highscore
Hi everyone
I want to scan my negatives and set up an archive.
I’m currently looking for an archiving programme with a comprehensive search function.
In other words, the ability to enter multiple search terms, time frames, etc. at the same time.
I’m not looking for a programme with sophisticated image editing features.
I can always use Photoshop for that.
Free or shareware would be ideal.
I’d rather spend my money on film and paper.
My scanner: Epson V200, unfortunately only suitable for 35mm.
(I usually scan at 600 dpi)
Regards
Marcus
Renate
Hello,
I had the same idea once, but I gave it up ages ago. It’s all terribly time-consuming, and the software has far too short a lifespan to be worth archiving. That goes for both freeware and paid software. When I’m looking for a photo, I just flick through the contact sheets. It’s quicker and more effective.
Best regards,
Renate
Urnes
Hello,
I have to agree with Renate; just to find a single negative in one of the folders (and at 600 dpi, that’s all it can be), the digital management is too much of a hassle. I’ve tried scanning just the contact prints before, but whenever I was looking for something, I’d always just pull the folder out straight away. The negatives are sorted both by year and by format (35mm, medium format, large format), with the contact print at the front and the negatives behind it. I remember most of the pictures well enough that I just grab the folder. It does depend on the number of pictures, though. Obviously, for my high-resolution scans and digital image files, I use a database.
If you’re looking for a cheap solution, I’d try XnView. You’ll have to fill in the IPCT tag for each file manually, though. The tool is very fast both as a simple image viewer – i.e. opening a directory and displaying images – and as a search engine. As a paid solution, I’d recommend ACDSee. It does have the odd issue when dealing with large image files (200 MB). But when it comes to organising and searching through JPEGs, it’s brilliant, especially as you don’t have to import the files first.
Regards, Sven.
Bonderer
With my 1,300–1,400 contact sheets, how long would it take to scan them all? It would take far longer than I have left to live.
Looking through the contact sheets is the easier and quicker option. That way, if I’m looking for something specific, I know roughly where to find it.
Don’t be put off by the sheer volume – for more than 40 years, 99.5% of it has been black and white. But with that amount, I’ve long since lost track of it all. However, it covers almost my entire life, so looking through the contact sheets seems the better option to me.
highscore
Yes, 1,400 contacts? Even 30 photos per sheet would be far too many for me.
€
My aim is to scan the 5–10% of usable negatives. These are the ones I like and might want to print out again at some point.
I don’t want to have to spend hours searching for these specific ones.
The residue is unimportant.
I also like to cross out any negatives I don’t like with a permanent marker when I’m going through them.
Often, not much is left of a strip of negatives anyway.
mattes
It’s a great thing to have something like that.
You don’t necessarily need to scan the negatives to create an archive; you can even manage without contact sheets.
It’s all down to organisation and discipline.
First of all, you need to think about what you want to achieve.
Some people make notes about every picture immediately after taking it.
If the film is then linked to the notes via a reference number, you have an archive.
This works even without any technology at all; a notebook or a card index box is sufficient. Much like in a library, you can perfect the whole thing with a keyword catalogue.
You can do the whole thing electronically using a database programme.
I file my negatives in a folder and label them with a number consisting of the date and a reference number.
Everything else falls into the ‘someday’ category.
Mattes
highscore
Mattes
Yes, that’s pretty much what I had in mind too.
It’s just that I lack the discipline for a purely text-based system with folders and contact sheets and so on.
But I reckon that with a keyword search function—where you can enter several search terms plus an optional time frame—and then view the image results, I’ll be able to find what I’m looking for quickly.
I’d just like to be able to achieve this with a piece of software.
But in principle, anything that works is fine.
Marcus
Wolf_XL
...my honest advice – forget it... Something like that only stands a chance if you start from scratch – otherwise you’ll be busy documenting things 24 hours a day. So don’t even try to catalogue your old negatives; instead, set yourself a cut-off date from which you want to start cataloguing your negatives in a database. There are plenty of programmes available for this purpose – pick one. But please don’t make the mistake of trying to tackle your problem with an Excel spreadsheet or similar – that’s guaranteed to go pear-shaped at some point... A relational database would be my preferred choice – i.e. film details in the main table – linking individual image contents to the main table via relationships. If necessary, specify the individual subject areas in further relational tables. After that, it’s relatively easy to find the photos you’re looking for via a query.
mattes
Why forget?
That sort of thing is the perfect New Year’s resolution.
If you spend your time maintaining a film database instead of consuming media, you’ll have
plenty of time for other things.
