it just hit me......

Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
instead of buying a neg scanner to get through teh gagillions of unscanned negs in my library.....

why not get a slide-copier attachment and just photograph them with my D3s+105 macro?

res should be enough for most applications and i can always send it off for a drum scan if the need arises.

am i a complete idiot for not having thought of this sooner?

or am i missing something woefully obvious?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
I believe a good scanner will yield more detail. But I've never done this myself.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
i'm sure a scanner will resolve detail unavailable via slide copying.

but it's a cheap method for ok scans!
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
So I guess it depends on your intentions. If it's simply for having a digital record of it, then I suppose slightly reduced quality is fine. But if it's for posterity, I'm always of the opinion to keep the highest possible sample quality.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
So I guess it depends on your intentions. If it's simply for having a digital record of it, then I suppose slightly reduced quality is fine. But if it's for posterity, I'm always of the opinion to keep the highest possible sample quality.

the neg itself is 'the highest possible sample quality'.....
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
Haha. Okay...I meant highest possible digital sample. Bits get refreshed every time you copy it (accurately). On the other hand, an analog device will eventually degrade. Although I suppose this can mean decades or centuries, given proper care.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
10,854
Location
Gulu, Uganda
Using a copier is a very acceptable method of digitising for a record and easy access to view or print to say 8x10".
If I remember though the Nikon copier worked with the 55 0r 60 micro, you may need to check out if the 105 works but you can always make something simple to use like a light box with the camera on a tripod.:smile:
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
5,725
Location
Annapolis
I tried this with 8mm movie film for frame grabs. It worked fine. The only problem was the grain of the film. I'm sure it will work much better for 35mm film. It is definitely going to be work. If you already have the lens it will make a project for doing small scale. If you have a lot of film to duplicate you might want to pick up a used Nikon scanner on ebay as they are very cheap now.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
5,614
Location
Texas
instead of buying a neg scanner to get through teh gagillions of unscanned negs in my library.....

why not get a slide-copier attachment and just photograph them with my D3s+105 macro?

res should be enough for most applications and i can always send it off for a drum scan if the need arises.

am i a complete idiot for not having thought of this sooner?

or am i missing something woefully obvious?


You are missing that slides and negatives are different beasts. :smile:

The camera and macro lens works fine for slides - see http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html

It can work for B&W negatives ... just invert them.

But color negatives have the orange mask - which turns deep blue when inverted. This is a very significant color problem, and converting it to 8 bits is counterproductive.

Film scanners do it by exposing the blue and green channels longer than the red channel - which is analog gain and compensation, much like adding the proper color filter to the lens. But once you convert it to digital, you are limited with much less range to work in. This is not to say you cannot get some kind of usable results, but it is quite far from optimum.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
If you have a lot of film to duplicate you might want to pick up a used Nikon scanner on ebay as they are very cheap now.
many thousands of negs.

many, many thousands of negs.
You are missing that slides and negatives are different beasts. :smile:

The camera and macro lens works fine for slides - see http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html

It can work for B&W negatives ... just invert them.

But color negatives have the orange mask - which turns deep blue when inverted. This is a very significant color problem, and converting it to 8 bits is counterproductive.

Film scanners do it by exposing the blue and green channels longer than the red channel - which is analog gain and compensation, much like adding the proper color filter to the lens. But once you convert it to digital, you are limited with much less range to work in. This is not to say you cannot get some kind of usable results, but it is quite far from optimum.

oh damn you.:wink:

hmm, used scanner it'll have to be then.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
5,614
Location
Texas
You probably ought to spend a little time with it first, just to understand the situation.

Photograph one test frame, one containing wide range, and include a little of the unexposed film in the picture. The bar between frames for example, or the outer edges. You can crop later, should you wish to.

Before you invert it, Adobe Levels has the three eyedroppers. Black, Gray, and White. Easy way is to just use the White eyedropper, and click the unexposed orange bar between frames. It turns it white. Then invert.

But it is a big step, esp for 8 bits. If you can output your 12 bit RAW to 16 bits first, it can help a little. But it is still a huge adjustment for digital. It may handle the orange color, but you are shifting about half of the range off of the end. The advantage of doing this with analog gain is that there are no ends. The problem with a scanner though is that it is slow, really really slow for thousands of slides. I have not found any suitable analog filter however.
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,288
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
After my dad passed away 1.5 yrs ago, I was lucky enough to get alot of his old 2&1/4 negs that he had shot as a photog on the USS Bennington in WWII. plus tons of old family slides, negs and prints. After WWII he had his own photography business til early 60's when he moved the family to Canada to be among the 1st instructors at NAIT here in Edmonton. He taught commercial and industrial photography and many night school classes until he retired some 25 yrs. later.

I tinkered using my camera to reproduce the negs and the pos's (slides) I was able to get some decent results with backlighting but it was a lot of set up and trial and error. I ended up getting an Epson 4490 scanner that also did the med format negs. I am very happy with it. Took time for each reproduction from 15-20 minutes down to about 11/2.

I gave my Mom a digital frame for Christmas last year and loaded with about 800 pics I had on my puter. Last week she dropped off about 1000 prints. She emptied a lot of photo albums. She thought I could scan them for her to put on her digital frame and she thought I could do it in like an hour or so 'cause that's what it took with my pictures. I am about 8hrs into it 2/3's through the pile. Did I tell ya really like my scanner?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
901
Location
Broken Britain.
I have a Epson V7000, it will take 35mm 120/220 I use this mainly for my 5x4 the results are virtually indistinguishable from a drum scan scans upto 9600 x 6400. worth every penny.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom