch. We scan slides at 4,000 dpi. In my opinion that's the maximum amount of data you can safely get out of such a tiny original. Second, file types. Most clients are more than happy with jpgs but some prefer TIFFs, we can handle both.
This, there's bit depth. As you know each dot is defined by a s et of three numeric values, one for each of the red, green or blue that makes up the colour the scanner sees at that point. Most scanners operate on the basis of there being 8 bits for each value, giving a range of 0 to 256, If however the scanner operates on a 16 bit scale the image will comprise a greater degree of definition in the precise colour value. If you can, try it, 16 bit colour is much better. But the data files are so much bigger, they take longer to load and manipulate. Finally there's the dynamic range the scanner can see. The greater the range the better able the scanner is to detect the subtle colour range in your images.
Back to our slide scanning client, if you want the best, what route is open to you today?
We love Nikon scanners, but sadly they are no longer in production. So you'll have to fight it out with the herd on eBay, and get hold os a used unit, with all that entails. take a look at the Epson range, for example the V750, including the bundled Silverfast software. Also capable of great results, available new, or possibly the H-P range. Both Nikon and Epson support hardware based dust and scratch reduction, which will save you hours retouching your scans.
But - and this is a big but - what if you want even better? Well the only other viable option I can see that ticks the new box and offers more than Nikon / Epson specs is the Imacon range from Hasselblad. Sadly I haven't used an Imacon but one of the best scans I have seen from a 35mm slide was made on an Imacon (using significant multiple exposure). it was truly breathtaking. But so too is the price of an Imacon scanner - around £20,000. Yes, if you want better than Nikon or Epson, dig deep in your pockets Mr Slide Scanner.
I can't remember the last time that happened, if at all, but in conversation a few interesting points emerged. In essence we covered the key dimensions of slide (or negative) scanning.
First, dpi - dots per inch. We scan slides at 4,000 dpi. In my opinion that's the maximum amount of data you can safely get out of such a tiny original. Second, file types. Most clients are more than happy with jpgs but some prefer TIFFs, we can handle both.
This, there's bit depth. As you know each dot is defined by a s et of three numeric values, one for each of the red, green or blue that makes up the colour the scanner sees at that point. Most scanners operate on the basis of there being 8 bits for each value, giving a range of 0 to 256, If however the scanner operates on a 16 bit scale the image will comprise a greater degree of definition in the precise colour value. If you can, try it, 16 bit colour is much better. But the data files are so much bigger, they take longer to load and manipulate. Finally there's the dynamic range the scanner can see. The greater the range the better able the scanner is to detect the subtle colour range in your images.
Back to our slide scanning client, if you want the best, what route is open to you today?
We love Nikon scanners, but sadly they are no longer in production. So you'll have to fight it out with the herd on eBay, and get hold os a used unit, with all that entails. take a look at the Epson range, for example the V750, including the bundled Silverfast software. Also capable of great results, available new, or possibly the H-P range. Both Nikon and Epson support hardware based dust and scratch reduction, which will save you hours retouching your scans.
But - and this is a big but - what if you want even better? Well the only other viable option I can see that ticks the new box and offers more than Nikon / Epson specs is the Imacon range from Hasselblad. Sadly I haven't used an Imacon but one of the best scans I have seen from a 35mm slide was made on an Imacon (using significant multiple exposure). it was truly breathtaking. But so too is the price of an Imacon scanner - around £20,000. Yes, if you want better than Nikon or Epson, dig deep in your pockets Mr Slide Scanner.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Flood Damaged Photos
The news has reported some areas of the UK have been hit by a month's worth of rain in just 24 hours, rivers are bursting their banks and householders are being flooded. Along with the soggy carpets and blown electronics people have to face the heart breaking loss of treasured family photos. If you've been flooded, what can you do?
First, get all photos (including slides and negatives) out of the water as soon as possible.
Second, which photos should you tackle first? I'd go for any images in photo frames. Carefully remove the photo from the frame, what you need to do - as carefully as possible - is to get the print away from the glass. If the image is wet there's a very good chance that if it dries in contact with the glass the image will fuse to it.
Third, slides and negatives. Carefully prize each strip apart. If the negatives are wet you won't do any more harm by washing any foul water or dirt off the surface using clean water. Then allow each strip to drip making sure each strip or slide is isolated. Never force dry any image however tempting it might seem. As negatives dry you'll probably find they twist. Don't worry about that you can either leave the twist in place or gently apply some pressure to get them back into shape.
