Why scan, why not just shoot the slide?

[paul_lepkowski]

<p>I'm an old timer. I used to shoot black and white weddings with a 4x5 Graphix back in the 1950s. Then I switched to a Hasselblad. For my personal stuff I used a Mercury II which exposed a 24 mm x 18 mm frame on 135 file, then a Rollei 35 and finally a Minolta SRT101. I've got about 2000 slides with the half frame exposures, mostly Kodachrome ASA 25, and another 1000 slides from the Rollei and Minolta. I tried using an Epson scanner to digitize some slides. It didn't work very well, and it was slow as molasses.<br>

I know that some people have used a DSLR with a macro lens to focus directly on back lit slides to digitize them. There are clips on YouTube showing DSLRs aimed into a slide projector with the projector lens removed using the projector lamp to back light the slide and the projector to swap the slides. The DSLR could shoot a slide every 2 seconds this way.<br>

I don't have a DSLR but I have a 12 Mega pixel Nikon S3000 which can focus down to about 2 inches in macro mode.<br>

Has anyone tried to use one of these mini cameras to shoot slides directly? How will it work trying to shoot the half frame format? Should I use a very high film speed, small aperture and slow shutter? How well will it focus?<br>

Paul Lepkowski</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Several years ago when I still shot slide film I tried my then-new Olympus C-3040Z 3.3 meagerpickle digicam in macro mode to copy slides and compared 'em with results from my Minolta Scan Dual version 1, which was roughly comparable to an 8mp digital capture. I may have used a reversed 50mm Zuiko or Nikkor lens as well.</p>

<p>The results were pretty comparable, other than in pixel dimension resolution. So if you have a slide copying rig to make the chore go faster - usually attached to the lens, with a light box or flash - it's quicker.</p>

<p>But I haven't tried it enough with b&w negatives to recommend digicam copying over scanning. And I suspect a high end scanner like one of Nikon's Coolscans would beat the digital camera copying trick.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There are decent affordable filmscanners out there; I'm getting a ~16MP file from 35mm negatives with a Reflecta Pro Scan 7200, which isn't terribly expensive. Easy to set up, and works really well. For colour film and slides, it will have hardware based ICE (dust and scratch removal), which saves a lot of time post-processing.</p>

[dwight200]

<p>I copied a number of old slides with my camera using a slide copying adapter. I had tried copying some with my scanner, with poor results. The camera did better, but it's not simply a matter of loading a slide and pressing the shutter.</p>

<p>First, using a 50mm lens on the adapter, the slide image is smaller than the sensor frame. This means you have to crop the image. Also, the slide is sometimes at a slight angle, so it has to be straightened in post.</p>

<p>Second, I first tried just taking a light bulb and shining it on a white wall, then using that as a light source to illuminate the slide. I couldn't find the time to do all the slides at once, so each time I set it up the exposure was different. I finally added a bracket with a halogen lamp to keep the illumination uniform.</p>

<p>Third, the white balance was frequently off in the resulting photo.</p>

<p>All that meant that postprocessing was necessary for all the copies.</p>

<p>Details are available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/photofarmer/sets/72157603904635429/</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Whether you use 105 macro lens (or any other) and directly off the slide projector, the WB may be off....though the largest issue is <em>how big of enlargements</em> do you desire to have ? If you can't get the appropriate level, you may have to go are up to Imecon or drum scanner. I suggest that you do some tests and have enlargements printed to see what you are getting in real time.</p>

<p>Some people will try to get "lower level" quality scans on most of their film/slides and pay for high-end scans for the photos that they want to put on the wall...or whatever. This may be a smarter way to go, since you don't need to shake over every frame.</p>

<p>The unfortunate issue is that most of the quality scanners (film-dedicated) like Nikon or Minolta no longer have the support and the repairs could become problematic.</p>

<p>Anyway, finding the right compromise is up to you.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>You can certainly do this, I recommend it to people all the time to take a look at what they have and make decisions about editing. The real question is what are you trying to accomplish? No one can answer your question without that information. It's like saying "I want to make a structure with wood, is it possible?" Well of course it is, but there are limits. It's great for a house, but no so good for a skyscraper.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I don't know, there are a lot of convoluted methods you can read about on the internet, but it seems like a lot less rigamarole to just use a scanner. I've scanned slides with pretty decent results just by filling the slide holder on my flatbed (it takes 4 at a time, and it's designed for it to begin with). On the highest quality settings, it does take a while, but I'm not sitting there watching as it's doing it. I use otherwise unproductive time, like when I'm watching a movie or something.<br /><br />Mind you, no method on earth would induce me to scan thousands of slides. I only do the ones I need. </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>You certainly can, but it really helps to have a macro lens and color balanced light table.</p>

[robbi_cooler]

<p>I was lucky to have a Pana-Vue slide viewer- I removed the magnifying lens, removed the base and 3volt bulb, placed it over a household bulb in a box, Used my macro lens and camera (Nikon D200) mounted firmly- 20 digital copies as fast as I could push them through and trigger shutter. I did some tests first by shooting the bulb light without a slide and setting a range of White Balance in the camera, Opened the images in Photoshop and noted the WB that gave me mid-grey (127) values (2850K from memory).<br>

It is all a matter of 'Spend the Money' or DIY.!</p>

<div></div>