advice for scanning my negs

[mdozier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure where to post so please forgive and relocate if this is not the correct forum.

 

I presently shoot and process my own negatives. I have just recently gotten a wonderful Nikon 9000. I have been using the factory software to batch scan my negatives as tiffs to try to get the best quality.

 

I realize that with the file sizes it won't take long for storage to become an issue . What do most people do? Is tiff not recommended? Do you just move to external storage devices and deal with specialized back-up means?

 

I haven't been "pre-editing" by selectively scanning individual negs as it seem much more efficient to batch scan 12 at a time however with this method you must choose a format for all at once (tiff vs jpeg, etc.).

 

How do others manage the file size vs storage issues? And, what is your recommended work flow?

 

Thanks for any advice.

m

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

Just buy an external hard drive.

[RITskellar]

Storage space is relatively cheap, so I just add space as needed. I have a 9000 as well, and use the NikonScan software. I scan b/w images at full size/highest possible resolution, which is about 24mb per image (tiff), and I scan color images at about half size, which results in about a 32mb (tiff) file. I do this primarily based on the time to scan, as I, like you, also just scan every image in batches and don't pre-edit or select.

[mdozier]

Hum, my scans seem to be either 71mB or 23 mB. Nothing in-between. I wonder if I'm forgetting to adjust something but each image in a batch seems to be the same size.

 

I was planning to use iPhoto as an organizational tool but I realize then I'd have 3 copies of each image, the tiff, the photoshop file and the iPhoto file .

 

I suppose external storage is the way to go. With the negatives in place I guess security/backup is important as a time saver but at least I'll have my negs.

 

I guess my next hurdle is organizing files, scans, finished (photoshopped) and the original negs in some cohesive manner.

 

So is jpeg just too much of a compromise in quality for most of the scans?

 

Thanks again,

m

[RITskellar]

Hmmm, sounds like a pretty complicated way to go about it. Not sure why you have separate PSD files and not just the scanned tif. I use Lightroom to manage my library and do all the basic cropping and post processing. If I'm needing to touch up something in the file permanently, such as dust and scratches, then I do that right in the high res tif.

 

As for your NikonScan settings... not sure. May want to revisit settings and instructions. I have a few presets for chrome, color neg, and b/w that make it pretty simple. And I use 8 bit color, not 16 bit, so that will have some effect on file size as well.

[RITskellar]

Additionally, the way my Lightroom library is organized is the same way my physical negs are kept. Every roll is named for year/month/day, and then roll number (if there was more than one roll for that day, and then the actual image number. I keep all my negs in large envelopes that are labeled the same way as the Lightroom roll.

 

2010_0111_B_24.tif (for example)

[mdozier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Andy, being new to this I guess you're right. I'd been saving the PSD file with the overlays as a new file and leaving the original scan in-tact. The iPhoto library converts the file and leaves the original thus giving me 3 versions.

 

I don't suppose I really need to save the original tiff if I've decided to process w/ PS and I'm happy with the result.

 

I haven't used Adobe Bridge much but it came with PS and it seems to be a method to organize and maintain the files without going to iPhoto. All said, it seems like I can minimize the multiple copies at least.

 

Thanks again,

m

[RITskellar]

Thanks Andy, being new to this I guess you're right. I'd been saving the PSD file with the overlays as a new file and leaving the original scan in-tact. The iPhoto library converts the file and leaves the original thus giving me 3 versions.

 

I don't suppose I really need to save the original tiff if I've decided to process w/ PS and I'm happy with the result.

 

I haven't used Adobe Bridge much but it came with PS and it seems to be a method to organize and maintain the files without going to iPhoto. All said, it seems like I can minimize the multiple copies at least.

 

Thanks again,

m

 

If you intend to seriously shoot and will be generating a lot of images, I would highly, highly recommend moving to Lightroom, over iPhoto. Or Apple Aperture, as some might prefer. They do similar things slightly differently. I happen to very much like how Lightroom integrates with Photoshop and the rest of the CS apps. And there really is no need to have multiple copies of the same image file... just the original .tif.

[Don'tknowmuch]

"And there really is no need to have multiple copies of the same image file... just the original .tif"

And don't forget you still have the neg! That's one of the great bonuses of the scanning route; whatever happens to various digital storage methods; the neg is hopefully only another scan away.

Jim.

[Mike Rawcs]

M, see my "scanning and the debris uncovered" post on the Post processing Forum.

 

I was losing the will to live with regards to scanning due to my workflow but thanks to the advise found here I now have great scans. The size of the scans is an issue although I find that Lightroom handles 240 mb Tffs with no problem although Aperture tends to hang or crash. I understand that Lightroom 3 is even better at handling large files and Aperture X is supposed to be on the way.

 

Mike.

[RITskellar]

M, see my "scanning and the debris uncovered" post on the Post processing Forum.

 

I was losing the will to live with regards to scanning due to my workflow but thanks to the advise found here I now have great scans. The size of the scans is an issue although I find that Lightroom handles 240 mb Tffs with no problem although Aperture tends to hang or crash. I understand that Lightroom 3 is even better at handling large files and Aperture X is supposed to be on the way.

 

Mike.

 

Glad we could help. But 240mb scans?! You scan all your images that big? Sounds like a big waste of time and storage space. I batch scan all b/w and color no bigger than 30mb which gives me a physical size plenty big enough for most, if not all that I need them for. And on the odd occasion that I need a particular image larger someday, I simply rescan that select image.

[Mike Rawcs]

Glad we could help. But 240mb scans?! You scan all your images that big? Sounds like a big waste of time and storage space. I batch scan all b/w and color no bigger than 30mb which gives me a physical size plenty big enough for most, if not all that I need them for. And on the odd occasion that I need a particular image larger someday, I simply rescan that select image.

 

I know, I know, but I only want to scan them once so if one day I need BIG ... I've got BIG.

 

Mike.

[Michael Hiles]

Respectfully, your approach seems inefficient and expensive. I scan at 800-1200 DPI. I save in jpeg format. This is fine for manipulating and posting here or elsewhere on the web, and fine for sending to non-photo family and friends. It is also fine for small prints to give away or to put into my wife's photo albums.

 

My initial goal is to catalog my images, usually with dates and some keywords. My file naming system is also a pointer as to where I can locate the negative or slide.

 

In the unlikely event I want a more detailed image, I find the negative (using my keyword search and fine name point system), and rescan the negative as a TIF file and get to work. But my exhibition prints are almost exclusively made in a darkroom on silver paper. I use digital images and Photoshop Elements to plan and play "what if" for a final silver print.

 

Saves space, time and expense (more hard drives etc.)