Prints can be the most difficult. If you know the associated negatives are safe you can always get reprints made, if you only have the prints you have a challenge ahead. If the print is soiled and wet you can rinse it in clean water. Then you need to allow the print to dry. Ideally just lay the print FACE UP on blotting paper. The paper will absorb moisture and the print can dry slowly, minimising damage.
On no account should you allow the image side of any print to come into contact with the image side of any other print, the two may fuse together. If you don't have blotting paper place the prints FACE UP on towels, old sheets, washing up cloths. Allow your prints to dry slowly, never feel tempted to force drying (put that hair dryer down). Don't worry about prints curling as they dry.
Finally, probably in a few days, when your prints are finally dry you can stack them and apply light pressure to remove any curl.
Here's the sales plug. Once they're dry have the images scanned ASAP. You never know when the water will hit again, and you can't be sure discoloration won't set in over coming days. Plus you'll have a secure record of the photos that were damaged. If there is any staining or distortion it's far easier to correct digitally than trying to twist or re-colour an old print.
Some of the most serious damage will be photo albums. If the prints come loose treat them as described above. If the prints were stuck in the album use a sharp knife to remove the pages from the binding; stack each page safely upright, not touching any other. When finally dry, this will probably take longer that your other images, you can scan the photos or carefully remove the prints to put into another album.
First, get all photos (including slides and negatives) out of the water as soon as possible.
Second, which photos should you tackle first? I'd go for any images in photo frames. Carefully remove the photo from the frame, what you need to do - as carefully as possible - is to get the print away from the glass. If the image is wet there's a very good chance that if it dries in contact with the glass the image will fuse to it.
Third, slides and negatives. Carefully prize each strip apart. If the negatives are wet you won't do any more harm by washing any foul water or dirt off the surface using clean water. Then allow each strip to drip making sure each strip or slide is isolated. Never force dry any image however tempting it might seem. As negatives dry you'll probably find they twist. Don't worry about that you can either leave the twist in place or gently apply some pressure to get them back into shape.
Prints can be the most difficult. If you know the associated negatives are safe you can always get reprints made, if you only have the prints you have a challenge ahead. If the print is soiled and wet you can rinse it in clean water. Then you need to allow the print to dry. Ideally just lay the print FACE UP on blotting paper. The paper will absorb moisture and the print can dry slowly, minimising damage.
On no account should you allow the image side of any print to come into contact with the image side of any other print, the two may fuse together. If you don't have blotting paper place the prints FACE UP on towels, old sheets, washing up cloths. Allow your prints to dry slowly, never feel tempted to force drying (put that hair dryer down). Don't worry about prints curling as they dry.
Finally, probably in a few days, when your prints are finally dry you can stack them and apply light pressure to remove any curl.
Here's the sales plug. Once they're dry have the images scanned ASAP. You never know when the water will hit again, and you can't be sure discoloration won't set in over coming days. Plus you'll have a secure record of the photos that were damaged. If there is any staining or distortion it's far easier to correct digitally than trying to twist or re-colour an old print.
Some of the most serious damage will be photo albums. If the prints come loose treat them as described above. If the prints were stuck in the album use a sharp knife to remove the pages from the binding; stack each page safely upright, not touching any other. When finally dry, this will probably take longer that your other images, you can scan the photos or carefully remove the prints to put into another album.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
On Being Let Down - or Not
Feedback from one of our clients, Stephanie, who kindly says -
"Thank you for your prompt and efficient service, I especially liked being able to view photos online, an unexpected bonus. It was also refreshing to view the photos online, an unexpected bonus. It was also refreshing that you actually sent the pictures before being paid, very trusting. I hope you don't get let down too often."
So, why send before payment? This is a bit of a bee in my bonnet, paying in advance. Pretty much everything I buy, in our local High Street, at Lakeside or Bluewater you can touch and feel before you get to the till. Marks & Spencer have built a brilliant reputation in their generous returns policy. I hesitated when I started to use Amazon but I've had experiences when I've had to return items and they too are brilliant. I'd like 1Scan's clients to have the same peace of mind and returning work first, then invoicing, does, I hope, give you that feeling.
