Interesting effect, lighter of lamps.

i can see one duck but no ducksnuts

Did we get wet?

I see no ducks.

Nor DucksNuts.

Nuts!

It's called "Bubblicious".:fumette:

A hundred bucks for a little bud of weed? You got ripped off.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/...2d198740df.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/...9594bce536.jpg

very very pretty!

"The Blizzard of '10"

Makes my feet cold looking at that pic. :)

Nice insulation there.

I'm toying around with the idea of digitizing a bunch of old pictures on the cheap and as fast as I can.

This is the result of my first test. It took about 5 minutes, which is way too long. I want to get it down to around 30 seconds per image.

I took the old 110 negative and held it up against a window pane that I had just cleaned. On the storm window outside the window pane, I had taped a sheet of white paper to diffuse the light. Camera with a macro lens was on a tripod. I hand held the negative against the window and took the shot. Then I opened the file in the GIMP and selected the color from the orange border of the negative, pasted that color into a new overlay layer, inverted it, and merged the layers down. Inverted the entire image, and auto equalized the colors and saved the file.

If I knew anything about how to make scripts for the GIMP, I could merge those several steps into one click. Ideally I would have a tool where you click on the orange border, and the color of the image is automatically adjusted.

Anyway, this is my first test. Remember that this is 110 film. About the size of a fingernail. Much smaller than 35mm film, and poor quality. But these old pictures are priceless.

Full sized image (reduced) and a detail at maximum resolution.

I guess you don't have prints of these pictures, only the negatives?

My HP Scanjet has an attachment that holds slides or negatives for scanning. Even that's too slow. :(
Nice family, you should warn them about that pervert with the hood, sneaking up on them.

My parents have some prints, but they are mostly in sad shape and/or in albums with that sticky cling film holding them in place. If I go taking the prints out to scan them, it will take about 2 minutes per print, and then I'll have destroyed a photo album, so I'll have to buy new albums and assemble them.

I'm looking for a way to just quickly take a picture of a negative, shift the negative slightly, and take the next one. I'm hoping for about 5 seconds between taking each picture, and around 30 seconds to process each image.

It's all about speed, otherwise this is going to take forever and will never happen.

So I need to refine the system. But my test proves it's possible. I wasn't sure you could take a picture of a negative and eventually get a positive.

Glatt, I realize you plan to go the DIY and less expensive route,
but if you decide to pay-for-play, the ScanCafe.com has been very good for us with 35 mm slides.
They are currently running a year-end special for $0.21 each on "standard media",
so I assume that would include your 110 negatives.

Here is the website, and the discount code (for today's discount only) is 2010END.
If you don't use it today, just get on their email list and you'll get notices every week of new discounts.

We did over 1300 35mm slides with them from our first 30 yrs of snapshots, when our kids were young.
The great thing about this company is that you send them your materials,
they scan and post on the internet, you review and select only the ones you want.
You can reject up to 50% without penalty, and pay only for the ones you select.
They return everything + a DVD with your selection.

hello glatt--

Speaking as the dwellar least resistant to the DIY urge, I second Lamplighter's advice to do this project using a credit card instead of duct tape and bailing wire. Your fear that it will be too slow and cumbersome to actually complete is valid and you should heed it.

Having said that, here are some links for you:

GIMP scripts, where to get them and how to install them.

some scripts related to inversion

Negative photo scanner

Printing negatives

...ok... Now I have to indulge my inner mad tinkerer.

Your 110 negatives come in a strip, no? And all were taken using the same exposure settings, maybe? Why not use your very same process to photograph more than one exposure at a time? The pressure is to get them into the camera, and you can invert/balance a bunch at a time. In one step you've increased your production rate by 100 or 200 or 300 percent or more.

As for the prints in albums, you can do the same thing. I've faced this problem myself, though I'm too chicken to undertake digitization of my negatives. Just scan the whole page. Then in the editor, you can cut out each individual image.

I hear a potential complaint that by using one camera/scanner image to capture multiple images reduces the net resolution of each image. True. But perhaps unimportant for most of these images. How will these digitized images be enjoyed? For most of my images, just a *fraction* of my camera's full frame resolution would be adequate. Most of my images would be fine at 4x6 or 5x7 printed size, and though I don't know the math off the top of my head, one zillion pixel digital frame could easily deliver, say, four images. Voila! A fourfold increase in production.

Good luck. Don't forget to value your time here. The enjoyment of the images, not the manipulation of the negatives is more important for me.

I appreciate your post, and I also recognize your advice to pay someone to do it as being pretty sound. But I'm also stubborn and cheap.

I have invented a method in my mind that will reduce the picture taking time to a couple of seconds per image, plus the time to load each negative strip of 4-5 images. Loading the strip will take about 15 seconds.

The real time consumer will be the color adjustment in GIMP. I did half a dozen more image tests over the weekend, and can now do one image in about a minute. Still longer than I want, but it's getting better. I'm recreating scanner speeds now. I'm going to play around with your link and see if I can make a tool in GIMP that will speed things up.

My plan is to use my LCD monitor as a consistent light source. I'm going to make a holder for a sheet of glass a few inches in front of the monitor. The idea is that I can slide this whole large sheet of glass sandwich back and forth in the holder so the camera can stay still on a tripod and keep a fixed zoom and fixed focus.

