Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a lot of slides that I have scanned with a good scanner and at an excellent resolution. I tried to send them but, with some exceptions, they are rejected for focus or noise or grain.
For some it was quite shareable but for others it was not.
It is natural that the scan file, if brought to 200%, shows some traces of imperfect sharpness but this is due to the grain of the slide itself. And they are slides 50 or at most 100 ASA!
Furthermore, if they are prior to 1990, they must have a release and certification that are owned by me, but it is not clear where to make this release on editorial content!
I am sending some examples. In my opinion they have no serious focus or grain defects but maybe I'm wrong!
Can anyone help me with some advice?

Perù-252.jpg

Perù-057.jpg

Turchia microst-1.jpg

Turchia microst-10.jpg

Turchia microst-5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For film standards, I think those images are perfectly acceptable. For modern digital standards, they are not as far as stock goes.

As a matter of fact, I think the scans look very good (not for MS)  Did you try running them through Topaz Sharpen AI and Denoise AI?

What scanner and resolution did you use? and what software? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have tried various solutions. Currently I have used a good level Epson flatbed scanner with dedicated and specific software technology for slides. I have scanned with various resolutions, from relatively low (600) to very high (3600 4800) and at various file sizes, just to look for the maximum possible definition. The scans are all passed through Lightroom for white balance, spots, noise and little else. I also tried using the Nikcollection applications.
The problem is that it is not about noise, but about film grain which can only be decreased by lowering contrast and sharpness.
I also tried to produce large files with high resolution and then resize them downwards to try to get better sharpness. The result is the usual: very good compared to the original slide and excellent for presentations and projections, but poor absolute definition if enlarged to 200/300%.
To tell the truth some scans have been accepted but I think it is more of an oversight by the auditor than a real acceptance.
I try to continue experimenting but I am quite resigned to negative results. Too bad because I have an archive that I do not think badly and that I would have liked, not so much to "sell" (fortunately it is not my job) but to share images that otherwise remain in a drawer.
I accept all kinds of advice. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 6:50 PM, Stefano Barzellotti said:

I have a lot of slides that I have scanned with a good scanner and at an excellent resolution. I tried to send them but, with some exceptions, they are rejected for focus or noise or grain.
For some it was quite shareable but for others it was not.
It is natural that the scan file, if brought to 200%, shows some traces of imperfect sharpness but this is due to the grain of the slide itself. And they are slides 50 or at most 100 ASA!
Furthermore, if they are prior to 1990, they must have a release and certification that are owned by me, but it is not clear where to make this release on editorial content!
I am sending some examples. In my opinion they have no serious focus or grain defects but maybe I'm wrong!
Can anyone help me with some advice?

Hi Stefano, I've submitted images like these and have found they will accept the poorer quality. But you have to make sure of a few things. The quality of some of mine are not as good as yours. You will have to take into account that they are rejecting a lot more for focus and noise generally now though. They may not accept mine if I submitted them now, I don't know.
Here's my vintage slides set if it helps to see my descriptions etc https://www.shutterstock.com/g/LindaBestwick/sets/130876723

So, I'd suggest making it clear in your description that these are scanned from slides. This way both the reviewer and potential buyer are going to know the quality will be different from pin sharp clear digital images. Also if not editorial, where a date must be included, make sure you make it clear it's genuine vintage content, again so the reviewer and buyer are aware what is being offered.

Make sure the content of the images is worth a buyer accepting lower quality. There's no point submitting a vintage image of a dandelion for example, if it has some historical interest, like a coastline that has changed shape, buildings that are no longer there, people in vintage fashions, etc etc they are worth any minor quality issues they may have. 

Personally I'd say don't overdo the editing. Let them look vintage because that's what they are, trying to make them look perfect as if taken yesterday just isn't going to work. They are different creatures and need embracing as such imo. Get them as best as you can, just don't go too far.

All vintage content needs a property release as you've found out. And you still need it for editorial vintage content too. As you can't attach releases to editorial content you have to do it like this... by preparing a release and sending it to submit@shutterstock.com BEFORE you submit the images. You need to wait until they reply with a case number. You then use the drop down box on the image submission page and paste in the case number, then submit the images. This shows the reviewer the release has been accepted for the image.
It should be straight forward, but sometimes support doesn't understand what they are supposed to be doing, just be persistent. If you get really stuck PM me and I'll give you the wording I used to make them understand what was being asked for. Hopefully they've improved on that front by now though!