How often have we been let down? This year there are two events that have raised my blood pressure and turned me into Victor Meldrew. Earlier this year I was contacted by a teacher at a public school in London. She was arranging a class photobook (nice idea) but she had to get the ball rolling. Would I be prepared to scan first, then be paid about six weeks later when the book is sold. Idiot me said OK.
Fast forward to September, our invoice isn't paid. Teacher has moved on, school denies any responsibility even though deal was confirmed on school headed notepaper. Do I sue for a few quid or bite the bullet? Sure it's a matter of principle but for much less than £75 is it really worth the bother?
Then just as I was closing down on Friday I got an email newsletter from Head Teacher of a local secondary school (budget £6M+). Over the earlier months of this year I've scanned 300 to 400 prints to drum up support for a fund raising day. I haven't charged, and don't expect any money, but was told I'd get a mention in their publicity. So I was particularly annoyed to see in the newsletter that every other company involved (including at least one who'd charged for their services) was fulsomely thanked and their company logos / adverts reproduced in front of over 3,000 parents. Was 1Scan there? No.
Yes Stephanie, we do get let down. Despite this we'll continue to scan, mail, then charge - I'd feel bad doing it any other way. But if another school asks for a concession, or a freebie, forget it; two bad apples have blown it for the rest.
"Thank you for your prompt and efficient service, I especially liked being able to view photos online, an unexpected bonus. It was also refreshing to view the photos online, an unexpected bonus. It was also refreshing that you actually sent the pictures before being paid, very trusting. I hope you don't get let down too often."
So, why send before payment? This is a bit of a bee in my bonnet, paying in advance. Pretty much everything I buy, in our local High Street, at Lakeside or Bluewater you can touch and feel before you get to the till. Marks & Spencer have built a brilliant reputation in their generous returns policy. I hesitated when I started to use Amazon but I've had experiences when I've had to return items and they too are brilliant. I'd like 1Scan's clients to have the same peace of mind and returning work first, then invoicing, does, I hope, give you that feeling.
How often have we been let down? This year there are two events that have raised my blood pressure and turned me into Victor Meldrew. Earlier this year I was contacted by a teacher at a public school in London. She was arranging a class photobook (nice idea) but she had to get the ball rolling. Would I be prepared to scan first, then be paid about six weeks later when the book is sold. Idiot me said OK.
Fast forward to September, our invoice isn't paid. Teacher has moved on, school denies any responsibility even though deal was confirmed on school headed notepaper. Do I sue for a few quid or bite the bullet? Sure it's a matter of principle but for much less than £75 is it really worth the bother?
Then just as I was closing down on Friday I got an email newsletter from Head Teacher of a local secondary school (budget £6M+). Over the earlier months of this year I've scanned 300 to 400 prints to drum up support for a fund raising day. I haven't charged, and don't expect any money, but was told I'd get a mention in their publicity. So I was particularly annoyed to see in the newsletter that every other company involved (including at least one who'd charged for their services) was fulsomely thanked and their company logos / adverts reproduced in front of over 3,000 parents. Was 1Scan there? No.
Yes Stephanie, we do get let down. Despite this we'll continue to scan, mail, then charge - I'd feel bad doing it any other way. But if another school asks for a concession, or a freebie, forget it; two bad apples have blown it for the rest.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Don't Use Us
As you probably know, we upload scanned photos into an online photo album. It's a great way for you to access your images quickly, to share them with friends and family, and access a range of associated services. This includes prints from your scans. You get a quick, good quality service with prompt postal delivery.
Over the last three years many people have taken advantage of the associated services, although sales of prints on drinks coasters have fallen below expectations.
So here goes - don't use our online service. Why? Why, when it's so good?
Simply because you can get better. The suppliers our online service use are a fine balance of price and service. If you want top quality then you need a specialist supplier. Which one? We're pointing people in the direction of point101.com who are able to deliver a top quality range of prints. There are times when only the best will do, so check out point 101 soon.
Over the last three years many people have taken advantage of the associated services, although sales of prints on drinks coasters have fallen below expectations.
So here goes - don't use our online service. Why? Why, when it's so good?
Simply because you can get better. The suppliers our online service use are a fine balance of price and service. If you want top quality then you need a specialist supplier. Which one? We're pointing people in the direction of point101.com who are able to deliver a top quality range of prints. There are times when only the best will do, so check out point 101 soon.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
pogoPlug and File Security
A couple of months ago we installed a pogoplug unit, mainly to rationalise storage for our CD ripping services. This little device converts our many USB hard drives into shareable network attached storage (NAS). This has worked so well for backing up digital music files we've extended it to covering our image files.
