Hi Tom -
Yes I have seen the book. I think the term they use is Colorama.
Actually the photographer I mention below currently has an exhibition in
town here called "The Lost Coloramas" which I did most of the scan work
for. It's all the shots that he thought should have been displayed in
GCS but never were. He's a wonderful guy and over the years has become a
great friend - Neil Montanus. A link to a couple of articles is here in
case you're interested in reading:
The story of the Colorama is fascinating. And Neil tells the most
amazing stories about how he got them. I've sat with him for hours and
On 9/18/2012 3:32 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Hey John, just to make sure, have you seen the book on the Kodak
> Photoramas that used to be available at the Eastman House and I'm sure
> elsewhere? That's a great book, for anyone who's interested in those
> massive color images that used to grace GCT before it got renovated
> and Kodak wouldn't pay the new price to keep the Photorama in place.
> Film, film cameras, tape, tape recorders, all going the way of T Rex.
> Latest nail in the coffin is the mandatory move to digital projection
> in first-run movie theaters. Digital imagery is really cool and
> convenient, but come tell me it's better when a burning fire looks
> natural on a digital screen. Film had that one licked about a century
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroth"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?
>> Thanks Carl:
>> What I failed to mention and Carl briefly touches base on, is your
>> display. Without a high quality monitor, calibration
>> hardware/software and a good understanding of color management, any
>> adjustments you make to an image is a shot in the dark. A high
>> quality monitor will reproduce and display the full range (or almost
>> full range) of the image's color spectrum and the color space format
>> you are scanning to (ie: Adobe RGB). Without the ability to see the
>> full gamut or range of the color spectrum on a monitor and without
>> that monitor being calibrated properly you cannot reproduce a
>> faithful color representation of the image, actually sometimes what
>> you create is a mess. A high-end monitor for doing image work is akin
>> to a good set of headphones and/or monitor speakers when working with
>> A good example was when I was first getting into the scanning
>> business. I was scanning 35mm slides for a well-known photographer
>> here in Rochester. He worked for Kodak for many years and took many
>> of the Colorama photos one would see on display in Grand Central
>> Station in NYC. We were sending files of the 35mm slide scans out to
>> a stock photo house in Colorado. The owner of the stock photo house
>> sent him an email after receiving the first batch of samples telling
>> him to dump the company doing the scanning work as they had not a
>> clue what they were doing. The images had color banding issues, color
>> noise and the color balance was way off. The images looked fine on my
>> computer CRT display (which I thought was a good one at the time) and
>> on my client's Apple Mac display. We were both scratching our heads.
>> I invested in an Eizo Coloredge color monitor and calibration
>> hardware/software and as soon as we dialed in the monitor and put
>> some of the samples up on the display we were both embarrassed and
>> shocked at what we saw.
>> I guess where I'm going with this is, if you only have a small
>> collection of slides and want a really good quality scan, you're
>> better off sending them out. Then again, if you want to have the
>> capability of a decent/good scanner and like working with images it's
>> important to know that a good scanner is only part of the equation.
>> Your scans will only be as good as, not only what the scanner can
>> deliver, but how you can see/view the data and how the entire chain
>> is calibrated, so that you can make accurate adjustments. Throw in
>> some time for a learning curve and it's definitely rewarding on the
>> back end.
>> One last bit of advice for people looking to get into scanning
>> images. First, come up with a plan and do a lot of testing before you
>> actually begin any scanning project. Richard's post noted a lot of
>> details about file format type, resolutions and bit depths. Obviously
>> he took careful consideration of what type of file formats and
>> settings he was using for his project. You don't want to get half way
>> into the project to find out you should have been scanning to some
>> other option or different setting. The second is the importance of
>> keeping one set of original raw (as in untouched) scans without
>> adjustment. That way if you find you want to go back to the original
>> because adjustments you made to the scan were less than perfect, you
>> can. Third, after making any adjustments to an image, you want to
>> back the adjustments off slightly. When you look at an image and make
>> adjustments, persistence of vision comes into play. The longer you
>> sit there and stare an an image, the more acceptable your changes
>> become to your eyes. Even with professionals - I too-often see
>> oversharpening, oversaturation, over compensation. Most often less is
>> more (and better).
>> Happy scanning!
>> John Schroth
>> Media Transfer Service, LLC
>> On 9/18/2012 11:36 AM, Carl wrote:
>>> I've been doing film scanning for over a decade; not professionally,
>>> but seriously. With both the LS-30 and Coolscan 4000, Vuescan worked
>>> great and I join the chorus in recommending it. Best $80 I've ever
>>> spent on sw.
