Scanning 20 year old Agfa slides
Mac McDougald
wayf...@alphalink.com.au says...
> Hi all
>
> A friend has a few thousand 20 year old Agfa slides that she whats to
> scan (not all!). With regard to buying a film scanner, will Digital
> ICE and Canons FARE work on these slides?
I scanned hundreds of AgfaChrome slides from the 60's for a client about
a year ago. Both Nikon ICE and VueScan IR Clean (what I mainly used) did
fine (so I assume FARE would also). They are just normal E-6 (probably E-
4 then) chemical process. My prob was that these had all shifted to a
magenta cast, took color correction on all of them. Agfa had their own
chemical process back then also if sent back to them for processing,
similar, but not identical to, Kodak's chemical process.
> Will a 4000 dpi scanner show more usable detail than a 2700-2900 dpi
> scanner for these slides?
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
>
> Struan
Up to 10-12 inch print, shouldn't make much diff. Past that size or of
course trying to crop a third or more of the original image and still
going to that size or larger, or should you need to go back to film
recorder, 4000ppi will show its merit.
--
Mac McDougald
Doogle Digital - www.doogle.com
Michael J Davis
>> scan (not all!). With regard to buying a film scanner, will Digital
>> ICE and Canons FARE work on these slides?
>
>I scanned hundreds of AgfaChrome slides from the 60's for a client about
>a year ago.
Interesting. Especially your comments about magenta shift. Mine
(Agfachrome 64) all look pretty good balance-wise, although they seem to
have lost some of their colour depth. i.e. not as 'rich' as I remember,
but that could just be my recent exposure to modern films makes the old
colours seem less interesting.
For the record, I've been scanning with a Canoscan 2710, and been
getting quite good 19" long prints from colour, and have a stunning 26"
B&W from a Pan F negative on my wall here.
I find that, even though I kept my slides in reasonably good conditions,
some dust has proliferated which spoils the scans. Even hand cleaning
seems to leave some particles. So....
Any suggestions re cleaning before scanning?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "discursion".
<><
ThomasH
>
> Mac McDougald <doogleRE...@doogle.com> observed
> >In article <vgi0ou0m7eqj6tkl1...@4ax.com>,
> >wayf...@alphalink.com.au says...
> >> A friend has a few thousand 20 year old Agfa slides that she whats to
> >> scan (not all!). With regard to buying a film scanner, will Digital
> >> ICE and Canons FARE work on these slides?
> >
> >I scanned hundreds of AgfaChrome slides from the 60's for a client about
> >a year ago.
>
> Interesting. Especially your comments about magenta shift. Mine
> (Agfachrome 64) all look pretty good balance-wise, although they seem to
> have lost some of their colour depth. i.e. not as 'rich' as I remember,
> but that could just be my recent exposure to modern films makes the old
> colours seem less interesting.
I share this observation. It looks like many detail in high light was
lost. For example clouds look often like white patches without any
color gradation in them. Of course, while being spoiled by the quality
of the contemporary E6 material from Fuji and Agfa I am not sure how
much of this should be attributed to the lesser color fidelity in these
older materials.
I am using Nikon LS-4000ED.
Thomas
Mike Simmons
> I find that, even though I kept my slides in reasonably good conditions,
> some dust has proliferated which spoils the scans. Even hand cleaning
> seems to leave some particles. So....
>
> Any suggestions re cleaning before scanning?
There are others with more experience on this but based on recommendations
posted here I recently bought a Staticmaster brush. With the 20 or so slides
I've scanned so far using it first I have yet to need ICE on my Nikon LS-40.
These are new slides scanned at 2900 dpi. My previous scans were also
relatively new slides that had never even been projected but there was dust
showing in the scans that required ICE to clean up. Maybe someone else here
can confirm if this brush can make that much difference based on more
experience but so far I'm sold.
Mike Simmons
Chris Quayle
>
> There are others with more experience on this but based on recommendations
> posted here I recently bought a Staticmaster brush. With the 20 or so slides
> I've scanned so far using it first I have yet to need ICE on my Nikon LS-40.