The big differences between the two services are data volumes and client types. Ripping 1,000 CDs will create 100 Gbytes or more, while we can get 7,000 images onto a CD. We get work in from many clients per day for photo scanning, CD ripping is a much smaller number per month. However from time to time we have photo scanning clients who do generate large data files (one client last week had 300 35mm slides scanned into TIFFs, some 6 DVDs worth of data) and of course nobody wants their data to be lost.
So what we've done, and this may not be our final workflow, is to set up a folder on one Mac into which we drop copies of the image files just after we mail them back to clients. This rejoices in the ultra dull title of "Clients Out". I invested in a program called Chronsync which is a backup program. That monitors that folder and copies newly added sub-folders to a backup on a 1TB iOmega hard drive connected to our pogoplug. With minimal effort sent image files are now being backed up, and we all breathe an extra sigh of relief.
The big differences between the two services are data volumes and client types. Ripping 1,000 CDs will create 100 Gbytes or more, while we can get 7,000 images onto a CD. We get work in from many clients per day for photo scanning, CD ripping is a much smaller number per month. However from time to time we have photo scanning clients who do generate large data files (one client last week had 300 35mm slides scanned into TIFFs, some 6 DVDs worth of data) and of course nobody wants their data to be lost.
So what we've done, and this may not be our final workflow, is to set up a folder on one Mac into which we drop copies of the image files just after we mail them back to clients. This rejoices in the ultra dull title of "Clients Out". I invested in a program called Chronsync which is a backup program. That monitors that folder and copies newly added sub-folders to a backup on a 1TB iOmega hard drive connected to our pogoplug. With minimal effort sent image files are now being backed up, and we all breathe an extra sigh of relief.
Friday, May 18, 2012
One is a Loneley Number
Every photo is unique, of course, so why wouldn't you want a unique number for your scans?
For me it's been pretty obvious but it does take a bit of thinking about. Many clients want us to scan their images into several folders, each one given a meaningful title so they are easier to organise. Just suppose though at some point you want to change things around, for example you want to sort through your photos and send a folder of your kids photos over to Granny. This will probably pick images from each of those folders, and this is where the problem will arise if you don't have a unique numbering system.
With our approach each folder contains uniquely numbered images. You can copy any of those photos into a new folder without problems, you won't have to renumber five 01s, four 02s and nine 08s.
One small nightmare avoided. Unique photos with unique numbers.
For me it's been pretty obvious but it does take a bit of thinking about. Many clients want us to scan their images into several folders, each one given a meaningful title so they are easier to organise. Just suppose though at some point you want to change things around, for example you want to sort through your photos and send a folder of your kids photos over to Granny. This will probably pick images from each of those folders, and this is where the problem will arise if you don't have a unique numbering system.
With our approach each folder contains uniquely numbered images. You can copy any of those photos into a new folder without problems, you won't have to renumber five 01s, four 02s and nine 08s.
One small nightmare avoided. Unique photos with unique numbers.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Free Postage This Weekend
Having seen the weather forecast this weekend we thought we'd do something to try to brighten our spirits, so here it is - free postage. Yes, if you mail your photos / slides / negatives we'll scan them and return them to you at no cost.
That's it, free postage. You can save a significant sum, today our return post bill was nearly £100 so we expect a lot of clients to be happy next week. If you're thinking of getting a scanning project under way now's your chance, a small incentive to get you going.
Free postage - get those pictures off to us now.
That's it, free postage. You can save a significant sum, today our return post bill was nearly £100 so we expect a lot of clients to be happy next week. If you're thinking of getting a scanning project under way now's your chance, a small incentive to get you going.
Free postage - get those pictures off to us now.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Worldwide Pinhole Camera Day
This looks like an interesting diversion for anyone interested in photography, Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day on 29th April looks like a great idea.
Friday, March 30, 2012
35mm Slide & Negative Scanning - New Price for Professional Service
Today we are dropping our prices for the Professional Service scanning 35mm slides and negatives, the old price was £1-30 and today we're dropping the price to just 95p. OK, why?