>>> If this isn't an ongoing pursuit, I'd take John's message seriously
>>> and send them out. There is a learning curve, which could take 200
>>> images to climb. Most of my stuff is on color negative, which is
>>> more challenging than slides, as you have no reference for color
>>> balance. But, slides can also be tough as the narrower contrast
>>> range of print or screen display requires interpretation. That takes
>>> time and practice. Add to that the effort of perfecting a scanning
>>> workflow, which can vary in its details from one system platform to
>>> another, and the time adds up significantly. A cheap scanner that
>>> won't handle the higher densities will multiply your editing time
>>> and potential frustration. Working with pictures in Photoshop (or
>>> whatever) is great fun, but scanning isn't!
>>> Carl (John, I'm a fellow Rochesterian)
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: John Schroth <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Sep 18, 2012 10:22 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days?
>>>> Hello Tom:
>>>> Part of my business includes slide scanning services. Here's my
>>>> If you only have 200 slides, this is a very small amount. If you
>>>> want to get a good quality scan, and you don't feel you'll be
>>>> scanning a
>>>> ton of slides in the future - send the slide out to a service for
>>>> scanning. The time and money you will spend trying to fit out
>>>> hardware/software and testing will not be worth it. If you will be
>>>> more scanning in the future and/or you still want to get a scanner,
>>>> read below:
>>>> I've tried and tested many options. I have not found any flatbed
>>>> scanners to be acceptable for scanning small format transparencies,
>>>> including 35mm slides. Flatbeds just can't match small gauge dedicated
>>>> CCD imaging. I have a Epson VM-750 pro flatbed and any transparency
>>>> scans in or near the 35mm size class does not look nearly as good as
>>> >from a dedicated small format transparency scanner. A company in town
>>>> that also offers slide scanning services uses a very high-end flatbed
>>>> scanner for slides and they still look crappy. You just can't get the
>>>> resolution and density range.
>>>> I agree with Randy - For the money, based on your needs as you
>>>> below, if you're looking for better than a flatbed, the Nikon Coolscan
>>>> 5000 with the bulk film loader offers the best quality. The 5000
>>>> was the
>>>> only one to take a bulk film loader. With all my testing, the only
>>>> option that scans at better quality than the Nikon is Hasselblad but
>>>> you're looking at a price point of more than $10,000 over the cost of
>>>> the Nikon, for minimal gains only at very high resolution scans. The
>>>> unfortunate issue is that Nikon stopped making these units, they
>>>> are not
>>>> available new, and can only be found used. I've had several contacts I
>>>> know buy the used Nikon 5000's on Ebay, as long as the seller
>>>> the item, the buyer was protected. Both of the units that I know of
>>>> were purchased through Ebay worked out fine. I believe you can
>>>> still get
>>>> the bulk loader attachment through B&H Photo.
>>>> I know of one person who has purchased a Pacific Imaging Powerslide
>>>> 5000. They say that the bulk loading mechanism jams (though so too
>>>> the Nikon bulk loader - but I've worked out modifications to this
>>>> and it
>>>> works fairly reliably now). They said that the quality of the scans
>>>> the Powerslide were good and they were pleased with the end results,
>>>> though they were not a professional scanning service with a discerning
>>>> eye and a really good monitor, so I'm not sure how the quality
>>>> to the Nikon. My guess is that the Nikon is better.
>>>> The Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Pacific Imaging Powerslide 5000 are
>>>> only two scanners that I know of that have good-excellent ratings that
>>>> can handle bulk slide scanning.
>>>> There is no type of software that I know of that offers "good"
>>>> for automatic, accurate exposure and color balance during the scan.
>>>> Believe me, if there was, I'd be using it - as I get many projects
>>>> through the door that are several thousand slides. The bottom line,
>>>> really have to "touch" each slide in Photoshop after the scan to
>>>> accurately represent exposure and color balance. The closest I can
>>>> to an automated adjustment is using Viewscan pro software and
>>>> setting up
>>>> for an automatic white balance setting, with a safe/conservative fixed
>>>> adjustment for the white and black points so that both the top and
>>>> bottom point of the histogram are not clipped during the scan. Then
>>>> can batch process the scans in Photoshop using auto color correct
>>>> adjustment only, then using a 25-30% fade on the adjustment as part of
>>>> the batch scan. This will get you close. Even at that, I still
>>>> prefer to
>>>> make all my adjustments by hand and not batch process anything.
>>>> The best scanning software you can get is Viewscan. It will work with
>>>> almost any scanner and offers many more options for your scanner than
>>>> the native GUI will. I can't say enough about this software and the
>>>> support they have after the sale.
>>>> Let me know if you have any additional questions.
>>>> John Schroth
>>>> Media Transfer Service, LLC
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date:
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5275 - Release Date: 09/18/12