Good luck :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stefano Barzellotti said:

The problem is that it is not about noise, but about film grain which can only be decreased by lowering contrast and sharpness.
 

I realize it is grain. 90% of my work is still on film with vintage cameras that I scan.  I would try Topaz Denoise Ai anyway, you will be amazed. I would also try Topaz Sharpening AI. With scanning on a flatbed, you lose some of the original sharpness that you can get back with sharpening AI. (unless you wetscan in lighter fluid, but I assume you didn't do that.)

The other option, and might be the best one for your purpose, is not to scan at all, but digitize them with a DSLR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Linda and thanks Rudi.

Everything you said is true. Unfortunately, apart from a few exceptions, the quality of detail and focus of the old 35 mm slides is almost always this. It is certainly not comparable to digital and if the large format (film 120) was used for commercial photography, there is a reason.
However, just and perhaps only for editorial content and informing the buyer well and clearly, many interesting shots made in a non-digital era could become available and whose contents could be valid and useful for many uses, especially for use on the web or in the event that there is no need to have very large dimensions. Many of these shots are no longer achievable because the photographed subject simply no longer exists.
A suggestion for Shutterstock, or some other MS agency: why not create a "historical" archive, of inferior quality certainly but with contents that could be interesting and useful for a clientele, which I could estimate, quite large?

P.S. for Linda. With the slide that I enclose I tried to indicate in the description that it is a 35mm slide. No way!!

Marocco corr-1000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to submitscanned slides but were rejected for grain noise yet were accepted on alamy even when I first started there. Maybe SS don't accept film photography due to lower resolution compared to even point & shoot digital cameras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tony. Surely the reason is this. On the other hand, even with very high resolution scans, the problem of grain and perfect focus, or better of the precision of the details, is not easily accessible especially considering the films used.
In those days it was not possible to take long journeys and tough places to 50 ASA films which, moreover, were very sensitive to the heat.
Another possibilty that SS is played. Besides, the problem of sending new images to SS for the moment does not affect me. I am waiting for the payment, if at 0.10 I will make it in non-biblical times, and then I will see what to do.
They just accepted me on Getty but it's not that the situation is better. Honestly, I no longer want to waste time with microstocks. I will photograph only for myself and to create slideshows to send to friends.
A greeting and thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2020 at 2:22 PM, Rudy Umans said:

I realize it is grain. 90% of my work is still on film with vintage cameras that I scan.  I would try Topaz Denoise Ai anyway, you will be amazed. I would also try Topaz Sharpening AI. With scanning on a flatbed, you lose some of the original sharpness that you can get back with sharpening AI. (unless you wetscan in lighter fluid, but I assume you didn't do that.)

The other option, and might be the best one for your purpose, is not to scan at all, but digitize them with a DSLR 

Topaz Denoise AI is a good investment. If you look around you can find a review that also offers 15% discount. I finally got acceptable quality from old 35mm and larger slide films by doing the following: Used my Nikon D800 (already had this), bought the latest Tamron 90mm macro...it really is sharp, shot everything on a lightbox with diffused/indirect flash, used Topaz DeNoise AI on the RAW files (takes a few minutes per file on my i7 4th gen laptop), finish in PS-CC and manually spot and clean and finally save at around 10-12MP instead of 36Mp.

Just before the 10 cent announcement, I uploaded a few files of which all were accepted. These are all from 35mm slides (Usually FujiRDP100) taken on an Olympus OM2 camera.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/old-wooden-bench-tourist-village-overlooking-1734462674

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hillside-beauty-spot-ancient-wooden-bench-1734452810

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/seaside-cafe-terrace-tables-chairs-empty-1734455621

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/empty-rails-converging-perspective-alpine-ski-1734443378

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cooked-king-prawns-on-bed-lettuce-1734448094

I got better results using Topaz on the RAW files but you do need to be patient unless you have a really fast computer..

Edited by stevemart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...