Bellows and Slide Copying Attachment

[tim_sewell]

I am thinking of acquiring a PB-4 bellows unit plus PS-5 slide

copying attachment, with the aim of using them on my D100 to digitise

my ageing collection of (very amateur) colour transparencies.

 

I would welcome all/any advice - Is this just the wrong way to go?

Is the PB-4 the right model? Should I use my 50mm AF Nikkor f1.8D,

or 55mm f/2.8 micro-nikkor or neither of those? What else should I

consider?

[Robert_Lai]

A much cheaper alternative, using the 55mm Micro Nikkor is the PK-13 tube to get you to 1:1, and a Nikon ES-2 slide copying adapter that screws onto the front filter rings of the lens. That still is my slide copying setup of choice, except that I use the 60mm Micro Nikkor now. The 60mm lens may be better for your use on a D100, as I don't know if that camera meters with AI/AIS lenses.<p>The bellows is useful only if you want to crop into your slides.

[neil_parker]

Why not go with a 35mm film scanner instead? You can buy a new Minolta SD IV for about

the same price as a PB4 unit. (less than $250). It will give you much better results;

dynamic range, resolution and sharpness than trying to dupe with your D100.

[alan_olander1664878205]

I second the film scanner advice. Scanning can be tedious if you have a lot of images, but copying them would be even worse. Scanning would be a much better way to go.

[vivek iyer]

Scanner is faster and better. The above suggestion for a very affordable Minolata scanner is excellent. Better D-range as well.

[michael_spencer3]

I am uncertain of the exact model number of my Nikon bellows unit, but I purchased it in the 1960's when I had Nikon F and Nikormat camera bodies. I know that my more recent camera bodies (N80, D100) can not be attached to this bellows unit because there is insufficient clearance for the molded hand grips and so forth. It would be worth trying your particular camera on a display model of whatever bellows unit you are thinking of purchasing.

 

Mike S

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto the scanner. Using the camera makes sense only if you're duping slides to make more slides; for example, for submission to juried shows, etc.

[james_purdy]

I would ask what is your intent? What are you going to do with the images? If you just want to transfer them to a CD or DVD for viewing on a TV, the ease and speed of taking the picture of the slide with a camera is great. If you want create high res images to print and are willing to spend several minutes with a scanner per image, then go the scanner route. I have copied slides with a Nikon IV-ED scanner and the results are great but it takes a couple of minutes per slide. I have also taken pictures of the slides with a D70 and then created a DVD for viewing on TV. This method is fast and more than adequate for the intended use.

 

Jim

[tim_sewell]

Well - whoever said "Free advice is only worth what you pay for it" couldn't have visited Photo.net. I am more than grateful to all who have responded so helpfully to my query.

 

Robert - I haven't been able to locate an ES-2 adapter locally, but have been quoted for an ES-1 (at a price of AU$150 - say US$120 or so). At that price the extra cost of a good secondhand PB4 + PS-5 combination with the additional macro capabilities could still be a reasonable option for me. I hadn't thought of the cropping capability that the bellows would give me.

 

Of course, it may be that a PB4 cannot be mounted on a D100 (thanks, Michael - I hadn't thought of that possibility). That would sink my bellows plans pretty effectively!

 

To all who recommended a scanner - I hadn't even seriously considered one, expecting them to be significantly more expensive. The Australian price for the Minolta Scan Dual IV seems to about AU$550 (US$430). That would be some way above my psychological price level, but would admittedly produce a far better resolution than I could get with the D100.

 

However, in regard to resolution - I have a (probably oversimplified) view.

 

If I scan a slide with a 6 MP camera, I will get a 6 MP image, pretty much the same as I would have recorded if I had used a D100 to take the original photos. If I had owned a D100 at any time prior to 2003 I would have been ecstatic about the quality of its 6 MP images. Since my photographic abilities would never see me exhibiting large prints, why shouldn't I be more than happy with 6MP (2100 dpi or so) scans?

 

Once again - thanks to you all.

[michael_spencer3]

Tim wrote "... If I scan a slide with a 6 MP camera, I will get a 6 MP image, pretty much the same as I would have recorded if I had used a D100 to take the original photos."

 

This has not been my experience. A properly exposed D100 image is very nice, smooth, good color and so forth. Slides/transparencies all have 'issues' with contrast however they were exposed. When you take a picture of slide these 'issues' are going to be multiplied and the quality of the resulting D100 image will be degraded. Your 'very amateur' images may add additional problems if the exposure or contrast is not spot on to begin with. Whether or not this is a project stopper will depend on your needs.

 

You can easily test what is going to happen and whether you will be happy with the results. Simply borrow or rent a macro lens or extension tubes so that you can get a 1:1 image reproduction. I created a small light mask out of construction paper with a 2 inch sqaure hole. I placed this over a light box as a slide holder and placed the slide in the hole. But you could use window light or whatever for this purpose since you can adjust the white balance on the D100.

