Scanning or Photo-copy 35mm Velvia

Hello. I'm wanting to convert to digital hundreds of Kodachrome and Velvia 35mm slides. I have the hardware to re-shoot them using a D700, 45mm GN Nikkor, PB-6, & PS-6. Clearly I want to get the best from the images. Would I gain anything by purchasing some sort of slide scanner to do this laborious and time consuming job? If so, what scanner?

I have had good luck using a Nikon ES-1 slide holder with a 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor lens. It's easy to set up with slides, but difficult to use with film strips. The new ES-2 copier promises to fix that issue. Nikon makes a 40 mm macro lens for DX cameras, and that is what I recommend for best results. A 24 MP sensor exceeds the resolution of even Velvia film, and you can extract any detail that might be present in the deepest shadows. Caveat - Velvia rarely has any shadow detail in the darkest parts.

 

There have been extensive recent discussions in PNET regarding the use of a camera in lieu of a film scanner. It is at least 10 times as fast as an LS-4000/5000 film scanner, and with twice the resolution you get from an even slower flatbed scanner. The whole assembly is relatively rigid, so you don't have to continually fuss with alignment and focusing once it's set up.

 

With sorting and cleaning, I can do about 5 rolls/hour with this method. This compares to 1-2 hours/roll using a Nikon scanner.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

Thanks for the quick response. I had no idea that the resolution was so different. I was sure that the speed of operation with the camera set up would be, hands down faster. I believe the D700 is 12MP and the 45 GN Nikkor works out to a perfect copy lens for the 35mm slides using the PB & PS - 6. I'll stop looking online at scanners. You saved me some $$$.

Thanks LesDMess. I have higher res cameras, D5200, D7500 but all are DX and I would need to purchase a different lens (Nikon 40mm Micro) to do the full frame slide copy. I'm fairly sure I will not be making wall murals from these. Most likely I'll be having Shutterfly make photo albums for family members. Nikon Super Coolscan - 2 left @ AMZN $3,699!!

The DSLR copying method is, as was said, "hands down faster" than scanning.

 

Put slide in, adjust position, check focus in Live View, press shutter button, and you're done. - All of which takes not much longer in real-time as it takes to read here.

 

However, I'm dubious that the Tessar design GN Nikkor is going to make a good copy lens at 1:1 and I suspect field curvature will make the corners quite fuzzy.

 

In view of their low used cost - especially for cosmetically poor ones - l'd look for a 55mm Micro-Nikkor. I know from experience that this will do the job perfectly. On DX too, since you only need an RR of 1.5:1. A brand new 40mm Micro is totally unnecessary.

 

Incidentally, my light source for slide copying is a speedlight mounted on the camera and pointed at a sheet of white card a couple of feet in front of the slide holder. After finding the manual flash power that gives you a good copy, you can get consistent exposure and colour balance very easily with this setup.

 

BTW, Infrared-based "ICE" blemish removal doesn't work with Kodachrome, nor with silver-based B&W film. A blower brush does work!

Edited September 23, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

I use a daylight LED bulb as a light source. The color is fairly accurate and consistent. I set the camera at ISO 400 and use aperture-priority exposure. The shutter speed can float to adjust the exposure of the slide. The exposure is typically 1/4 to 1 second, but since the assembly is rigid, camera motion is not an issue. You can't use automatic exposure with a flash unit, so setup requires a lot of trial and error. Small changes in the setup make a big difference in exposure.

 

Velvia slide, copied with a Sony A7ii + Nikon 55/2.8 Micro

Well, RodeoJoe, you just made me have a brainstorm! I hunted through my bags of old gear and came up with a Micro-NIKKOR 55mm 1:3.5. I had been using the 45 GN because it worked pretty well using the dx gear, albeit with a tight crop. It worked good with the D700 also. I had completely forgotten that I had the old 3.5 55mm. I've been shooting 35mm since high school (1968-70) and have lots of gear stashed away. Thanks again to all. Again, I'm mostly using this set up to make jpg or RAW digital copies of 20+ year old slides to make photo albums online. Just was not sure if a scanner would work better, faster or cheaper.

FYI You can use auto exposure with a flash if the flash unit is a model that supports Nikon TTL metering with your camera, AND you connect the flash with a TTL-capable connecting cord. The Nikon TTL cord I have is the SC-29. My only issue with flash is : What do you use for a modeling light and how much of a hassle will it be to turn off the modeling light before each exposure and turn it on again after each exposure. My solution was to use a fiber optic microscope illuminator, which is tungsten WB. Focus and shoot with the same light.

"ICE does not work with true b&w film but works perfectly with Kodachrome if it is Nikon Coolscan 5000/9000 + Nikonscan."

 

- Fortunate if you own a Coolscan, but ICE on every other scanner I've used definitely doesn't work well with Kodachrome. The dyes used in K'chrome are partially opaque to infrared and cause problems with most implementations of ICE dust/blemish removal.

 

ICE also doubles the scan time on most scanners - time that could be used cleaning up the scan manually in post.

 

A blower brush works with any make of scanner or DSLR! And no enlarger or projector was ever fitted with ICE to the best of my knowledge.

A blower brush works with any make of scanner or DSLR! And no enlarger or projector was ever fitted with ICE to the best of my knowledge.

Amen!

 

Cleaning is surprisingly effective and takes only one or two strokes on each side of the slide. Dust has not been a major issue when using a camera to "scan" slides or film. Nor have scratches.

 

Processed film usually has very fine scratches due to handling in the processing machine, or when sleeving the film afterwards. The most egregious scratching occurs when film is tightly rolled into a film canister, sans sleeve. I was never able to educate technicians in this regard. It was always more effective to find a lab which actually trained their employees, or run by an owner/operator. I looked for labs which would return my film, uncut and sleeved, inside 3" paper cores for print paper that would otherwise be consigned to trash. That way I could scan the entire roll at once before cutting it into strips of 6 and storing in archival pages.

 

Light scratching on the film back is not visible under the diffuse light of the ES-1. The LS-4000/5000 behaves similar to a condenser enlarger, tending to show even minor scratches. The medium format LS-8000/9000 is much more forgiving, and only requires a light touch of ICE for dust removal. Scratching on the emulsion side is much more serious, but fairly rare in the absence of mishandling. Gelatin is tougher than the pristine surface of the backing.

 

I have long suspected that Nikon scanners collect dust inside the case after long use, which deposits on film like it's magnetic. The ES-1 and its successor, the ES-2 provides very diffuse light, and is easily kept clean.

When used other than at its lightest setting, ICE causes noticeable artifacts, especially in aires of low gradient, which look like pixelation or, as I see it, worm tracks. It's like little electronic weevils, nibbling at dust and dye clouds indiscriminately. Fortunately ICE is not necessary if you perform perfunctory cleaning before copying, and avoid stepping on slides or film that may find its way to the floor.

 

Kodak applied a UV-absorbing lacquer to the emulsion side of Kodachrome slides It also absorbs some of the IR used to distinguish dust fro film dyes bye ICE. This lacquer also changes the color balance read by the scanner, unless it is calibrated using a Kodachrome IT-8 standard.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Ed_Ingold