snubbr.com

Turning slides into digital images?
I picked this up (from PC Mag I think).It referers to 120 trans. film, but I assume it would work for 35mm slides as well? And was wondering if it is really this easy....

"All you need is a decent lightbox, a sharp macro lens, and Adobe Camera Raw to digitally develop your shots. Slides are easy just set your DSLR to AutoWhite Balance and shoot your slides on the lightbox. Set your exposure so the lightbox is mostly blown out and adjust your shutter speed depending on the density of the slide once you pull them into Adobe Camera RAW, it's pretty straightforward to tweak the exposure.".

If so, why not get a cheaper 35mm film camera, shoot slides, develop then convert and process in PS for the best of both worlds.Brian..

Comments (12)

BLawson wrote:.

I picked this up (from PC Mag I think).It referers to 120 trans.film, but I assume it would work for 35mm slides as well? And waswondering if it is really this easy..."All you need is a decent lightbox, a sharp macro lens, and AdobeCamera Raw to digitally develop your shots. Slides are easy justset your DSLR to AutoWhite Balance and shoot your slides on thelightbox. Set your exposure so the lightbox is mostly blown out andadjust your shutter speed depending on the density of the slide once you pull them into Adobe Camera RAW, it's pretty straightforwardto tweak the exposure.".

If so, why not get a cheaper 35mm film camera, shoot slides,develop then convert and process in PS for the best of both worlds.Brian.

Let's see here.......

You just bought a DSLR and a good macro lens and a light box. So then you want to add to that a film SLR and processing expense.......Why not just take the pictures with the DSLR in the first place?.

There are in fact some people that use film in an SLR and then scan the slides or negatives with a good film scanner and then process digitally and print. And there's nothing wrong with that, but a good film scanner is not an insignificant amount of money and there's still the processing expense for developing the film..

And I'll add that a good film scanner will significantly outperform the DSLR and lightbox in both quality and ease.A member of the rabble in good standing..

Comment #1

Sounds like a reasonable way to copy your old slides, most scanners that have a slide attachment do a fair job but like everything there are always downsides and they are fine if the slide is bright, but if the slide is dark they do a poor job (dont have a bright enough light source). There are dedictated slide scanners out there (some on ebay cheap) that will do a superb job. again it's horses for courses, if you only have a few to do give your method a try and see how it goes.won't cost much to try...

Comment #2

Under $50.00 with a "T" adapter.

Just a thoughtPeter .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Enjoy your photography images, even if your wife doesn't ! ;-(http://laurence-photography.com/http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/Cameras in profile...

Comment #3

I am somewhat confused as to the logic behind using a film cam to shoot slides, then develop the film, then digitize it. It can be done, of course. Or, perhaps I did not understand the intent..

I've posted these before, but it seemed simple to me to get excellent results in copying & thus automatically digitizing old slides, by using a slide holder and a point and shoot 7.1Mp digicam, which can focus macro to about 1 cm in front of the lens..

Another way would be to "just try it out". Below are a) the setup I used, b) the "try it" concept, and c) an old slide, digitized by setup "a"..

A note about the last photo, of a cave. I used the setup "a" to take three photos of the same slide, overexposed, underexposed, and whatever the camera thought best. I then used software to combine all three slides into this "HDR" which made it even more vivid than I could achieve by PP in the normal way (some may disagree.).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #4

I've been using a Coolpix 5400 to copy slides since 2005 and have shot 4,000 so far, with just the last 1000 to go..

About 3000 are finished - processed (debarrel, crop, de-dust, PP, USM) and catalogued - but I've 700 yet to process and catalogue, and another 300 that just need cataloguing. I changed from Elements 3 to PSE6, which is proving to be easier, faster and better than the old version but even so there's quite a lot of work left to do!.

Some early examples, hints, tips etc here: http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/slidecopy.

Recently our old HP printer/copier/scanner began to object to the years of cigarette smoke and atmospheric filth deposited on it's internal mirrors and I replaced it with a Canon Pixma MP970 after reading the enthusiastic review on the Steve's Digicams site..

This is also a multifunction, with a seven ink system so it can handle both day-to-day and photo printing and a much higher scanning resolution (4800 dpi optical) that seems to work well with both 35mm slides and colour negs, which I'd not managed to get to work with the camera..

Some samples etc here: http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/mp970.

While the results show a big improvement on the digicam method, it's considerably slower and nowhere near as much fun!.

Peter.

Peter - on the green island of Ischiahttp://www.pbase.com/isolaverde..

Comment #5

RUcrAZ wrote:.

I am somewhat confused as to the logic behind using a film cam toshoot slides, then develop the film, then digitize it. It can bedone, of course. Or, perhaps I did not understand the intent.I've posted these before, but it seemed simple to me to get excellentresults in copying & thus automatically digitizing old slides, byusing a slide holder and a point and shoot 7.1Mp digicam, which canfocus macro to about 1 cm in front of the lens.Another way would be to "just try it out". Below are a) the setup Iused, b) the "try it" concept, and c) an old slide, digitized bysetup "a".A note about the last photo, of a cave. I used the setup "a" to takethree photos of the same slide, overexposed, underexposed, andwhatever the camera thought best. I then used software to combine allthree slides into this "HDR" which made it even more vivid than Icould achieve by PP in the normal way (some may disagree.).