Originally there were two differences between Home and Professional - the dpi level (originally 2000 dpi and 4000 dpi) and file format (jpg & TIFF). Then we decided to scan everything at 4000 dpi because the quality difference is staggering and we don't want to ship sub-standard products. That left just the file format as the difference.
In the last few months more people have been asking about the Professional level service but frankly they've been put off by the extra 60p we had been charging. So, we've decided to make the bigger files much more affordable. You'll get great quality uncompressed files that you can edit to your hearts content, then save either as TIFF or jpg files. We think an extra few pence for the Professional service is definitely worthwhile. We look forward to doing even more Professional scans from your 35mm slides and negatives.
Originally there were two differences between Home and Professional - the dpi level (originally 2000 dpi and 4000 dpi) and file format (jpg & TIFF). Then we decided to scan everything at 4000 dpi because the quality difference is staggering and we don't want to ship sub-standard products. That left just the file format as the difference.
In the last few months more people have been asking about the Professional level service but frankly they've been put off by the extra 60p we had been charging. So, we've decided to make the bigger files much more affordable. You'll get great quality uncompressed files that you can edit to your hearts content, then save either as TIFF or jpg files. We think an extra few pence for the Professional service is definitely worthwhile. We look forward to doing even more Professional scans from your 35mm slides and negatives.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Slide / Negative Scanner Amnesty
It's been busy this week with several enquiries about slide scanning and our Slide Scanner Amnesty.
Yes, the scheme is still in operation and each week we get one or two scanners to add to our junk pile. This week we've got devices from Plustek and Agfa, one of my particular hates. Although this is simply a unit badged up for Agfa it is built on a singularly tacky camera unit and a very poor light source. It's a marriage made in hell and Agfa should have known better. Anyway we're able to rescue a couple of people from rather poor purchasing experiences.
I'm not sure how much longer we'll continue with the Amnesty. It has been very popular and generates much publicity for us, along with a steady stream of calls saying are you still doing this? Yes, and we will do for the coming weeks. Probably.
Yes, the scheme is still in operation and each week we get one or two scanners to add to our junk pile. This week we've got devices from Plustek and Agfa, one of my particular hates. Although this is simply a unit badged up for Agfa it is built on a singularly tacky camera unit and a very poor light source. It's a marriage made in hell and Agfa should have known better. Anyway we're able to rescue a couple of people from rather poor purchasing experiences.
I'm not sure how much longer we'll continue with the Amnesty. It has been very popular and generates much publicity for us, along with a steady stream of calls saying are you still doing this? Yes, and we will do for the coming weeks. Probably.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
When is a square not a square?
Answer - when its a pain. Even when expressed politely it's hard to get it across to clients that their images are rarely square. I don't mean they should be described as "oblong" or "trapezoid", it's just that they are not quite square. Why? Typically it's a result of the way prints pop out of processing labs. Recently they've been using machines that have inside them giants rolls of photographic paper onto which they print your image, then a mechanical guillotine whips across the paper and your print drops into the output tray. Very, very close to square, but often not quite.
If you try to square off the print you have a problem, very often two edges are not cut truly on the square. Inside our scanner is a computer chip which has been given the job of managing the scanning process. As the print goes through the system receives a massive amount of data from which it has to construct an image scan. What does the poor algorithm do? First, it could chop away some of the image and create within your print a true square, discarding some data. I can just imagine the outcry "You've chopped off Uncle Harry's nose!" Put it back, immediately. Second, it could create a shape as close as possible to a regular one outside the image. No data is lost, a small grey / black strip is added; and that's the option Kodak went for. When I think about it that's the only sensible option.
So here's the deal. If you want not a trace of black infill, send us images with four 90 degree corners. Better get it dead right because we operate down to 1/600th of an inch.
If you try to square off the print you have a problem, very often two edges are not cut truly on the square. Inside our scanner is a computer chip which has been given the job of managing the scanning process. As the print goes through the system receives a massive amount of data from which it has to construct an image scan. What does the poor algorithm do? First, it could chop away some of the image and create within your print a true square, discarding some data. I can just imagine the outcry "You've chopped off Uncle Harry's nose!" Put it back, immediately. Second, it could create a shape as close as possible to a regular one outside the image. No data is lost, a small grey / black strip is added; and that's the option Kodak went for. When I think about it that's the only sensible option.
