Ddigitizing slides/negs with Nex 6 and bellows

[dennis_w3]

<p>I have a Minolta Dualscan IV and use Vuescan software with it. The quality of the scans is high, but the process is slow, especially given the thousands of photos I've accumulated over 40 years.<br>

Over on the Classic Manual Cameras forum, I saw some very nice photos from slides, "'scanned' by putting them on a light box and photographing them with a Sony Alpha 900 and 50mm Macro lens. Followed by cropping and minor levels adjustments," according to the poster.<br>

Granted these scans are posted here at 700 DPI, but they look really nice. <br>

My Sony Nex 6 will do high pixels, and I have a sturdy bellows with a great Topcor Macro lens and the slide copy attachment. Any opinions on how scanning vs. photographing slides and negs this way? </p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>I've never tried using a slide copying attachment, but I do like the results from the Scan Dual IV and Vuescan.</p>

<p>At the dyxum.com web site there have been a number of discussions of the pros and cons of different methods. You might find the threads <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/scanning-slides-which-method-is-best_topic98849.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/diy-slide-dia-copy-options-and-tips_topic78698.html">here</a> of some interest.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Dennis, to add to what I said in the earlier post, I mount the camera on a copy stand. I made a deep light box out of a stout cardboard box with a sheet of opaque plastic across the top. I fitted a small daylight tube in the box, with a curved white sheet of card under it to try and concentrate the light. The top is masked with black card, leaving a hole for the slide, which was raised an inch or so above the opaque plastic to defocus any dust or scratches. I used autofocus.</p>

<p>This worked but gave me exposure times of around one second, and there was some doubt about the colour balance, so I just poked a flashgun through a hole in the side of the box to use flash illumination, which is more defined in terms of its white balance, and camera shake was eliminated. This provided surprisingly even illumination across the area, which was useful for larger media like old glass negatives.</p>

<p>Getting the slide to fill the frame is quite tricky, and I ended up cropping the shots quite a bit.</p>

<p>Once you have it set up its possible to do 36 slides in less than half an hour. It also works for negatives.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>You need a stable mount for the slides, with a diffuser between the slide and the lamp. The resolution is probably as good or better than you can get with a flatbed scanner. However color balance can be tricky.</p>

<p>Light tables with fluorescent lamps may be problematic for color balance. They don't have a continuous spectrum. You might want to use an incandescent light source, like a halogen desk lamp (3200K). Set the white balance for the light source, not on automatic.</p>

<p>I haven't tried calibrating the sensor with a standard slide, and I'm not completely confident that would work. The dyes in the film do not correspond well to the Bayer filter in the camera. You can make the results look good, but a perfect match may be difficult or impossible.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>For slides I think it's not much of a problem. For negative it's quite difficult.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>When you cobble your light together keep the rescuing option for underexposed negs where you shoot a positive visible under certain conditions - light from hte sides and dark background in mind. Does the Nex support TTL flashguns outside its hotshoe? - There are no cables for my Fuji.<br>

Here I own but don't use a Dimage scan 5400 its so slow.... I got a dirtcheap Webcam based film "scanner" from a supermarket. The device produces "kind of presentable" colors from negs. So it might be good enough for overview "what do I have?" scans. Unfortunately the dust and stuff on the negs has to be battled by hand....<br>

My bet is you'll end rescanning dirty favorites with your Minolta & ICE but a digital camera should deliver previews pretty quickly.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>First, you are right to be using a good macro lens. Resolution can be quite good. </p>

<p>For slides and B&W negatives, I think it's pretty easy to get good results. </p>

<p>For color negatives, it is devilishly hard to get accurate color. Here's one attempt with reasonable but not perfect results. This took some work on a Beseler Slide Copier and Photoshop. <br>

<img src="http://2under.net/images/121020-D034486-0R-60G-110B-Color-Scr-An.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>This question comes up pretty often. There are some people who like using a camera to "scan" their slides and negatives and others who don't. If you have the proper macro lens and slide copying attachment you're in a better position than those who have to improvise all of it. But I tend to side with those who say that it's easier on a film scanner and that you're going to get more consistent results on a scanner. As mentioned, doing with the camera can require cropping and adjustments afterward. If so, the time to do that might exceed the time waiting on the scanner. Given that you have both the scanner and most of what's needed with the camera, why not try both, see how long each takes and what results you get? Then decide which way works best for you?</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Here is my setup for Olympus m4/3:<br>

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=113545#113545" target="_blank">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=113545#113545</a><br>

and some results:<br>

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108313#108313<br>

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16966</p>

<p> </p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Thank you for all the replies. Since the bellows is handy, has the slide copier attachment, and I have the Topcon adapter for the Nex, I'll try it. The dualscan is a great machine though, so for the most detail, etc., I'll continue to use that, too. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I have done it on several occasions to date and I have a longer focal length lens and a Close-up lens, just a 2 dioptre to enable the longer lens to focus close enough. The main problem is reflection of the camera off the back of the slide/negative ... photograph the emulsion side can help and in the computer it is easy to flip etc. I use a north light [ actually a south light for me in the southern hemisphere :-) ] and AWB sorts it out nicely. You say you have lots to do whereas for just a few the set-up can be simple as in photo. A lot depends on if you know how to get your camera to take tight framed shots, most can one way or another.</p><div></div>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>But I tend to side with those who say that it's easier on a film scanner and that you're going to get more consistent results on a scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Whilst this is true, it's also going to take a lot longer. Some people post here saying they are going to scan thousands of slides and negatives but haven't worked out how many years it is going to take them given the amount of spare time they might have for doing it.</p>