|
|
 |
Looking for more? Register your free account
to get posting access to thousands of topics.
JOIN TODAY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
bkessler
AGG Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Loveland, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Thu Sep 18th, 2008 05:14 pm |
|
Today I threw all my duplcate slides into the trash! We had hundreds of them to send to clients or prospective clients (architects, designers, etc). I kept the originals, but put them into archived storage. Everything is digital now: CDs, DVDs, email & web-based.
There was some discussion a long time ago about the future of slides for documentation. We only shoot digital now; film is dead... for us, at least!
I could still see a need for B&W prints for TRUE archival purposes, but I doubt that anyone will have ready access to a slide projector in a generation from now. I haven't touched mine in years, and finally stuck it in the attic. My kids can wonder at what it is and what it was used for after I am dead & gone!!
I have digitaized everything I want for the stained glass work, but all my vacation slides (25+ years worth)..............<sigh>.
|
Roberto
AGG Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
The use of slide film in definitely in decline and its future is certainly a concern. I have always taken slides, black & white, and in the last 10 years or so, digital with the latter becoming more and more the preferred method of photography. However, I still like to use slide film, and will continue to do so as long as processing is still available. My personal feeling is that what may work in a computer today, may not work 20, 30, 50 years from now. We all remember the "floppy disk's" and little by little, they have become obsolete. Having said that, I absolutely love my digital cameras. I have two Nikon's, D-70 and recently bought myself a D-300. Something to be aware regarding storage and archiving data/images on cd's or dvd's:
For archiving recordable (R) discs, discs that have a gold metal reflective layer are recommended. It's said that with current disks, which are better sealed than they used to be, the use of gold as a reflecting layer is less important than it was, however it certainly doesn't hurt!
For general storage, a temperature between 4°C (39°F) and 20°C (68°F) is recommended with a relative humidity of 20% to 50%
For long term storage, 18°C and 40% RH are recommended.
Also, for archival documentation, one should never use adhesive labels or write on a CD with markers/pens that contain solvents. I use pens with ink that is acid free, waterproof, fade proof and odorless. The name of the pen is "Zig" and is sold at University Products, along with everything else you may need for archival purposes. The bottom line is that it is a very good idea to perform some sort of documentation. Some projects may require more, some less, but we should document our work somehow.
Roberto,
Serpentino Studio
|
bkessler
AGG Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Loveland, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Thu Sep 18th, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
For true archival purposes, B&W prints are the way to go. Done properly, they will far outlast tranparencies (35mm, 120mm, etc). I wonder how long it will be before most folks cannot properly view slides (no projector, no Loupe). I suspect that time has already come.
In the digital age, it will be the responsibility of the imageholder to transfer the data regularly to whatever new media comes along. At least with digital images, that is not too difficult a task.
Your points about labels and disk type are spot on.
|
Krueger
Director
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Bob, How did you digitize your stained glass slides? I am not completely pleased with the slides I had done at a photo shop as they lost some of their "zip". Thanks.
Barbara in Michigan
|
bkessler
AGG Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | Loveland, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Fri Sep 19th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
Hello Barbara:
If you want the best results, you either have to pay for high-quality scanning (meaning a good set of eyeballs using good equipment), or learn to do it yourself. I chose the later, which meant that I had to become proficient at photographing stained glass, digitizing using a dedicated film scanner, and knowing how to tweak the scans in Photoshop to get that "zip."
I don't say this to intimidate, just to forewarn you. I felt it was important (and ultimately more cost-effective) for me to become the "expert" instead of hiring someone else.
To answer your question: A dedicated film scanner should be superior to a flatbed/transparency combo. I started with a Nikon LS-2000 which only does 35mm film and now own a Nikon LS8000 ED which will handle up to 120mm film. Equivalent new scanners, LS5000 & LS9000 cost about $1200 & $2100, respectively. Scanners like mine are readily available on Ebay for much less, but you should assume that you will need to send them to Nikon for cleaning and calibration ($250-500). The scanners come with sophisticated software which has a bit of a learning curve. In some respects you could do all the "tweaking" via the scanner, but Photoshop is a much more versatile tool for than work.
Photoshop is the ultimate photographic tweaking tool. You can do anything needed to bring out the best in your slides with PS. Ther are two drawbacks, however: A steep learning curve and a steep purchase price ($650). There are innumerable tools which can rescue bad scans in PS. Perhaps I should start teaching workshops at the AGG Conferences! There are lots of other programs which claim to do what PS does-- and perhaps some even do live up to that claim. But PS have been the industry standard for ten years and most serious photographers (
and at least one stained glass guy!) think that that is the only way to go.
Last edited on Mon Nov 17th, 2008 06:01 pm by
|
Gene Mallard
AGG Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 05:35 pm |
|
I agree that they probably need to be professionally scanned if you want to digitize your portfolio and get the maximum quality out of your slides. I've had little luck with my own slide scanner in getting anything but the grainiest of images out of them. I look at it this way- it's better than nothing, but it takes a lot of time in Photoshop to get them looking anywhere near presentable.
Nevertheless, Photoshop is great for color correction. One of my biggest problems with slide film, especially Kodak, was that it did not photograph greens very well, green enamel came out as pale brown. I later learned from an article sent to me by a professional photographer friend, that this was a problem that was not just limited to stained glass artists attempting to photograph their own work. So, the Photoshop exercise was well worthwhile from that point of view.
|
Current time is 02:10 pm | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