So here's the deal. If you want not a trace of black infill, send us images with four 90 degree corners. Better get it dead right because we operate down to 1/600th of an inch.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Flipshare
Over the last three years I've got a lot out of my little Flip video camera. Dead easy to use and instant movie sharing via the Flipshare service.
Until Cisco killed the product and the sharing service. But, there's a replacement - Givit. They're also offering a painless migration from the old platform to Givit, along with a free basic account.
Until Cisco killed the product and the sharing service. But, there's a replacement - Givit. They're also offering a painless migration from the old platform to Givit, along with a free basic account.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Kodachrome Slide Scanning
Having been scanning slides for over eight years I don't get very excited any more, but this last week has been out of the ordinary. Ever since we started Kodachromes have been an issue. The first big order we got was 800+ photos (did them on a flatbed, took two weeks) and the second was a large batch of Kodachrome slides for a client in Scotland.
Ever since the results with Kodachrome slides have been less impressive that we've got from any other material - even Ektachrome 35mm slides. The two main problems have been an excessive blue colour cast in the scans, and the inability to apply Digital ICE which removes dust and scratches. So we've been forced to ship overly blue and dusty scans.
Of the two issues the blue has worried me the most. I've tried various methods to beat the blues, using Photoshop and latterly Aperture to speed up the re-balancing of the images. So we whip through slide scanning and then hit the buffers on that colour cast. Although Kodak called all that product Kodachrome, in reality there were many different recipes for that slide material, 20+ as I recall. Finding a single preset to catch them all defeated me, you need to adjust each frame and that takes an age.
So, this weeks excitement is this. We can now scan Kodachrome slides - 35mm Kodachrome slides and m/f - without the blue cast. I ran through 200 last week, taken from several batches both my own slides and slides supplied by clients, and in every case the blue cast was removed. Importantly for us as a slide scanning service it was done by our new software, at production speeds.
I also tackled the issue of no Digital ICE with Kodachrome. Yes, breathtaking, we can now apply dust and scratch removal to Kodachrome. The results amazed me, I'd got into the mindset that this would never be possible, but yes we can now do it. I have to say a bit of a word of caution, this process still needs a bit of tweaking, but compared to where we were before there's no comparison.
Next week we have some more work to do, the process to automatically number slides as we scan them is flawed so that needs tweaking and setting up a batch takes much longer than is the case when we use Nikon's software. When we've beaten those issues we'll be able to offer clients a whole new dimension in Kodachrome slide scanning. Then you can be excited too.
Ever since the results with Kodachrome slides have been less impressive that we've got from any other material - even Ektachrome 35mm slides. The two main problems have been an excessive blue colour cast in the scans, and the inability to apply Digital ICE which removes dust and scratches. So we've been forced to ship overly blue and dusty scans.
Of the two issues the blue has worried me the most. I've tried various methods to beat the blues, using Photoshop and latterly Aperture to speed up the re-balancing of the images. So we whip through slide scanning and then hit the buffers on that colour cast. Although Kodak called all that product Kodachrome, in reality there were many different recipes for that slide material, 20+ as I recall. Finding a single preset to catch them all defeated me, you need to adjust each frame and that takes an age.
So, this weeks excitement is this. We can now scan Kodachrome slides - 35mm Kodachrome slides and m/f - without the blue cast. I ran through 200 last week, taken from several batches both my own slides and slides supplied by clients, and in every case the blue cast was removed. Importantly for us as a slide scanning service it was done by our new software, at production speeds.
I also tackled the issue of no Digital ICE with Kodachrome. Yes, breathtaking, we can now apply dust and scratch removal to Kodachrome. The results amazed me, I'd got into the mindset that this would never be possible, but yes we can now do it. I have to say a bit of a word of caution, this process still needs a bit of tweaking, but compared to where we were before there's no comparison.
Next week we have some more work to do, the process to automatically number slides as we scan them is flawed so that needs tweaking and setting up a batch takes much longer than is the case when we use Nikon's software. When we've beaten those issues we'll be able to offer clients a whole new dimension in Kodachrome slide scanning. Then you can be excited too.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
How To Sell Your Photos
Many of our photo scanning clients are professionals, but many more would like to turn their hobby into a paying interest. "How can I sell my photos?" is now one of our most frequently asked questions.
