It’s been a over a year since I was active on this forum, but high volume photography takes time.
I am now finished digitalizing some 175.000 old black and white negatives and they are now published on the internet as low res jpeg:s.
My archive consists of 80 mm broad and 5 meter long rolls of film, 50 images on each. The setup is fairly swift, using a mounted Nikon D80, un under-light and a foot-control for taking the shots. My right big toe has proven to be a very good friend.
This project was first described in this forum by the title “200 hours times 1.000 …� . I think it’s fair to start an new thread given that the work is done. Peter K commented on my light source. I think its partly due to irregularities in the film itself (or that camera).
My negatives are aerial ones taken between 1950 and 1957 to be sold as wall hanging pictures in respective farmhouse. Business went fine back then. I know there is a sleeping market potential now too, hence my at times persisting zombie-like appearance while at work.
It takes time, it does. The whole winter, and they are long here in Sweden… You just can’t go for it 8 hours a day, you go nuts. Half is ok. But I developed speed. These are good rolls, nice width and length. At the fastest the camera memory card just barely swallowed as my toe went down three times in two seconds.
Now, that was NOT average speed. Some rolls are clipped and cut, they have to be prepared, and shipped and stored and inspected and turned around an what not. But the actual shooting could go that fast.
I use 4 gig memory cards rather than wiring the Nikon to a computer. Emptying one card while filling the other. In RAW I get 7 rolls to the card. No, the USB2 is fine but couldn’t quite serve me here.
Four hard drives are engaged and one likewise backup. I’m in the process of getting a third. Every RAW file is processed into two 72 dpi res versions. One monitor size to be used for public display at exhibits and fairs, while eye to eye with the market. The other is for my web site: 640 pixels wide with a water mark saying © and my business name.
For the routine (sic) of converting that many files I used Graphic Converter. The neg:s had to be, and here we go:
* Cropped to negative’s dimensions (not the same as Nikon’s)
* Smartly trimmed (most framing left that is the same hue as the film base gets erased)
* Turned 180 degrees. My Nikon was mounted  from opposite side of the table, hence the shots were taken upside down, since I wanted to inspect the frames.
* Inverted to positive
* Resized to full screen dimensions: 1284 pixels wide
* Auto levels. I know, do only do that on a regular basis, never on an individual.
* Gray scaling them
* One pinch unsharp mask
And finally jpeg conversion
As many as I pleased, all in one click!
Most of THAT type of handling went on while doing other stuff, I needed only keep an occasional eye.
To generate the small (web) size jpegs I used IWatermark (Mac platform), where I also took care of the watermarking routine: a © plus my company’s name.
For renaming puposes I used FileList
The small jpegs (some 60 kbytes each) are defined in a database related to maps that show where each roll is taken, and sorted geographically according to our nations divisions. Database, maps and all takes little over 10 gigabytes and resides inside a public server generating my web site.
The RAWs are locked up securely together with all jpeg backups. Two sets.
Copies of the screen size jpegs are in a tiny LaCie pocket drive that I keep within reach to be able to display at any instant. Filing principle being 50 files makes one folder, 100 folders makes a Big folder and there are about 55 Big folders.
The small watermarked jpegs are stored, also in some 55 folders, up to 3000 in each folder.
File naming is a breeze for me. Each roll is a four digit number starting with 1000. And then pic number. Such: 1234_12.jpg. And I add originators initials as a prefix, thus: ASA_1234_12.jpg.
Wanting to add IPTC code I got disappointed. For one thing I find it confusing that different applications use different vocabulary. I’m not a CS man which adds to the confusion. But when I put in a minimum of info in the small jpegs it made them twice as big! They are only 60k, 90k, maybe up to 120. But metadata dubbled that figure. I suppose it would slow browsing speed over the webb, so I just omitted it.
You want to take a look at my baby?
The database is in beta testing and therefore the address is temporary. I will post the sharp one here when it gets into action. For now you may access it at http://flygfotohistoria.mine.nu
My son and mother in law are on the front page while we decide about design. You’d want to see the Archive which you find under Arkivet.

Anyone out there with Swedish ancestry? Well, this is where your folks came from! I provide mounted photographs to hang on the wall. Large ones, lots of detail.

Johan Ahlén, Gothenburg, Sweden

Thank you Peter for prompt and valuable answer(s).
Let me congratulate you straight away for your DAM book. It is a very ambitious and useful undertaking you’ve done. It will be a handy companion for lots of people for many years to come. Me, for one.
Thanks for the movie on RapidFixer. When it comes to proofing I overlook every roll of 50 pics before publishing and usually give them all the same treatment since they often “suffer� from the same conditions. I do that in Graphic Converter that has a batch function better than Elements, but not as neat as your RapidFixer. I will have to consider getting CS3.
Your question about data on where the pictures are posted, I don’t quite understand. Can you clarify the question?
About the backlight – I’m glad you notice. I have a quite small 24 x 18 cm light source fixed as far down under the film as possible, to be out of focus. Light at the edges probably spills out since I don’t have a shaft – like a funnel shaped room with white walls - to confine the light. Making such an arrangement plus raising the light a bit would probably make for a stronger and hopefully steadier light area. I was advised to get a flash (Elinchrome) but went for this simpler way instead. Could be that I’m wrong. I have tried some different setups though, over my weeks of digitizing, resulting in slightly different picture status. Plus that the films themselves vary.
Thanks for the tip on calibrating. It would be smarter to get a more high-end light source though, than to try to adjust this little gadget. I suppose just taking a picture without any negative on the table and then underexpose the image would tell what corners and parts of the area are uneven.
Your’s best for now
Johan Ahlén

Friends!
Here is a brother who has acquired a vast photo archive with  great cultural and economic potential.
Rolls and rolls of black n’white aerial photographs picturing country farms from the years 1950 through 1957 (that’s when they went color). And it’s solely from the country of Sweden.
But the issue, and the questions that arise may be of “global� interest.
We are talking big negatives,  90 x 70 mm each, in rolls of 50 (makes 5 meter rolls) neatly locked up in hand soldered metal cans of German origin. Film brand is Aviphot. (Gevaert).
The archive consists of some 3.700 of these cans which makes up for slightly under 200.000 images (there are some additional material in there also, about 15.000 post card negs).
That many farms should represent a good portion, if not a majority, of all farms in Sweden at the time. And my ambition is to put the whole lot on the internet. Smart eh?
I reckon people would want to buy photos, pictures for the wall, or digital copies. As a matter of fact I’m in the business already, doing some sales and have as of now digitized some 10.000 pics. A few hundred are on my home page (Swedish language, but give it a try: www.flygfotohistoria.se/ Click on Bilder fran hela landet, to see a list of places in Sweden.

I would like to line out my digitizing routine:
Firstly: there is NO equipment in store shelves for my 80 mm (physichal) film width. And anything driven by electric motor would have to face the fact that distances between  negs range from 0 to 15 mm.
So I have a Nikon D70s that’s hanging in a post vertically pointing at a 80 mm wide table track with a 90 x 70 mm opening beneath and over  which I pull the film frame by frame. Further down (out of focus) is a light source that gives even daylight. The camera is connected to a laptop with external hard drive and shooting is managed with a foot pedal (big toe button to be precise).
With this and naming software  (Nikon’s Camera Control Pro) I have so far managed to populate that hard drive with folders with correctly named picture files in them, at a rate of more than 1.000 pictures an hour. So it’s a 200 hour job you may argue. Well not quite. Some rolls are cut up in sections, they can often be rolled up backwards (starting with picture no 50) and little nicks and nacks that you just stumble on. Plus that I wouldn’t put even my enemy at such a tedious work. I am heading for a few hours a day aiming at having reached the end before coming Christmas (I need to do some sales also not to forget).
Batch conversion is a key issue here. Each pic needs to be cropped, rotated, inverted and watermarked  + IPTC tagged. I use GraphicConverter  6.0 and iWatermark for that purpose. File name changes are very swift in File List. I rely on a 15â€� PowerBook + extra screen.
All this said I simply want to share my joy over this project with you out there. I have a copy of the DAM book and it’s given me great confidence to proceed. I still don’t know if I’m stupid not setting the Nikon to NEF RAW, it runs quicker at JPEG levels that are good for the net,  and orders I do by hand anyway.  The D70s gives 14 meg TIFFs to work on which is maybe in the lower order for photos up to a half meter widths. A 10 megapixel camera maybe would work fast enough (less than three seconds between shots)  plus give print width. My web page will be MySQL fitted later this fall. So my consultant tells/advices me. Comments?
Also: Each roll is numbered and the same numbers appear on maps that come with the films. It seems I have no competition with the 1950:s material. At least none is older. But I can’t afford to hesitate. The kids in the pictures, with a hand over their forehead, are now coming of age. Some even remembering the airplane.
I work alone but I like to share my experience. I suppose this is a good place to do so.
Johan Ahlén
Sweden