Is There Anything More Boring Than Scanning??

[Keith]

Scanning is not too bad... You can scan and read simultaneously. Or, if you can't stand to stop reading every few pages to scan the next frame, just waste more time on RFF while the scans are going.

I must admit ... scanning is definitely good RFF time! 😀

 

[muser53]

[vent]

I'm scanning about 1000 frames of 35mm with my Coolscan V ED, one little strip at a time.

Good Lord, this is tedious.

[/vent]

Reminds me of something Jack Lanne recently admitted. Something to the effect that "I dislike going to the gym but I love the results!"

 

[Steve M.]

The only thing worse is probably inkjet printing.

I used to hate it too, and I admit that the amount of negs you want to scan is mind boggling, but after years of doing this I realized the problem was me, not the scanning. Now I crank up some Talking Heads or The Meters, keep a window open on the computer so I can bop around to my favorite web sites, and it's not too bad. But just sitting there watching the thing scan....that's torture.

Having said that, my newest love is sending Kodak C41 B&W negs to Walgreens for 1 hr development and CD scans, spend 20 minutes or so Photoshoping them at home, then sending the files to Winkflash or Snapfish for enlargements (if I'm lucky enough to have any keepers). Now photography is fun again because it's so fast and easy, and the results are quite nice.

 

[ebino]

Yes. Loading up a Leica M camera. 🙂

 

[sleepyhead]

About a year ago, I started scannoing my archive of about 1000 rolls of film, dating back to 1977.
A mix of color and black and white, slide and negative, 35mm and 120.
A daunting task, but I started wjen I noticed some of my slides going mouldy and the colors shifting.
First I made an excel spreadsheet row for eaach roll with some basic information. Now I'm doing the scanning, about 1 roll per week (on average) due to lack of free time, starting with the most vulnarable color materials first.
So this will take me years to complete at the current rate. I hope to have more time once my kids grow up a bit.
As mentioned above, I put a considerable amount of the time into evaluating the frames and deciding which are worth scanning. The number of keepers per roll varies widely depending on if the roll was of friends/family or one of my "artistic efforts".
I try to multitask and listen to music at the same time. The results are worth it. I love film and still generate plenty of new "scanner fodder" each year. This is all part of a process, steps taken within a life-long hobby.
If you really can't get into some kind of groove with it, then I agree with posters above - it may make sense for you to migrate to digital capture.
Good luck in any case.

 

[flip]

I advise you get that barnack that takes like 100 feet of film. Should scan easily on a nikon 5000.

To answer your question: watching film dry is tedious.

 

[bensyverson]

As I said earlier, I'm not actually scanning 1000 frames. (It's just short of 1000.) While I am feeding everything into the scanner, I'm only scanning every third or fourth frame. I am letting the scanner preview each frame. That's my choice over a lightbox and a loupe, and is quick and pain free.

Whoops -- I missed your earlier response to that! Anyway, fair enough, though I do wonder how quick and pain-free this could really be.

I've been scanning each negative sheet on a flatbed as a contact sheet and then using that to pick my selects for film scanning. I tend to scan only four or five frames per 36 exp roll. So my keeper ratio is not too great!

 

[robert blu]

I make a low resolution scan for each film, it takes less than one hour, I import it in LR, anmake some adjustement and print contact sheet for archival purpose. I can also print 4 images on an A4 paper for generic use (friends or relatives etc). Looking on the monitor at which image is a real keeper (if any), of which I make a real high resolution scan. Beside my monitor I have two loudspeakers and listening to radio or good music makes scanning a relaxing moment. Of course it would be different if I had to scan too many frames...
robert

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I must admit ... scanning is definitely good RFF time! 😀

mmm!......'out of the frying pan - into the fire' - lately! 😉

 

[umboody]

Because I only scan one roll per session (because that's usually the amount I develop and shoot in a week), it's not too bad. I find other stuff to do at the same time.

 

[wgerrard]

Whoops -- I missed your earlier response to that! Anyway, fair enough, though I do wonder how quick and pain-free this could really be.

No problem. The "quick and pain free" part is generating the image preview. Using Vuescan, the Coolscan V ED takes 15-20 seconds to put up a good-size preview image. The Nikon software can display a row of multiple preview images, but they're thumbnails. I like the much larger size from Vuescan. If I decide to scan the image, that, obviously, takes longer. Typically, I'll switch over to PS while that's going on.

Because these are holiday snaps for others to look at, I'm over-selecting for scanning. With one roll left, I've scanned about 300 frames. I'll cull many more of those. Culling after scanning might be seen as a waste of time, but I prefer making that decision based on looking at a large file.

If I cranked out these numbers on a regular basis, I'd certainly opt for a scanner with an automated feed, or just use digital.

 

[caila77]

quick answer.....
shopping centre......