> These are new slides scanned at 2900 dpi. My previous scans were also
> relatively new slides that had never even been projected but there was dust
> showing in the scans that required ICE to clean up. Maybe someone else here
> can confirm if this brush can make that much difference based on more
> experience but so far I'm sold.
>
> Mike Simmons
Beaten me to it there, as I was just about to suggest some sort of anti
static device prior to scan. Sounds like a very good idea to me.
There was a product in the old days of vinyl to do just such a job.
Battery operated IIRC...
Chris
T.P.
>
>I find that, even though I kept my slides in reasonably good conditions,
>some dust has proliferated which spoils the scans. Even hand cleaning
>seems to leave some particles. So....
>
>Any suggestions re cleaning before scanning?
Hand cleaning generates static electricity, causing dust to "stick" to
the slide. I use a Zerostat pistol to neutralise any static charge
and then blast the dust off with an air-in-a-can type product which
sprays butane gas.
Tom Harrison Jr.
brush which almost eliminates the need for air. Plus, the brush is
washable. I counted the number of air cans I had gone through and realized
I was spending a lot of money. Further, the air seems to actually create a
static charge. Based on a few days use, I think I can get almost everything
off with the brush and if needed (dry day, air conditioning on, cat rubbing
on the film, lightening strike, etc.) can get the rest off with a short
blast from the can. Having said that, my film is exposed to air typically
for only the period of time I am scanning, so perhaps heavier artillery is
needed with 20-year-old slides :-)
Tom
"T.P." <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:c6f3ouglmnsutgfdi...@4ax.com...
Arthur Entlich
slides I have that have faded. My Agfa's were processed in Germany, so
maybe it was not the same process used in other countries. I think it
was called CT-21 process, or something like that. Luckily, I didn't
trust the film and did another shoot in Kodachrome, but there are still
some images I only shot with the Agfa, I guess I should scan the stuff
before it completely disappears.
The other thing to consider regarding scanner resolution is that higher
res scanners tend to have lower grain aliasing, meaning less gritiness
and grain.
Art
Art
ThomasH
>
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:20:27 GMT, Arthur Entlich <artis...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Most of my Afga's from that period have nearly faded away. The only
> >slides I have that have faded. My Agfa's were processed in Germany, so
> >maybe it was not the same process used in other countries. I think it
> >was called CT-21 process, or something like that.
> that vintage were perfect. I had my wedding done on Agfachrome 50S
> Prof. BUt is was 23 years, ago and technology made a step forward.
Furthermore, Wilhelms book attests on pages 193-194 a better behavior
in reaching the d-min color imbalance to the older Agfa AP 41 process
than to the early Agfa E6 materials after they joined the E6 camp.
Of the older slide material Fuji was back than the worse but all this
has turned so much. Fuji did a splendid job in addressing the problem,
Agfa was almost wiped out from the US market after their print paper
disaster and Kodak got to complacent once courts have refused the
cases against them.
By the way: Wilhelm calls Kodachrome "longest lasting if projection
can be avoided." This is an often forgotten fact that E6 materials
hold better than the Kodachrome if projected often!!
I believe that the mature digital technology is the way to go. I have
also scanned my old Agfas, Kodaks and Orwo's to preserve as they are.
Wilhelms book was for me an eye opener how massive the photo industry
and the professionals were hit by the fading problem!
It is a pity that Wilhelm does not make any updates about his findings,
nor does anyone else. His most recent data is from 1992 approx., that's
10 years already. Agfa claims to have caught up with Fuji, I like what
their slide film is doing and shoot both Fuji Sensia + Agfa CT Precisa,
but I do not know how well will Agfa preserve compared to the proven
superior stability of Fujichrome, among E6 materials that is...
And Kodachrome simply does not compare well in color rendition to the
latest E6 material. Especially Fuji Velvia and Provia have set the
standards very high.
Thomas.
> Often, Agfa films can be improved by treatment with ferricyanide
> bleach and washing. If not properly processed, a cyan dye may form its
> leuco form, leading to loss of cyan (reddish slide). If you reverse
> it, then colors are OK. Otherwise scan and use hardware/software
> plugins.
