DELee

Image properties says: 4119 x 2731 (2.78 MB). Note, given what the FlyerTalk website does on uploads, lower image was actually down sampled to 1999 x 1325.

David

Gardyloo

This is exactly what I do. Scan in haste, process at leisure.

Since my last post on this thread I've purchased the current Wolverine unit (20 mp) and have been binging through several thousand slides. The actual scanning takes around 3 seconds, so the loading/unloading of the scanner takes much more time. The scanner comes with a frame that allows you to load one slide, then push it through with the next, assembly-line fashion, which means your "throughput" can be very rapid indeed. I generally make three exposures per slide, with a neutral EV, then half a stop over and under, just to avoid problems with shadow detail, burnt-out highlights, or weird white balance (which seems to have a lot to do with the film used in the slide.) It goes very rapidly; the only thing that really slows me down is that the push-through holder doesn't handle plastic slide mounts (like the hundreds of old Agfachrome slides I took 40 years ago.) I have to return to the slide holder that came with the previous machine, which holds four slides at a time and which is compatible with the current scanner. It's a nuisance but it is what it is.

Some examples of recently scanned and processed images, if interested...

San Francisco Chinatown, 1969



Bukhara, Uzbekistan (actually Uzbek SSR at the time) in 1974 -

allset2travel

Gardyloo,

Thank you for elaborating on the scanning process. Since I have not done any, it is quite interesting to me!

Quoting you, "I generally make three exposures per slide, with a neutral EV, then half a stop over and under, just to avoid problems with shadow detail, burnt-out highlights, or weird white balance (which seems to have a lot to do with the film used in the slide.)"
I take it you will post process those 3 images into 1, a process like HDR. Are the 2 images on the above post a direct result of combining 3 into 1?
Have you try EV of - & +1 f (1 stop below, normal, & 1 stop above)? Wonder if it makes mush difference in the highlight and shadow?

Gardyloo

I generally don't bother to try to merge the images. With old slide film, if there's no detail in the shadows or highlights, there's nothing for the software to do, so all it tends to do is render everything over-saturated and if there's an issue with white balance, you need to correct that in post anyway. Mainly I scan a bunch, then go back when I feel like it and evaluate the various exposures to get the pick of the litter, then process it alone. I clean up the dirt on the slide (no amount of blow-dusting or brushing gets all of the crud accumulated over half a century) fix the colors as best I can, straighten and crop, reduce the image size to something manageable, and call it good. Occasionally I'll get more aggressive, or use the image as a base for something creative. On many old images I've had to save them as monochrome as the colors had faded or shifted beyond redemption.

Here's an example of this - the first image (of two boys in a Tehran tent city in 1976) is in "color" but you can see how faded things are. The second is a B&W rendering of the same image. I'm not sure which is preferable, but the B&W image is, to me, less distracting. YMMV.

allset2travel

[/QUOTE]

I agree. The B&W looks better. Having said that, I'd try Dual-Tone on the colored image to get the "vintage" look, if possible!