Posted Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:18PM
/Guess it's time to report results of my JaincoTech scans. I sent in 23 slides on Aug 25th and got them back 3 weeks later on Sept 19th. Was out of town when they arrived so that accounts for part of the delay in this report. I had the 35mm slides scanned in Ohio for $207. The guy at JaincoTech wanted to charge me $10 to put that amount on my credit card but I infomed him that is was illegal to charge a fee to use a credit card in California so he waved the fee. If you aren't in California, you might want to write a check which they don't charge a fee for. I sent them in using my FedEx account saver service there for $11.07 and 2 day service return for $15.81 from California. I printed and enclosed the return shipping label (charged to my FedEx account) and linked the shipping labels both ways for tracking. Return shipping by this method can't be done at the saver rate. So, in all it cost me $10. 17 per slide including shipping.
I shipped a blank recordable DVD with the slides. I used all of the defaults on the istock form. 300dpi/50mb/8-bit per channel/Adobe RGB (1998)/ dust spotting 100%/unsharpened. I asked for the scans to be returned as jpg but they came back as tif which I can deal with. My version of Photoshop was apparently excepting a color profile other than Adobe RGB (1998) and kept asking me if that was the one I wanted. I just clicked yes and continued. I don't know if I set something in Photoshop or if JaincoTech uses an old color profile.
Here are the results so far. Not knowing how many or if any of the scans would be accepted by istock, I chose a variety of slides that I wanted digitized anyway. They tend to be on the artsy side. Most were ASA100 film but were Kodachrome, Ectachome and Sensia. Previously I had had prints made from some of the slides and then scanned the prints on an Epson Stylus Scann 2500. About half of these were accepted by istock at a medium size. The two mealworm images show the old and new scans. Other scans that replaced previous images are the snail, corn vorticella, brothers, and fish. New scans include the sampans, pelicans, submarine, snow plant and girl. One is even a 1947 slide that my father-in-law took of his father combining oats. It came out really well and I will upload it as soon as I get a copyright assignment and model release (his father is deceased) from him. So stop back later and see if it is accepted.
Now for my impressions. First, I was shocked by the grain even in ASA 100 film! It looked just like really bad artifacting. Now I see why film originals go to a separate inspector. The inspector was very helpful. Much to my suprise, every image except one that I have uploaded so far has been accepted by istock. The one that was not accepted was out of focus on the original slide and I knew that it was. And guess what, it was still out of focus after scanning, hehe! Two of the photos were taken with a camera and lens 15 years ago that produced very soft photos -- the girl and the snow plant. The inspector asked me to reduce the size to large to help sharpen them up and the images were then accepted. I specifically included the sampans and submarine because the photos were taken in low light (fog) and even those were accepted. Yeah! cause I love them both (remember I said these tended to be artsy).
(Edited on 2006-10-13 21:31:05 by NNehring)
(Edited on 2006-10-13 21:38:29 by NNehring)
(Edited on 2006-10-13 21:39:52 by NNehring)
(Edited on 2006-10-13 21:40:26 by NNehring)
(Edited on 2006-10-13 21:45:38 by NNehring)
Posted Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:42PM
I checked couple of images and they seem fine to me, noise vise.