Uwe Zimmermann
as 2-3 cans). Together with an air gun (with dust filter) it does a
great job. However a brush for the stickier stuff is inavoidable.
By the way, the stuff in the air cans isn't air at all. It's some
halogenated or non-halogenated organic gas, so except for the ozone
layer and your lungs, I don't know how godd this stuff is to the
emulsion of the film.... the cooling effect by the decompression of
the gas might lead to condensed humidity on the slides...
Uwe.
Uwe Zimmermann
for us who don't know....
Uwe.
Michael J Davis
Thanks, I think I've got one of those (used for neutralising static on
LP's), that sounds really good advice.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
To earn the right to complain
ensure you are lavish with your praise.
<><
Mac McDougald
mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk says...
> T. P. <t...@noemailthanks.com> observed
> >Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>I find that, even though I kept my slides in reasonably good conditions,
> >>some dust has proliferated which spoils the scans. Even hand cleaning
> >>seems to leave some particles. So....
> >>
> >>Any suggestions re cleaning before scanning?
> >
> >
> >Hand cleaning generates static electricity, causing dust to "stick" to
> >the slide. I use a Zerostat pistol to neutralise any static charge
> >and then blast the dust off with an air-in-a-can type product which
> >sprays butane gas.
>
> Thanks, I think I've got one of those (used for neutralising static on
> LP's), that sounds really good advice.
>
> Mike
But in winter (or in desert zones), when humidity gets below 50% or so it
can make a BIG diff with dust to run a cheap vaporizer for awhile in
scanning area. Dust that you wipe/blow off falls to floor rather than
suspended in air and re-attracted to film and components.
ThomasH
preservation efforts for photography and cinematic material
alike. Here is the amazon.com pointer:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911515003/
Seems to be difficult to get now, as I bought it, it was available
at amazon. This is an amazing lecture, a case in industrial failure
and an effort to recover.
Thomas.
Arthur Entlich
personal experiences. For whatever reasons, the Agfa CT-21 films
processed in Germany have failed horribly. The rest of my collection is
Ektachrome E-6, Fujichrome E-6 and Kodachromes. Most of my slides have
rarely been projected and we have always been very careful with the
Kodachromes, because, as you state, they are supposed to be more
vulnerable to light based fading, while having better dark keeping
characteristics.
Some of the early Fuji E-6 films seemed weak in color to begin with and
may have further faded somewhat. The other films seems to have kept
their color and balance, so far.
The one area we might disagree is that the newer E-6 films have a
superior color rendition to Kodachromes. Definitely, these films are of
much higher color saturation than the Kodachrome films, but they are not
as natural as a result. Although I no longer shoot Kodachrome, because
I found it is no longer reliable due to processing variation, and I
admit to liking high color saturation, other than Kodachromes somewhat
off the scale reds in some circumstances, I think that film was more
accurate for colors of nature when exposed and processed correctly.
The problem was the expose latitude in Kodachrome is very tight, so
darker areas tended to often fall off the scale and go way to dark, and
lighter areas tended to more easily burn out. However, a properly
exposed and processed Kodachrome was a sight to behold. The new films
are much more forgiving.
None the less, "Momma, don't take my Prove F away" ;-)
Art
Arthur Entlich
ThomasH wrote:
> Yes, its *the* Wilhelm book, considered the bible of all
> preservation efforts for photography and cinematic material
> alike. Here is the amazon.com pointer:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0911515003/
>
> Seems to be difficult to get now, as I bought it, it was available
> at amazon. This is an amazing lecture, a case in industrial failure
> and an effort to recover.
>
> Thomas.
>
>
And not the last, the failures of inkjet inks and papers, which even
Wilhelm got side-swiped on, is still not fully recognized.
At least in most cases, the inkjet prints aren't the originals. Then
again, some CD-R materials are also failing, and they may contain the
originals.
Art
Uwe Zimmermann
Uwe.
ThomasH
His company, or research lab rather, has even a web page. Unfortunately
this web site was just containing a contact information and generic
information. Now it contains even less: just a note that some real
content is on its way...