 

In my first tests, I was more than pleased; nearly broke my arm patting myself on the back. However, as I got more familiar with the results my initial enthusiasm went down. The slide copies definitely magnify any image contrast problems or any other problems for that matter. The copies are affected by grain and noise in the original image especially in shadow areas and dust and mold anywhere.

 

I subsequently acquired a Coolscan 4000 film scanner and I could quite easily see the big difference in quality between the D100 copies and those from the film scanner neither of which come up to the quality possible with an original, well exposed D100 digital image. That is, if I had a digital and film camera side by side when taking the image, the digitized copy of the film image would not be as good as the original digital image for my purposes.

 

Since then I have decided to re-scan all the slides I originally copied with the D100; I don't even bother with the D100 copies anymore -- the only advantage it had was that I could get a digital copy as fast as I could drop the slides onto the slide holder. But the image quality is visibly crude in comparison to the film scanner.

 

Here's some more free advice: "Get a film scanner and save yourself some grief".

 

Good luck,

 

Mike Spencer

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is a chap here locally who uses a Canon digital body; EOS to Nikon F adapter; bellows and slide adapter. He cranks out work in the moderate 1200 to 2400 dpi/ppi range of 35mm slides. The files I saw from a customer were about say 1800 ish in resolution; and not that bad at all. We did some higher end scans with our 4000dpi unit; and I got the copy of the low res scans to compare them with. He scanned an entire roll of 35mm slides and burned the CD for 5 dollars. The slide copy attachment gizmo to dslr must be quick;; to make a profit at this price. It would take 2 to 3 hours to scan them with a 4000dpi unit. <BR><BR>Folks use to always copy slide this way using PB4 and PS-5; and got acceptable results. Getting the exposure correct was tricky; unless one had a built in TTL meter. Folks did this in the 1950's with no TTL meters too. With a Dslr; you have instant feedback; a histogram; so why all the sour grapes about experimenting? A regular dedicated slid scanner is a slow go. One can burn off a roll of slide film with a motore drive in a few seconds. Scanning the 36exp roll with a film scanner can take several hours. If you get serious; you need a batch feeder; or quicker way to scan them at a lower res; and then just scan the great ones with a high res scanner. Here I have many many thousands of negatives and slides; to scan them all in would take probably a lifetime.

[kelly_flanigan1]

A film dedicated scanner has an internal relay lens. Many have a mirror that moves translates or rotates; and the scan element is a linear array. A film scanner has alot of settings set up just for scanning. A dslr usually has white balance; offsets; resolution and exposure +/- settings. The first time I stated copying slides was with an Exakta slr in the 1950's; with bellows; manual focus; no internal meter. It is bizzare now that a DSLR camera has instant feedback with a histogram; RAW file format outputs; decent resolution; that this method is called not being possible. The lates 1950's had the can do space programs; a differecnt attitude. Today NASA and camera folks here have a radically larger and better set of tools; but are lost. Copying a slide is fundamentally alwys been a chore not to loose shadow and highlight detail. In Hollywood they used/use special 4x5 trany emulsions for large dupes; with lower contrast; so the contrast buildup problem is reduced abit. The real issue is your digital sensor going to have a dynamic range larger than a slide? Slides have way less range than color negatives.

[Robert_Lai]

Tim,<p>You're right, it is called the ES-1 and not ES-2. They are still listed on the B&H web site for $50 new. From the other posters, it seems that scanning may give you better results. I use the setup I described above for making B&W slides from B&W negatives.

[tim_sewell]

More brilliant free advice.

 

I really appreciate the contrasting posts from Michael and Kelly. The advice from both of you is clear, rational and well detailed - I don't have a problem with the differing views that you appear to hold. I am happy to accept that they are both valid.

 

I now think I have good answers to all of my original questions:

 

1. Is this just the wrong way to go? Perhaps, perhaps not - only I will be able to tell if I should be satisfied with the results, but it will probably take more experimentation with my D100 than I had expected to get OK results.

 

2. Is the PB-4 the right model? From Nikonians I know the PB-4 will fit the D100, but there is some minor fiddling about involved. (The bellows has to be mounted "vertically" initially, then rotated to "horizontal")

 

3. Which lens ? My 55 f/2.8 micro-nikkor will be OK. I have used it occasionally (in manual mode) on the D100; the lack of automatic exposure did not concern me greatly. It was probably beginner's luck, but I didn't have any great difficulty with exposure.

 

4. What else should I consider? If I am unhappy with my D100 scans, a scanner will not cost as much as I had imagined, and will give me superior results - if I am fortunate enough to live that long :-)

 

Again, my sincere thanks to you all.