It is not easy, the main problem is getting your images in front of people who might be prepared to pay for image rights. Here in the UK it's tough, established image libraries are picky about accepting new photographers, and are very demanding in terms of image quality. Unless you have a massively important or unique collection of images it's likely that setting up your own website will be doomed to failure, you'll never get back the cost of setting up the site and publicising it effectively.
So, check out this potential solution - Flickr.
Yes, that's right. One of the biggest amateur photo sharing websites has a link with Getty Images. This means you can flag your images as being available for sale, buyers are then able to access your images and who knows, you might make some money.
Looking at the site today I was impressed with the help and guidance available on the site, so if you're looking to dip a toe in the waters of paying snapping, check out Flickr.
It is not easy, the main problem is getting your images in front of people who might be prepared to pay for image rights. Here in the UK it's tough, established image libraries are picky about accepting new photographers, and are very demanding in terms of image quality. Unless you have a massively important or unique collection of images it's likely that setting up your own website will be doomed to failure, you'll never get back the cost of setting up the site and publicising it effectively.
So, check out this potential solution - Flickr.
Yes, that's right. One of the biggest amateur photo sharing websites has a link with Getty Images. This means you can flag your images as being available for sale, buyers are then able to access your images and who knows, you might make some money.
Looking at the site today I was impressed with the help and guidance available on the site, so if you're looking to dip a toe in the waters of paying snapping, check out Flickr.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Photo Scanning - Crossing the Borders
Some years ago I was asked by Kodak if there were any enhancements I could suggest for their photo scanning software. One of my suggestions was to find a way to automatically remove the white borders that appear on many prints. Sharp intake of breath on the other end of the line, I guess there's hard maths behind that. Anyway, that feature has yet to appear.
When we scan slides we typically crop inside the frame, so the client sees a "borderless" image, same with negative scanning. the only exception is with professional photographers who typically don't trust us to get the crop right so want every last bit of data.
Recently we've added a slideshow building facility and I'm pleased to say it's being well received. We off three options and ask clients to express their preference. Each slideshow has it's attractions but none is outrageous so I expected preferences to fall pretty evenly across each style. Much to my surprise one is an out front leader, and guess what? It automatically adds a white border to all the images in the slideshow.
When we scan slides we typically crop inside the frame, so the client sees a "borderless" image, same with negative scanning. the only exception is with professional photographers who typically don't trust us to get the crop right so want every last bit of data.
Recently we've added a slideshow building facility and I'm pleased to say it's being well received. We off three options and ask clients to express their preference. Each slideshow has it's attractions but none is outrageous so I expected preferences to fall pretty evenly across each style. Much to my surprise one is an out front leader, and guess what? It automatically adds a white border to all the images in the slideshow.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Focus After The Fact
This after noon I spent a couple of hours on a rescue job. A client supplied a set of images taken of his late mother, but due to a camera operator error they were all out of focus. Hence time spent trying to get a degree of sharpness into each image. If you're familiar with Apple's photo editing application, Aperture, you'll know this has a solid set of sharpening tools. You can sharpen the whole image or you can "paint" sharpness into an area of your image.
So, switch off USM in Silverfast, scan the negatives, then load them into Aperture. Finally yielding 12 images where the subject is acceptably sharp, and that area of the image is isolated with the background slightly unfocused. Then I was reminded of this - the Lytro field camera.
This is a special device, it's a camera that doesn't focus. It is a revolution in photography.
I won't try to describe the camera - just go to lytro.com to see it - but it looks different and the resulting image can be focused at any given point in the image. I don't mean finally, you can post the image on a website or email it and the observer can adapt focus as they wish. A truly brilliant idea.
So, switch off USM in Silverfast, scan the negatives, then load them into Aperture. Finally yielding 12 images where the subject is acceptably sharp, and that area of the image is isolated with the background slightly unfocused. Then I was reminded of this - the Lytro field camera.
This is a special device, it's a camera that doesn't focus. It is a revolution in photography.
I won't try to describe the camera - just go to lytro.com to see it - but it looks different and the resulting image can be focused at any given point in the image. I don't mean finally, you can post the image on a website or email it and the observer can adapt focus as they wish. A truly brilliant idea.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Photo Apps
Having just acquired an iPad I opened the supplement in today's Sunday Times looking for ways to use my iPad for something photographic. They list several apps but most of them are for the iPhone. No use to me, I'm Android. Still they do mention a couple for the iPad.