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
The problem with ink has been already widely recognized, what is a
good thing. Both Epson and Canon have provided new generation of
inks, Canon was first making them really affordable for the S600
and S800. The contemporary ink printers are really impressive.
As it comes to data, I can only recommend to keep a backup.
A price per 'gig' is so low, external drives 40-120 gig attachable
via Firewire or USB-2 might a good solution to be quite safe and
have that safety copy kept on a safe place with a huge amount of
scans. So far I backup on DAT tapes, but the time effort to do so
is simply much higher compared to a simple plugin drive.
Thomas.
Uwe Zimmermann
bad experiences with streamer tapes and tend to trust CD-Rs far more
than magnetic media when it comes to long-term storage. Until more
reliable media are around, I try keep all my scanned images on two CD
copies of two different brands. I'm quite sure that we'll see more
advanced and more dense media around in the next ten years - it's just
about seven years since CD-R became popular, about 10-12 years for the
3.5" floppy, DVD_R are right now on their way into the market.
I would always prefer exchangeable media without any
electronics/mechanics included - it's almost impossible to get data
off a broken harddisk where the actual media is intact. However if
your CD-reader breaks, you can easily buy a new one.
And when it comes to flash media, even though their failure mechanisms
are better understood than the complex reactions which might degrade a
CD-R, the experience the industry has with these media is even shorter
than with CD-R/RW...
I don't know, if we will find a medium which can hold any information
for the next let's say 100 years and which will be readable in 100
years from now (who except for me still does have a 5 1/4" drive in
his computer?) but if we in time take the time to copy over our images
to the media of the time, our images might survive as well as the very
first daguerrotypes.
Uwe.
EDGY01
scan (not all!). With regard to buying a film scanner, will Digital
ICE and Canons FARE work on these slides?
scanner for these slides? >>
Some things to consider when you get ready to scan:
(1) Are you prepared to save those at maximum resolution? (4000 DPI). Hope
you have a lot of CDs or a DVD burner.
(2) I would suggest that you buy the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED. Use their
digital ICE3 and also their GEM for color restoration. I have had good results
with it with Agfa. Recommend the 4000ED because it takes a feeder.
(I have the 8000ED and it's not suitable for your sort of bulk work).
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
ThomasH
>
> Keeping backups is always a good idea. However, I personally have made
> bad experiences with streamer tapes and tend to trust CD-Rs far more
> than magnetic media when it comes to long-term storage. Until more
> reliable media are around, I try keep all my scanned images on two CD
> copies of two different brands. I'm quite sure that we'll see more
> advanced and more dense media around in the next ten years - it's just
> about seven years since CD-R became popular, about 10-12 years for the
> 3.5" floppy, DVD_R are right now on their way into the market.
I agree basically, but no matter which media you will take, some
sort of longevity problem may occur.
Tape standards have indeed appeared and vanished a few times already,
but not so the DAT! This format has a wide industrial level base of
application in areas of audio recording and in digital storage. There
is an evolutionary development and the power of Sony + HP is behind DAT.
I use my Seagate Scorpio DDS-3 for several years already. It stores
12Gbyte native and some 20-22 gig compressed. I took this expensive
DAT drive as I saw that all these streamer QIC and Travan tapes have
cheap drives but expensive media and that they quickly become obsolete.
As I installed the drive I was able to read a 12-13 years old DAT tape
with my thesis without a problem. Even oldest DAT media was also still
fully usable for store operation. This was my personal positive
reassurance that this media has a nice longevity.
This is what I call a durable PC backup with investment protection!
Besides, DAT tapes are incredibly cheap, see http://www.tape.com/.
The drive itself might though cost as much as a good lens or a body:
$700-900. I use the Scorpio daily for years already. The Veritas
Backup Exec performs an unattended day-back.
On a 12Gig DDS-3 tape I can save some 2500 5Mbyte raw *.tiff files.
CD-R is simply too small, but the DVD-RW will sure make a lovely
backup media.
About hard drives:
Experience and industrial statistics show that you can very well
trust sealed hard drives. Their speed of operation and the
convenience of use naturally beat all other media. Plugin via
Firewire and voila, 80Gig or whatever is at your immediate disposal.
