digitaldog

Considering the rarity of the slides, I'd suggest looking this over: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_06_of_20_HiRes_v1c.pdf Then maybe consider digitizing the image and projecting that.

Let's backup a second. Is the goal to flatten the slide (and old mount) such you can place it into something that expects a 35mm mount? And if so, how do you then wish to digitize that?

It might be Firewire. It might be SCSI https://www.ebay.com/itm/125543992093?hash=item1d3b014b1d:g:2xMAAOSwp2xjOt8B&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA0Bm3FehDDgSIFP0R4jjI3LOw5QVk5m1wOougHkG5mm9YHVbFtj%2B5euRN%2FplG34Gy5qR4ESgh3IAyhDvWue0W0LowKLWZ9e9WkMeKViNEVuiuJkoW5VPHywP0FbCP%2BAEcLx%2Fw8sewS7msUJBpc4sb5KtOoVl4nY7IcjYVsWYhtnbcSU39NE6yxBk884Bg5GsuoyhUX%2B109FtizE4saiPWobbRRSM6%2BWvcYiFGdO2psZDJJ3kDVb8orNiaqodJmb6jUPpHqsSSeGoe2PCI44yU6hM%3D|tkp%3ABFBMutPg97Bh Until the OP identify “describe the plug it uses” we get nowhere.

No USB, maybe the older SCSI version? So that's one possible issue. Next would be trying to find a Firewire to SCSI adaptor for the MackBook. Which was possible in the past many years ago, but a driver was needed and depending on the OS, that may also be a no go. Lastly, some software to drive it. Now that is doable (at a price): https://www.silverfast.com/about-silverfast-why-scanning-basics-of-scanning/silverfast-for-scanners-from-manufacturer-company-nikon/

Key words “Almost always”. I didn't say “I'm reluctant to change them out of their mounts for the loss of the slide mounts themselves “ I am simply listening to the OP and respectful of his concern.

One of the best pieces on the subject: https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/

Yes. What he wrote:

Blow torch? 😅 To be fair and accurate, something this thread should stick with (and I'm not suggesting this be done):

Exactly. Alan seems to forget his original writings too, while taking credit for Steve's ingenuity with glass mounts:

Even a broken clock is right, twice a day Alan. 🤔 Trying to focus you on what you said, what was then dismissed, and what wasn't done in by the OP this thread is rather pointless. ”Sometimes wrong; never in doubt." -Atul Gawande

As usual Alan, you don't understand nor comprehend what was written and actually done (aside from the purchase).

Mickey Mouse answer to the MM question about Copyright 😂 in yesterday's NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/business/mickey-mouse-disney-public-domain.html

Ah, I loved this baby and what a price: https://www.ebay.com/itm/352626898684 Now find an old Mac with SCSI and scan away. Slow (like 30 minutes start to finish) but superb quality only a PMT drum scanner could beat (and gotta unmount). Look at the lens on this beauty.

By some here, often, yes! 🤔 He doesn't need luck. He only needs to listen to the on topic suggestions given by those with experience on the topic of scanning transparencies; by those reading his needs in doing so.

Steve, you are new here. Me (and Alan) not so much so let me 'defend' Alan 🤑 and explain, he's not being Snarky. That is way, way above his pay grade! There is a history here and over on the LuLa forums of this kind of agenda. Alan has difficulty reading and comprehending posts, has ideas that are funny and absurdly wrong (a major one being "All original prints are 300 DPI"). There's many more sadly. He's someone who never lets complete ignorance of a subject get in the way of having strong opinions about it. Just ignore him.

Again, Google can be your friend if you try, then read, and listen: https://www.asmp.org/wp-content/uploads/PhotographersGuidetoCopyright.pdf https://www.ppa.com/understanding-photographic-copyright https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/

Yes, some of us can understand that desire. Preserve that original mount.

No he doesn't have to! It's an “option” he doesn't want nor must use. Read and then listen to his words Alan! "Listen to understand instead of listening to respond." - Barack Obama

Do attempt to read what the OP has stated in the first post! "I'm reluctant to change them out of their mounts for the loss of the slide mounts themselves" To the OP: I'm with the other(s) suggesting you leave everything alone, try using a focus stack. Non invasive and likely to handle the focus issue, if there is one which may not be the case depending on the scanner or better, shooting the image with a DSLR with sufficient DOF.

Slow? Speed demon compared to my Leaf scanner.

Scanners do not really create “raw” data. Nothing like that from a camera. This is raw:

All you need to do is scan them and make the images look the way you think they should look. No different in the darkroom.

Happy to hear none of your old slides have a cast. I'm simply saying it's possible and recently observed here and in such a case, improving the rendering not matching it is fair game. Nothing about the original rendering nor what it might look like 40 years later is “correct”. Rendering is subjective and the way photographer doing the rendering decides what is “ correct”. As outlined in Karls article for Adobe I provided. Hopefully (hopefully) it answers Alans question about what's “correct” (building comment).

It might not just after processing. It very well many years later. https://filmcare.org/vd_dyefade.php Dye fading reduces the overall density of the image, which results in loss of contrast. Additionally, since different dyes have different stability characteristics, color dyes fade unevenly, resulting in distracting shifts in color balance.

Match or improve. A transparency with an ugly magenta color cast (perhaps as shown yesterday); no reason to match it. Rendering is always subjective, massively with negatives but also with transparencies and digital capture: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Langs_Render_to_Print.pdf