8mm Vintage Camera: add a nostalgic style to movies. Adds dust and flecks and the sound of a running film reel.
Paper Camera: makes your photos look like they were hand-drawn on paper.
Thumba Photo Editor: looks like a powerful set of tools - cropping, rotating, brightness & contrast adjustments, hue / saturation, adjust white balance. Sounds a lot for just 79p.
8mm Vintage Camera: add a nostalgic style to movies. Adds dust and flecks and the sound of a running film reel.
Paper Camera: makes your photos look like they were hand-drawn on paper.
Thumba Photo Editor: looks like a powerful set of tools - cropping, rotating, brightness & contrast adjustments, hue / saturation, adjust white balance. Sounds a lot for just 79p.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Kodak. More Than Oops.
So, once proud Kodak has filed for protection from its creditors. For people of my age Kodak, like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Ford and so on, was one of the names we grew up with and as I've said many times it's a company that owns photography. So it should, it invented most of it.
I wish Kodak well, particularly those we've had contact with in their photo scanning division. Kodak is needed, not just by this business, but by everyone who has ever picked up a camera. Let's hope this tactic will give them the time they need to pull through.
Although I wish them well I have to say I think they're on the wrong track. Kodak IS images, not printers and certainly not flogging off their patents, which seems to be the plan of the current top man. Why, why, why are they flogging themselves to death advertising printers when surely the evidence of their own eyes must prove that nobody is bothered about printing.
Yesterday I was in a branch of PC World. Yes they had a cute display of Kodak printers, curiously at ankle level. Nobody taking any interest. People were congregating by the large displays of cameras, still and video, an area where once Kodak would have dominated. Nikon, Olympus, Leica are all great names from the past who have somehow pulled through to the other side. It would have been nice to see a Kodak credit on some of those cameras.
Best of luck Kodak, hope you make it, but you might have to forget those printers before it happens.
I wish Kodak well, particularly those we've had contact with in their photo scanning division. Kodak is needed, not just by this business, but by everyone who has ever picked up a camera. Let's hope this tactic will give them the time they need to pull through.
Although I wish them well I have to say I think they're on the wrong track. Kodak IS images, not printers and certainly not flogging off their patents, which seems to be the plan of the current top man. Why, why, why are they flogging themselves to death advertising printers when surely the evidence of their own eyes must prove that nobody is bothered about printing.
Yesterday I was in a branch of PC World. Yes they had a cute display of Kodak printers, curiously at ankle level. Nobody taking any interest. People were congregating by the large displays of cameras, still and video, an area where once Kodak would have dominated. Nikon, Olympus, Leica are all great names from the past who have somehow pulled through to the other side. It would have been nice to see a Kodak credit on some of those cameras.
Best of luck Kodak, hope you make it, but you might have to forget those printers before it happens.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Photo Scanning
This is the first post about issues, thoughts, ideas, and a few gripes on photo scanning.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Photobook Prices to Fall?
When is a book not a book? Well according to the VAT man, when it’s a photobook. Apparently he’s long taken the view that a photobook is really a special type of photo album, which means they’ve been subject to VAT.
However a recent ruling in a case brought by Truprint, photo and photobook printers. it has been agreed that all photobooks should be treated like ordinary books, effectively exempt from VAT. Apparently there’s been a split for many years in the photobooks industry between those suppliers who emerged out of the book publishing trade and those who turned to photobooks from printing snapshots. It was difficult for the latter to compete with the former as the VAT people told them to charge VAT, not an instruction they’d given to their competitors who naturally thought they were in a variant of the book business. Truprint and I’d guess others are now in line for a chunky tax rebate.
What does that mean for the market? Maybe prices will fall, maybe not. At least all suppliers will be on the same tax footing going forward.
However a recent ruling in a case brought by Truprint, photo and photobook printers. it has been agreed that all photobooks should be treated like ordinary books, effectively exempt from VAT. Apparently there’s been a split for many years in the photobooks industry between those suppliers who emerged out of the book publishing trade and those who turned to photobooks from printing snapshots. It was difficult for the latter to compete with the former as the VAT people told them to charge VAT, not an instruction they’d given to their competitors who naturally thought they were in a variant of the book business. Truprint and I’d guess others are now in line for a chunky tax rebate.
What does that mean for the market? Maybe prices will fall, maybe not. At least all suppliers will be on the same tax footing going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)