Matthias
Urnes
Yes, but you’ve got to start somewhere… and you can do it with Notebook 1.0 (i.e. on plain paper). Put the negatives in sleeves, one film per sleeve. Place the contact print on top. Then sort them into folders by year. Then number the sleeves and contact sheets. You can also stick a note on them or pop a yellow slip of paper inside if you want to find something quickly. Each folder now gets an index sheet with the sequential numbers of the negative sleeves, the date (month and year are usually enough) and the location or event (one or two words are sufficient). If you’ve shot 10 rolls of film at an event, they’re grouped together. Negatives that get forgotten are given the number of the sheet preceding them in time, plus a letter. I reckon I’ve got about 10,000 analogue photos. A folder holds about 100 negative sleeves with contact sheets. But I actually have all the important pictures in my head. When I’m looking for negatives for a project, I grab the folders and sit on the sofa, flick through the contact sheets and mark the pictures with sticky notes or a coloured pen. That way, you can also note down cropping details straight away. It’s definitely more convenient than sorting everything out on the computer.
Regards, Sven.
Morte
My brief contribution on the subject:
I number my negative sleeves (1 sleeve = 5–6 35mm strips = 1 film) using a six-digit number based on the following format: 150503. 15 stands for the year (in this case 2015), 05 for the month (in this case May) and 03 for the third film of that month. I assume that I won’t shoot more than 99 films per month. I write this number vertically in the top left-hand corner of the negative sleeve (no problem with glassine; for acetate, I have some with a paper edge for filing, or a paper sticker if necessary). Next to that, I note the film, the developer (with the dilution if applicable) and the development time. If I push or pull the film, I note it like this: Tri-X 400@1600. Below that, a brief note on the location or subject, e.g. “Sanssouci Palace”. The date is unnecessary, as it’s clear from the negative number.
I file the sleeve, labelled in this way, into an ADOX negative folder. Any contact prints I’ve made are labelled in the same way and filed in front of the sleeve.
I’ve got into the habit of scanning all my negatives. That way, I always have a high-quality digital contact print. If my hard drive ever crashes, I have the negatives as a backup. Each roll of film gets its own folder, which in turn is given the same number and label as the negative, e.g. “150503 Tri-X 400 A49 Roll 9min Sanssouci Palace”. It’s quite a long name, but that doesn’t matter; the main thing is that the serial number comes first. This way, the folders are automatically organised in the correct chronological order. I create, archive and organise everything using Adobe Bridge (part of the Creative Suite), which I also use to view my scanned negatives and, if necessary, open them for editing in Camera Raw or Photoshop. I hardly ever use Windows Explorer to view or open images anymore.
Adobe Bridge also has the advantage of featuring an image magnifier, as well as functions for tagging, batch renaming, 5-star rating, PDF creation, favourites, search, and so on. I’ve been doing this for several years now and find it works very well for me. When I select a photo in Bridge for processing in the darkroom, I can find the negative very quickly in the negative folder using the negative number, which is identical to the image’s folder number.
Rolf-Werner
My advice: just get started and see where it takes you. You might need to tweak your approach a few times until you find what works best for you.
€
If you’ve got digital data anyway (from a digital camera), tagging is easier than with negative scans, as the cameras already enter all sorts of data themselves. However, it may be that the scanning interface already offers something you can enter, and then continues with that? With numbers.
€
But as the software – as mentioned here at the start – is constantly evolving and the data may need to be converted to new formats later on, I’ve simply set up a backup hard drive with a simple folder structure: A three-digit number, i.e. 001, 002, etc., and a description. This gives me a chronological order and then simply the images by number, just as the camera delivered them. You could do the same with the scans.
€
However, I work with Linux, and there are programmes available for that too, but due to the concerns mentioned above, I don’t use them for this either. I prefer to work directly at the file level with folders; that’s guaranteed to be more durable. To pick out individual images, I then use a viewer such as Gwenview or sometimes just the file manager’s preview function.
€
Otherwise, I agree with the previous posters: a contact sheet is 1000 times clearer; you really need a large screen to achieve that. On the other hand, contact prints aren’t really that sharp to make out details, and the exposure isn’t adjusted either. Individual high-resolution scans combined with a thumbnail and balanced exposure would sometimes be quite handy.
€
It’s all down to how you do it... ;)
€
Best regards
Rolf
highscore
Hi everyone,
Thanks so much for all the tips and advice.
I’ve now started working on my archive.
And I’m gradually scanning my 35mm film
I’ll need a different scanner for my medium format.
As I personally consider contact printing a waste of photo paper,
I just print an index sheet on my printer. It’s just for the overview!
Many thanks
Marcus
Rolf-Werner
Hi everyone
As I personally think contact printing is a waste of photo paper,
I just print an index sheet on my printer. It’s just to get an overview!
Many thanks
Marcus
?
If I were going to scan it anyway, I’d do it that way too – you’re absolutely right.
?
Best regards,
Rolf
