I suspect that this is a question without any definitive answer. I guess it comes down to what you want from the result but however the job is approached, ALWAYS save the original file to go back to. I had a project a while back to digitise a set of glass negatives from an important excavation from the early nineteenth century. The negs. had been processed in a tent in the field displaying damage that had obviously been done while wet, plus fingerprints and various other marks. On top of that there was considerable 'silvering' due to storage over the subsequent generations, to say nothing of varying density due to over or under development. The time that would have to be spent bringing these back to the photographers original vision, would have been immense so I adopted a policy of just removing marks created during the digitisation process and evening out exposures. When time allowed I went a bit further with a variant and with the assistance of Michael Brown from the University of Singapore, achieved some quite good results in reducing the effect of the 'silvering' 

I shot each neg. on a lightbox with a Hasselblad 500CW, 100 mm macro lens and Phase One P45 back.

Would be glad to talk further on this subject if anyone is interested.

Many thanks.



This message comes from...

Ivor Kerslake

Photography and Imaging Manager

The British Museum



Tel. (0044) 02073238635 





-----Original Message-----

From: AHFAP, for image professionals in the UK cultural heritage sector [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hugh Gilbert

Sent: 22 March 2014 19:27

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Scanning slides / digital ICE technology



This is an interesting subject... 



Over the last year I've been 'inflicted' with slides from people who want me to either restore recover or generate new files from old trannies and black and white negs.  



So far I've found the best solutions have been drum scanning and the old flexitite/Hasselblad machines.  However for most work I'm finding that copying film negs and transparencies works well with my 120 macro on the Hasselblad, or the 100 macro lens on a Canon 5D, for most things this allows an enlargement to 60x60 cm or so.  I shoot straight on to a flash that has been snooted and has a perspex face... a home made rig, but works well.



Black and white negs, and colour negs, I use Robin Myers bit of B&W calibrated film to give me an accurate starting point for exposure.  



Trannies have usually deteriorated... colour shift and grime.  Recently I was asked to re-create a famous Stones Album cover (by the photographer who shot it, the original digital file was the subject of some dispute) from five reject 10x8 trannies taken at the same time.  Scuffed grubby and very magenta.  these were drum scanned and then I worked on digital copies, and the results were used as a edition of 36 x 40" prints.



Artists often have collections of slides, which are usually not very good in the first place.  Having been stored in sleeves for 30/40 years, they become really rather messy, I've found the best thing to do is to make a good first copy and then ask the artist in to help direct the colour correction on a second.  I know it is not accurate, but it will be better than what was there in the first place, and at least has the artist to sanction it.



I've just had a whole bunch of transparencies from the 'rock scene' delivered this last week, 'to see what I can do with them', and using them as an 'artistic' starting point, there is often quite a lot that can be done that eventually reveals saleable prints.



However, always the original untouched digital copy is saved, and can be reverted to when needed.  



Finally Digital Ice I find is a bit clunky and removes detail that might be needed.  



Interesting to hear how others deal with slides/negs and trannies.







Best to all from that industrial little studio in Battesea, SW London





Hugh