Ok, To add one more scenario:.

I have a Film RF and SLR...I use both...Plus my DSLR.

Will Duping the Negatives with a Slide-Duplicator on my DSLR work ? IQ wise?? they have a spcial close up lens to with good DOF made for this....

I am thinking it should work fine...just wandering if you have tried this.??...your set up looks similarbut without the "Slide-Duplacator"...Looks like you made your own...

I can use the "Invert" function under the "Selection" menu in PSP10.03 to male it a positive image...

It would cheaper than spending $8.00 for a 3600x2400 scanned files on a CD from my local lab. I have a 10mp DSLR, so the resolution is about the same..

Peter .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Enjoy your photography images, even if your wife doesn't ! ;-(http://laurence-photography.com/http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/Cameras in profile...

Comment #6

After copying slides with the as-posted method, I also tried several color negatives (35mm.) They also worked fine, with good IQ. I did not try a "negative-to-positive" using the camera settings; I did it after it had been digitized, by Post-Processing in the PC..

I had a problem with only one negative: It was a night shot of the sky, trying to capture star trails. The resulting negative was practically clear (as you would expect from a black sky.) My particular cam would not work well with manual focus, and the autofocus, although working fine with normal slides, would not work well with a "clear" slide/neg. But normal slides came out as though they were shot directly with the cam..

I do not have a slide duplicator attachment - they have a milky-white groundglass or plastic diffusing screen, placed very close to the slide (for compactness, I guess). If the cam has a big depth-of-field, it means that the groundglass is also in-focus. This also means that any dust, scratches, or imperfections on that groundglass will show up in the copied slide. Therefore I used the plastic bucket trick, and made sure it was at least 15-20 centimeters away from the slide, to ensure it would be out of focus.Anyway, with your equipment, it's easy to experiment - and free too!RUcrAZ..

Comment #7

The Slide Duplactor has it's own lens and tube that attaches directly to the camera mount like a prime lens..via a "T" adapter.....

The DOF is about the depth of a mounted slide..The Diffuser is behind the slide to provide evan illumination...It is too far away to be in focus....

I don't have one yet....

But...I wander if the Crop Factor of my camera will affect the image Magnifation??..I think it will and not allow a FULL FRAME NEGITIVE to be copied at 1:1... Evan though the Duplacator may be set at 1:1..,.

I was refering to chaging the Negitive Image File to be inverted in PP not in the Camera....

Still considering it....Peter .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Enjoy your photography images, even if your wife doesn't ! ;-(http://laurence-photography.com/http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/Cameras in profile...

Comment #8

Udaman wrote:.

The Slide Duplactor has it's own lens and tube that attaches directlyto the camera mount like a prime lens..via a "T" adapter.....

The DOF is about the depth of a mounted slide..The Diffuser is behindthe slide to provide evan illumination...It is too far away to be infocus....

I don't have one yet....

But...I wander if the Crop Factor of my camera will affect the imageMagnifation??..I think it will and not allow a FULL FRAME NEGITIVE tobe copied at 1:1... Evan though the Duplacator may be set at 1:1..,.

I was refering to chaging the Negitive Image File to be inverted inPP not in the Camera....

Still considering it.....

Peter.

I'd bet that yours, like mine, is one of the original versions of these zoom copiers - made for use with a 35 film SLR. Their T2 mounts do indeed fit APSC DSLRs but because of the crop factor, they only capture a small section of the image - effectively they're zoomed in, even when they're not..

A new version came out with a wider field of view, for small-sensor DSLRs, but there seems to have been a factory problem of some sort, and - for a while now - they've been impossible to find. Here's what one distributor in the UK says:.

Http://www.kauserinternational.com/...y/Ohnar/Copier/Ohnar%20Digital_Zoom.htm.

As mentioned in my other post, I'm finding the Pixma MP970 a great alternative - at full res it takes scans of 25MP but I'm quite happy at 2400 dpi, making copies of about 6.5MP. It's possible to scan and correct simultaneously, and working that way it's taking about 2 hours 30 minutes to do an entire 36 exposure film at the 2400 setting..

So - compared to $8 per slide at your local lab - the very first roll would more than pay for it (and you get a USB card reader and a copy of Elements 5 thrown in!)..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Peter.

Peter - on the green island of Ischiahttp://www.pbase.com/isolaverde..

Comment #9

Just to say that the correction rate mentioned previously applies when working on the slides I'd shot with the digicam, most of which need debarrelling and straightening - not problems the scanned ones suffer from..

Using the MP970, it takes less time to process a batch of four images than it does to scan the next ones, so I should have said that it takes just under 2 hours to prepare, scan & process those in each film !.

Peter.

Peter - on the green island of Ischiahttp://www.pbase.com/isolaverde..

Comment #10

Peter .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Enjoy your photography images, even if your wife doesn't ! ;-(http://laurence-photography.com/http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/Cameras in profile...

Comment #11

I took a couple of slides of my daughter from about 22 years ago, and just held them in front of my Minolta DiMage Z1 in macro mode (about 1cm from the lens) and aimed at the ceiling. They didn't turn out too bad...

Comment #12

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.