[cooltouch]

Thanks, Arnold. So true about chasing the better scan. I have to remind myself that, for the web, even scans from my Epson 4990 are sufficient. But I'm after the best possible scan I can get for archival purposes, Which then raises the subject of how best to store the archives. Turns out that the life of a CD or DVD, if that is the storage material of choice, can be problematic. After having saved most of my slides to DVD, I found threads on the 'net about the life expectancy of DVDs, and learned that some are good only for a few years before they degrade into uselessness, Apparently the "gold" DVDs are the best storage medium, but they're very pricey because they use real gold in their make-up.

I'm wondering if solid state drives (SSDs) might be a viable answer, as their prices continue to drop. The whole topic about how best to archive data is a rather thorny one. And when it comes to photography, it appears that one of the best ways to archive images is with film, especially Kodachrome for color. Heh, imagine that!

[Cuthbert]

I have just finished "scanning" over 400 slides using my K5, 35mm/f2.8 macro, a slide holder and a flash. My flash is Sunpak Auto Zoom 3000 from the eighties. I used it on manual at 1/16 power about 30" behind the slide holder. An auto remote flash trigger was used. Focus was not a problem, but getting the slide nicely framed and exposed took more work. Every slide had to be PP adjusted. Here are four to indicate the results obtained.
Slides from the mid eighties on Kodachrome. Pentax MX and M50/1.7 and 100/f4
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url][/IMG]

These pics just confirm that in the 80s there were better photographers around.

On my side, today I can only contribute to this thread with some shots taken with my KM (for the first time, I had this camera for one year but I've never had the opportunity to try it), a K 50 mm f1.4 and Kodak Ektar, I have in order:

Drunk Santa resting after Christmas:



His car I assume:



A carusel (not too great pic):



Sunset:



I liked the tower visible from the inlet of this street, not much the two tourists in the front, but they popped up without warning:

[gofour3]

And when it comes to photography, it appears that one of the best ways to archive images is with film, especially Kodachrome for color. Heh, imagine that!

Very true, your slides will outlast any digital copy. I don’t bother scanning any of my 9,000 plus slides (except for posting) and have just archived the older ones. I store them in specialized museum quality “archival” storage boxes.

Phil.

---------- Post added 12-30-14 at 07:46 AM ----------

I have just finished "scanning" over 400 slides using my K5, 35mm/f2.8 macro, a slide holder and a flash. My flash is Sunpak Auto Zoom 3000 from the eighties. I used it on manual at 1/16 power about 30" behind the slide holder. An auto remote flash trigger was used. Focus was not a problem, but getting the slide nicely framed and exposed took more work. Every slide had to be PP adjusted. Here are four to indicate the results obtained.
Slides from the mid eighties on Kodachrome. Pentax MX and M50/1.7 and 100/f4

Very nice, they turned out great! Like the last car in snow shot, looks like B.C. plates?

Phil.

[arnold]

I don’t bother scanning any of my 9,000 plus slides (except for posting) and have just archived the older ones.

You are wise to store them so well, but the main reason I scanned, is to "get them out of the tray." It delights me to uncover a buried slide and bring it into the daylight where I can access it at any time, triggering forgotten memories. After all, that was the very reason I took the pictures in the first place - to see them in the future.

Drunk Santa resting after Christmas:

Delivering all those gifts would drive anyone to drink.

.

[cooltouch]

Excellent point, Arnold. Although, I'll admit that often when I've been out shooting film -- or digital for that matter -- I'm not often thinking about the future, but about capturing "the moment." I guess it just goes without saying that I'd be viewing "the moment" in the future.

Phil, I haven't gone to the trouble you have. I just made sure to store my slides in archival sleeves and then to keep them indoors in relatively stable environs of about 50% humidity and typical room temperatures.

[arnold]

Very nice, they turned out great! Like the last car in snow shot, looks like B.C. plates?

Yes, near White Rock. Just for interest, here is a comparison between the same picture I scanned on a Canon 9000F at 2400dpi, and the K5 slide copy.

[cooltouch]

Wow, just a better image all around, isn't it? The Canon's scan looks surprisingly flat in comparison. While the DMax seems to be about the same, the K5's sharpness, and contrast are noticeably better.

---------- Post added 12-31-14 at 11:12 AM ----------

Okay, well here's a few more I found. They were duped using the method I outlined earlier, except the second one, which was scanned at 2400 ppi on my Epson 4990 scanner.

Nikon FM, Nikkor 135mm f/3.5, Fujichrome 100:


Yashica Mat 124G, Kodak print film of some sort:


Leica M3, 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, Kodak Tri-X:

[hooverfocus]

Yes, near White Rock. Just for interest, here is a comparison between the same picture I scanned on a Canon 9000F at 2400dpi, and the K5 slide copy.

Wow, just a better image all around, isn't it? The Canon's scan looks surprisingly flat in comparison. While the DMax seems to be about the same, the K5's sharpness, and contrast are noticeably better.

I hope you won't be offended, I took the liberty to adjust the black point of the scan image, which you can adjust already during the scanning process (I also slightly lowered the R curve in the highlights, which was spiking a bit).
Plus some sharpening, which is better done at a later stage in post, not through the scanning software.

Don't throw out your scanner just yet


©arnold

That said, the K5 image is quite fine, too.