Large DAT will demand 2-3 hours of operation.
Other kinds of removable hard drives, such as the IOmega Jazz or
the Castlewood Orb, which were made as removable media disks but with
stationary heads, have not proven positively as a very long term
reliable storage. Dust contamination and head adjustment problems
caused often failures.
Thomas.
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>A price per 'gig' is so low, external drives 40-120 gig attachable
>via Firewire or USB-2 might a good solution to be quite safe and
>have that safety copy kept on a safe place with a huge amount of
>scans. So far I backup on DAT tapes, but the time effort to do so
>is simply much higher compared to a simple plugin drive.
And what of DAT tapes' shelf life. Also, make sure you have a backup
o the OS and archival program you use with the DAT tapes. And the
hardware to read them.
I can certainly imagine 50 years from now having neither the hardware
nor software to read a DAT tape.
Long-term archival is a trickly business.
-Joel
Deathwalker
"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <jo...@exc.com> wrote in message
news:YUip9.53089$Oa1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
CD has outlasted several other formats already. The thing about digital is
that you can soon transfer your data once you notice your current method is
becoming defunct. DVD may be replacing CD but the vast majority of players
will run CDs too so not to worry. Cds are said to have a 30year shelf life.
Garry Lee
> will run CDs too so not to worry. Cds are said to have a 30year shelf
life.
>
>
and VHS tapes were said to have a 10 year shelf life and I've plenty of them
20 years old and perfect.
Bruce Murphy
> "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <jo...@exc.com> wrote in message
> news:YUip9.53089$Oa1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > >As it comes to data, I can only recommend to keep a backup.
> > >A price per 'gig' is so low, external drives 40-120 gig attachable
> > >via Firewire or USB-2 might a good solution to be quite safe and
> > >have that safety copy kept on a safe place with a huge amount of
> > >scans. So far I backup on DAT tapes, but the time effort to do so
> > >is simply much higher compared to a simple plugin drive.
> >
> > And what of DAT tapes' shelf life. Also, make sure you have a backup
> > o the OS and archival program you use with the DAT tapes. And the
> > hardware to read them.
> >
> > I can certainly imagine 50 years from now having neither the hardware
> > nor software to read a DAT tape.
DATs, particulary DDS2 and up, are known to be very very non-archival,
to say nothing of the magic head-alignment issues that plague most
drives giving you tapes you can't read on anything else.
>
> CD has outlasted several other formats already. The thing about digital is
> that you can soon transfer your data once you notice your current method is
> becoming defunct. DVD may be replacing CD but the vast majority of players
> will run CDs too so not to worry. Cds are said to have a 30year shelf life.
Pressed foil CD and dye CD-Rs are very very different animals. I've
seen appreciable rotting of CD-Rs in half a decade when you take a
large sample. The great thing is just how much data you can lose when
a single disk leaks.
B>
Deathwalker
"Bruce Murphy" <pack...@rattus.net> wrote in message
news:m24rbql...@fuscipes.rattus.net...
Everything sits on my hard drive and cds are backup. I will always have one
set of data that is viable.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Deathwalker" ian-l...@blueyonder.co.ukspam
>Date: Sat, Oct 12, 2002 6:55 PM
>Message-id: <mL1q9.2599$%J6.30...@news-text.cableinet.net>
Is this 30 year shelf life for CD-Rs or CD-RWs? Where did you get this figure
from? Is the figure the same across the board for all
types/manufacturers/brands of CDs?
TIA
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Oct 13, 2002 3:24 AM
>Message-id: <m24rbql...@fuscipes.rattus.net>
Hi:
So what exactly is the safest/longest lasting media upon which to store
computer files on - built-in hard drive, external hard rive, Zip disks,
something else?
Lewis Lang
"Deathwalker" ian-l...@blueyonder.co.ukspam said:
>Everything sits on my hard drive and cds are backup. I will always have
>one
>set of data that is viable.
Better make sure the hard drive and the CDs are in two differnt locations in
case of fires, flodds, theft or some other catastrophe(s)...