What's wrong with just using Photoshop?
Of course not. But they both want copies of all the family photos, particularly my son. All my scans will be keyworded and dated as best as possible since I often don't know the exact date, only an approximate date.
Many of those negatives are railroad subjects. Railroads are a hobby interest of mine. Those scans may go to a railroad museum or society for their historical value.
And of course, many of the scans will be culled out as not worth preserving.
The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?
If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto exposure no cropping. If this 10K of frames is in precut strips of 6 frames that would be about 1666.7 strips. Inserting each strip can take about 30 seconds for the Coolscan 5000 to bring in the strip, provide thumbnails of each frame and be ready to begin scanning. This process for the strips will add about 13.9 hours to the 97.2 hours for a total of about 111.1 hours.
Now if these were 10K rolls of 36 frames each, then the scanning itself can take 3500 hours (145 days) + 500 hours inserting each 6 frame strip for a total of 4000 hours or 166.7 days to scan the b&w film. Keep in mind there is no ICE for true b&w film scanning and therefore that will have to be done in post.
For the C-41, ICE is available and each full res frame scan can take about 55 seconds per frame. So if it is 5K frames the scanning can take 76.4 hours and inserting each strip can take 6.9 hours for a total of 83.3 hours. If this is 5K rolls of 36 frames then the scanning can take 2750 hours + 250 hours inserting strips for a total of 3000 hours or 125 days. Because of ICE, there will be no need to remove dust and scratches in post.
C'mon, that's less then a year's worth of scanning . . .
Maybe you can get your son to help you with the scanning and editing?
@Les SarileThe OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?
If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto exposure no cropping. If this 10K of frames is in precut strips of 6 frames that would be about 1666.7 strips. Inserting each strip can take about 30 seconds for the Coolscan 5000 to bring in the strip, provide thumbnails of each frame and be ready to begin scanning. This process for the strips will add about 13.9 hours to the 97.2 hours for a total of about 111.1 hours.
Now if these were 10K rolls of 36 frames each, then the scanning itself can take 3500 hours (145 days) + 500 hours inserting each 6 frame strip for a total of 4000 hours or 166.7 days to scan the b&w film. Keep in mind there is no ICE for true b&w film scanning and therefore that will have to be done in post.
For the C-41, ICE is available and each full res frame scan can take about 55 seconds per frame. So if it is 5K frames the scanning can take 76.4 hours and inserting each strip can take 6.9 hours for a total of 83.3 hours. If this is 5K rolls of 36 frames then the scanning can take 2750 hours + 250 hours inserting strips for a total of 3000 hours or 125 days. Because of ICE, there will be no need to remove dust and scratches in post.
C'mon, that's less then a year's worth of scanning . . .
Frames. Estimates only right now.The OP lists 10K B&W and about 5K C-41. I am not sure if this means frames or rolls?
If this is frames, I calculate 97.2 hours to scan 10K B&W frames at 35 seconds per frame at 4000dpi auto focus and auto
Photrio can really overcomplicate things.
Phil has a big task if he is going to scan even a fraction of those pictures. Fortunately he has a film scanner and software.
setting the contrast on B&W scans,
but mostly he has to get close enough.
He can then pick some smaller subset of high value photos to devote more time to fixing up the color or adjusting the B&W curve.
I have Photoshop as part of my Adobe Photographer's plan, which is mainly to get Lightroom. What is wrong with Photoshop:
1. Very complex
2. Big learning curve
3. more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.
4. Need to work on a COPY of the original image, since Photoshop alters the image it works on, unlike Lightroom. And backups of the image being worked on. Lightroom maintains an edit history of the changes to the original image.
5. Most people don't have access to Photoshop.
I have Photoshop as part of my Adobe Photographer's plan, which is mainly to get Lightroom. What is wrong with Photoshop:
1. Very complex
2. Big learning curve
3. more than one way to achieve a desired outcome.
4. Need to work on a COPY of the original image, since Photoshop alters the image it works on, unlike Lightroom. And backups of the image being worked on. Lightroom maintains an edit history of the changes to the original image.
5. Most people don't have access to Photoshop.
Given the thread has been resurrected
1. Very complex yes, but you only need to use the bits you want
2. Big learning curve no, you only need to learn the bits you need, hardly anybody knows all of Photoshop
3. If there is more than one way to achieve an outcome use the simplest.
4. Photoshop alters the image. No Photoshop doesn't alter the image, the photographer does that by working on an image without saving the original file. So after working on an image just 'Save as' and use modified file name of the original, like '*****version 2', it's simple housekeeping that goes way back before Lightroom was invented.
5. Most people do have access to Photoshop if they subscribe for less than the price of a coffee and bun once a month.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?