[womble]

One day I'll get around to digitising this lot... I have two lateral filing cabinet drawers full of archival quality hanging files.


slides par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

[Jacquot]

One day I'll get around to digitising this lot... I have two lateral filing cabinet drawers full of archival quality hanging files.


slides par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

And we look forward to that!

[arnold]

I hope you won't be offended, I took the liberty to adjust the black point of the scan image, which you can adjust already during the scanning process (I also slightly lowered the R curve in the highlights, which was spiking a bit).
Plus some sharpening, which is better done at a later stage in post, not through the scanning software.

Don't throw out your scanner just yet


©arnold

That said, the K5 image is quite fine, too.

Actually I hoped someone would do just what you did. I am very basic with my PP skill level. Glad the scanner is worth keeping. Thanks for the improvement.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 10:32 ----------

Okay, well here's a few more I found. They were duped using the method I outlined earlier, except the second one, which was scanned at 2400 ppi on my Epson 4990 scanner.

Excellent reproductions both ways.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 10:37 ----------

One day I'll get around to digitising this lot... I have two lateral filing cabinet drawers full of archival quality hanging files.


slides par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

Time to get cracking. I have over 2000 slides, most of which are worth scanning. I have about 200 to go now. Of course there are always improving rescans calling as well. You just need to get your self in the mood to dedicate a full day to get started.

[cooltouch]

No offense taken over here. I've always heard that the CanoScans do a great job and I've seen enough scans from the higher end models to believe it. In fact, if I could have found the top model Canon made (discontinued now), the 9990, I believe it is, I would have bought one instead of my Epson 4990. But as for me, I have no intention of getting rid of my 4990. It may not be the best for 35mm (and it is, in fact, as good as any other flat bed scanner for 35mm), but it is outstanding for medium format and one of the best scanners around for large format.

And speaking of medium format, here are a few more. This first one was taken on a hazy day at Long Beach Harbor. That's the Queen Mary, which had been turned into a Hilton Hotel. In the distance, you can see a dome. At that time -- sometime during the mid-1980s -- it housed Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose. I know the plywood albatross got moved, but I dunno if that dome's still there anymore.



Next is a shot of my Friend, Ted, who's playing around with my 35mm rig. Note the excellent saturation and sharpness. Scanned at 2400 ppi, pretty much at the Epson defaults and not a whole lot was done in post.



This is a shot of some small watercraft in LA Harbor. Shot with my Zeiss Super Ikonta B with Tessar lens in a Synchro Compur shutter -- called it my "pocket Hasselblad" because I could fold it up and drop it into a jacket pocket. Again, note the saturation and detail:



And finally, a life guard station at one of the Los Angeles area beaches. Don't remember which one now. Again with the Yashica Mat, same Fujichrome film.



All four of the above images were recorded on 120 Fujichrome 100 and scanned on my Epson 4990 scanner at 2400 ppi. I pretty much let my Epson scan at the defaults. The Epson Scan software is really pretty decent. Rarely do I find the need to tweak anything, especially if the images were exposed properly. As a result, typically only very light work is needed in post.

Okay, one more, but just for continuity's sake, more or less. Almost looks as if I took this following shot the same day, but it was a different day, different beach. Still the sunset afterglow looks so similar that that's what I mean by continuity, more or less. Canon F-1, 19mm FL lens. Kodachrome 64 at EI 80.

[arnold]

That's the Queen Mary, which had been turned into a Hilton Hotel. In the distance, you can see a dome. At that time -- sometime during the mid-1980s -- it housed Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose. I know the plywood albatross got moved, but I dunno if that dome's still there anymore.

Great results from interesting cameras. Nothing stays the same (Spruce Goose moved) which is why photos can be so interesting. This why I started this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/23...re-1990-a.html

[cooltouch]

Heh, I wish I'd seen that thread before now. Geez, in order to particpate, I'd have to post a lot of the stuff again I've already posted here. Oh well, I've got lots of 80s pics. If I can figure out how to post my Flickr pics here, I've got a bunch more.

[45 Mike]

Heh, I wish I'd seen that thread before now. Geez, in order to particpate, I'd have to post a lot of the stuff again I've already posted here. Oh well, I've got lots of 80s pics. If I can figure out how to post my Flickr pics here, I've got a bunch more.

Sharing from flickr is really easy.
open your photostream, and click on a picture you want to share.
once that pic is open, somewhere near the bottom of that pic will be an icon that looks like a bent arrow, if you hover your mouse on it, it should say "share". Click that icon.
Now there is a menu with a bunch of choices. you want to choose BBCODE. Ignore the stuff at the top of that pop up menu, the icons are for sharing to facebook, twitter etc. The stuff you need is near the middle, and the bottom.
Then you select the size to share, I usually use a medium size for post replies, like this, somewhere in the 300-500 pixel range for the width.
Once you select the size, there is a box displayed with a code that you copy. It is already selected, all you need to do is right click and copy.

Then you come here and paste that code in a post or reply box.
This code displays the picture below:

HTML Code:

[URL="https://flic.kr/p/pv38ay"][IMG]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7497/15424798374_7fcc010ff5.jpg[/IMG][/URL][URL="https://flic.kr/p/pv38ay"]Scan-141217-0002b[/URL] by [URL="https://www.flickr.com/people/114590967@N08/"]forfiv[/URL], on Flickr