I think taking a picture of each image individually will ultimately be faster than digitally selecting and saving the individual images in GIMP. So that another reason to do it this way.

Gimp should have a white balance tool. PS does in curves. Find the tool, click it on the orange border, then invert colors. The orange border should become white when you clcik it, then black when you invert colors. The appropriate amount of orange should be removed from the other areas of your photo.

Ooh, that looks like it works. Cuts out a few steps too. Nice!

Crazt.

Crazt,
Crazt for feeling so lonelt
I'm crazt,
Crazt for feeling so blue...

:p:

Sonic, from KFC, about two blocks away.

:eek:It got much worse as the day went on. Attachment 30590

Ice storms are the worst. Cool picture though!

This is a negative that I imaged over the weekend. This process is working fairly well. I have cut the total processing time per image down to around 30 seconds.

Anyway, I think this is a fun picture. I'm the kid in the red and blue tank top. At this zoo in Tuscon, they had the tortoises in a petting zoo kind of area, where you could play with them. We dragged all of them out of the little cave in the background, lined them all up and made them race. Some were faster than others, and for those that were slow, we tried cheering them on. When that didn't work, you can see that I'm knocking on their shells to get them to move. My sister next to me is too.

There was nobody from the zoo there to supervise, and my parents thought our behavior was fine. It may have even been their idea. You could never get away with doing this today. Manhandling the animals!

Now I want to build a concrete and sand turtle habitat. I wonder how they do at 20 below.

With ice.

And sand.

Well at least you don't have to walk far to get some dinner.:D

I took this image of my son, Liam wading in the Bartlett River in Glacier Bay National Park this past summer. He actually didn't have waders on but just took off his shoes and tried to get out on the other side of a group of Coho we were casting at. He said after about 2 minutes he couldn't feel anything in his feet!

Nice shot, but fishermen are :crazy:... I speak from experience. :haha:

I took this the second day we fished on the Bartlett River. We had just rounded the bend to our fishing spot and a bear was in the river scavenging salmon carcasses. Fishing regulations there require fishermen to through what is left after they fillet their fish back into the river rather then leave it on the bank where other fishermen might have closer encounters with bears. It is also a good reminder that even in the pristine waters of Alaska you better purify your drinking water, you never know what is happening up stream!:eek:

sorry, through should be "throw"

That first one (#1171) looks familiar.

Can I use my new word for the day:
I like the "bokeh"

Heh, that is my son's name as well.:p:

2 more from my Alaska trip last summer. While fishing a bear went into the water about 40 ft from us (maybe the same bear as the last image but not the same incident), so my son goes off with a stick to chase the bear away. He lives up there every summer so he is used to bears... he also carries a 45 cal pistol!

Second shot was taken from the pier in Gustavus at sunset. Amazing I actually got a sharp image as much red wine was consumed prior to sunset!

I love Alaska, a place I could live. And I only spent 6 weeks there in the winter.

Its probably just the perspective in the picture, but that stick really doesn't look big enough to chase bears away.

Heh, can a man actually carry the stick that is big enough to chase bears with?:eyebrow:

It is not about the size of a man's stick, it's what he can do with it. :lol:

That's what Sheldon said.:p:

It's not the size of your rod, it's how you wiggle your worm that catches the fish.

It ain't the size of your pencil, it's how ya write with it. ?

I took this picture...from the internet. I just think it's neat.

Reminds me of an experiment my dad worked on a while ago. He was doing something that required redshifting lasers or maybe blueshifting. I don't really remember the details, but it involved going to a very high end stereo shop and buying one of their most expensive woofers. But he only needed one, and they refused to sell him just one speaker, because it was a stereo store and they sold speakers in pairs.

He got the speaker back to the lab, and epoxied a mirror to the cone. Then when he shined a laser at the mirror, he could use some tone generator to run a specific signal through the speaker to get the laser to shift its wavelength or something like that.

It seems like a pretty neat solution to me. And also a travesty that he destroyed this really expensive high end set of woofers.

<cynical> Did they really get that wonderful distribution, or is it shopped? </cynical>

What is it, Dippin' Dots on a popcorn popper? :confused:

Sprinkles on a speaker turned face up.

OH duh! Hence the speaker story. :blush:

There's always some shopping involved these days, but that can be easily achieved with a strobe. The flash duration can be as short a 1/100,000 of a second freezing most moving objects.

They probably then started fussing with individual sprinkles to fill in any empty spots.

Lots of (imaginary ?) circle patterns among the spreckles.
My brain starts looking for words.

monster for photoshop in aisle 3 please
monster for photoshop, aisle 3

RF Jan. 26th.

Very nice.

I love your picture, Gravdigr.

[Elvis] Thank you, thank you vurry much.[/Elvis]

Tesla motors is opening a location a block from my office. They are having some press event today to celebrate the grand opening, and give rides to the press. Almost as an aside, they have the Dragon capsule by SpaceX. This is the first commercial spacecraft to go into orbit and return safely. Happened just two months ago. This isn't some musty old dust covered relic in the Air and Space Museum from 50 years ago. It's the real deal.

So I had to sneak in and take a couple pictures with my cell phone. As far as I could tell, there was only one member of the press there in the cold tent, and the Tesla workers were looking at me funny, so I didn't stick around long.
Attachment 31038

Oh, and here are some cool electric cars. I'd love to have one for fun.