You guys who take such a disciplined approach are wise. I just hacked away at it until I liked what I saw. But then it is just for me, and the archival asset is ultimately the film itself, which will be unceremoniously trashed after my demise. As someone mentioned, one of the beauties of Vuescan is the RAW function. It will store just the sensor's output, plus ICE cleaning for those films where it works. You can have Vuescan 'scan' the raw tiff file to process the rough color correction, leaving the fine tuning to Photoshop. It will save in DNG format, for processing in Lightroom, but I haven't figured that out sufficiently. There is also a Fine setting (not just for Tom), which I found necessary to avoid banding effects on my LS-8000. That might be more a problem on negatives than on positives. It slows the scanning down, but I use 2000 dpi rather than 4000, which compensates somewhat. Haven't needed the max resolution for my little ink jet prints or Web displays. When first learning about digital imaging, I got a lot of help from the tutorials published by Norman Koren. They may be a bit out of date now, but the info should still be valid. www.normankoren.com/#Tutorials He is also a fine electronics engineer. I built his PAS preamp design last spring and it sounds terrific. www.normankoren.com/Audio/ There - I've brought the thread around to sound. -----Original Message----- >From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Sep 18, 2012 3:48 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 35mm slide scanner -- what's good these days? > >Hi, John, > >Thanks for the kind words about my approach. I spent a fair amount of >time picking Sue Bigelow's brain. She is the digital conservator for the >CIty of Vancouver (BC) Archives and attended one of my tape restoration >seminars. We've talked to each other many times about a wide variety of >preservation/digitization issues. > >Perhaps the best advice Sue gave me was to study some of Tim Vitale's >papers as they provide insight into the capabilities of film-lens >combinations. My decisions were based on a compromise of the original >film quality, the subject/technique of broad categories of originals, >the potential use of some of the images, and the pure math behind it. At >one point, I shot a bunch of Ektachrome 400 intermixed with a heap of >Kodachrome 25. Obviously, those were separated out and we had different >scanner presets for each. > >http://vitaleartconservation.com/PDFgallery.htm > >In particular > >http://vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/estimating_historic_image_resolution_v9.pdf >http://vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/film_grain_resolution_and_perception_v24.pdf >and possibly >http://vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/digital_image_file_formats_n_storage_v20a.pdf >and there are some others > >Cheers, > >Richard > >On 2012-09-18 2:30 PM, John Schroth wrote: >> >> 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. > >-- >Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask] >Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX >http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm >Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.