Jump to content

MDM

Verified
  • Content Count

    3,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,167 Forum reputation = excellent

1 Follower

About MDM

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={EB02977F-FF09-40CC-90CD-0895911A7F63}&name=Michael+Murphy
  • Images
    4017
  • Joined Alamy
    29 Apr 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

4,654 profile views
  1. Presumably you are opening the image into Photoshop (i.e. converting the raw) before step 4 and doing the TDN stuff from within Photoshop. If it was me, I would be inclined to remove the dust and do everything else (including removing the wisps as you call them) before downsizing and then save it (PSD for me) as you then have a larger master copy in case you want to do anything else. The artifacts (the wisps) are one thing that put me off using TDN as well as the slowness on my machine but it is good you are finding it useful. It certainly gives a very clean background. It is difficult to really judge the effects on that falcon image as it is not clear what should be in sharp focus. A landscape with sky would be interesting.
  2. A thread that arose from the dead. And it is not the first time. I was a young man when I last posted in this one 😎. I hadn't had my lens replacement surgery at the time either so my eyesight was not the best except I only realised how bad it had been when almost exactly a year later I got my new eyes. I agree with wim.
  3. I am taking around 30 mins (max 1 hour) I guess to process in total. I have changed my method a bit from the discussions we have had and am spending a bit more time on each image but, even with spotting and careful localised noise reduction, I can't imagine this taking more than an hour. I don't see any need myself in general for multiple scans as the dynamic range of the D810 is astoundingly good but it might be a good idea for some really contrasty images. However, It all comes down to what detail there is in the slide itself. If there is no detail in the highlights or shadows of the slide, then there may not be a lot there to recover. Negative film may have a much higher dynamic range than slides depending on the scene, the film and how it was exposed and processed so taking several images might work better..
  4. Don't mention it David. I have had the ES-1 copier for a few years but hardly used it much until this thread got me going to see what would actually work. The Tamron 90 is now going to be my lens of choice for copying, as the AF works well and makes life a lot easier than trying to manually focus. There have been several versions of this lens. I still have a really old manual focus Adaptall one which is optically very good as well. I am keeping it in case I ever get my one surviving Nikon film camera out again as the newer lenses without aperture ring won't work. Great shots of Hawaii by the way. Looks like a fantastic place.
  5. It's not just a claim Chuck. I do have an actual PhD in geology (specialised in volcanology and geochemistry) from the University of Bristol (England, UK). My first degree was a 1st in geology with minors in chemistry and physics from University College Dublin (Ireland). Happy to show you my degree certificates if you want. Not sure what the relevance is to the current topic though. I did mention that my scientific training makes me want to see evidence to back up assertions so I guess that is where this came from. As for the spelling, digitise is the correct way to spell it on this side of the Atlantic. They call it British English although it is also used in Ireland where I come from. This applies to a lot of words that in US English end in ize - here they are spelt ise. Other differences include words such as color - colour, labor - labour. I actually prefer the American myself as it tends to more phonetic but I live here so I conform.
  6. I should think that the effort and expense required to maintain the forum is far outweighed by the benefits to Alamy in relation to answering queries that would otherwise require paid customer service staff. The forum acts as a great information resource for newbies and old-timers alike. The forum also generates a family feeling (even the occasional bit of bickering lends authenticity to the family vibe). As long as we avoid political discussions, which can get rather heated in recent times, there is rarely any need for moderation. How often do newbies comment on how friendly and helpful it is. I would certainly advocate the continuance of the forum and would hope that the new management see the benefits.
  7. I think there are several possible causes for this. Along the lines of what Joseph says, incorrect metadata formatting for Live News is definitely one. The system checks for this and automatically rejects images accordingly. These show up in the AIM and reside there permanently There is also something random at work which will reject one or two images in larger batches but will accept them again on re-uploading, even as part of the same batch. I guess this is what David is referring to and is presumably a bug in the system. These don't show up in the AIM though (except maybe if all images from a batch are rejected they do?) Another possible cause of automatic rejection with a similar error message used to be if the image dimensions exceeded 200MB (for panoramas). I don't know if there is still a maximum limit. These don't show up in the AIM though. It may also apply if images are below the 17MB mark. Not had that one recently either but again I don't think these show up in the AIM.
  8. Now coming back to the original subject of the thread, here is a summary of my findings to date in relation to the Nikon ES-1 slide copier. Having tested the Tamron 90 and Micro-Nikkor 55 on a Nikon D810, both lenses give pretty equivalent results in terms of sharpness, including edge-edge and corner-corner sharpness on the ES-1. The AF on the Tamron works very well and makes the whole process easier than manually focusing with the Micro-Nikkor 55 but very careful focusing seems to give results that are just as good as the Tamron. The Micro-Nikkor 55 needs a PK-13 (27mm or thereabouts) normal extension tube behind the lens as it only goes to half life size. The Tamron, which goes to full life size, needs about 80-90 mm of extenders in front of the lens in order to get it to focus close enough. These are inexpensive and can be bought on eBay from China. A 58-52mm step down ring is also necessary. Getting this to work on other makes of camera and other macro lenses should be no problem as far as I can see. Experimentation would be required to determine the amount of extension required in front of the lens for other lenses to enable the lens to focus and to get near to lifesize on the image. Finally edge-edge and corner-corner sharpness are very important considerations in choosing a lens for camera copying of slides.
  9. This is not worth arguing with. It is patent nonsense applied to scanners. A soundbite worthy of the best newsfakers. The idea here is to discuss the best methods of digitising film not to dismiss all as equal or to say it doesn't matter. Of course it matters. That is what the fundamental theme of the thread has been all along. Presumably this refers to using a digital camera rather than a scanner. This is the stuck record bit - no evidence has ever been provided for this opinion after 18 pages of this thread. Or a chair with a special filter to prevent people from talking out of the wrong orifice 😎. Maybe one that shakes just before one hits the submit button. I can feel mine shaking now but I can't help it - here goes 😁.
  10. It's not about mine is better than yours or whatever. However, some methods are superior to others in terms of image quality and speed - they are not all the same. I am simply posting my opinions and findings based on direct experience - stuff I have done myself - and the aim is to help answer the original question that started the thread, as well as maybe to help others decide. From my own findings of almost 20 years ago, I would not recommend the Canon 4000 over the Nikon 4000 scanners. And things have come a long way since these Canon and Nikon scanners were introduced almost 20 years ago. Having used Canon and Nikon 4000 slide scanners as well as the newer methods discussed at length in this thread, I am fully convinced that modern methods of digitisation in camera are now significantly superior to prosumer slide scanners in terms of image quality and speed of the basic copying process. That does not mean that the scanner methods are bad, just that they have been superseded by advances in terms of camera sensor technology (in my opinion of course). So my recommendation, based entirely on experience, to anyone considering investing in a method of digitising 35 mm slides would be to go for in camera copying although exactly which approach to take would depend on one's existing equipment.
  11. It has been a most interesting thread and has got me actually copying slides rather than thinking about it. Investigating what works and doesn't work with the Nikon ES-1 has taught me quite a bit as well. I am convinced now that it is the best and most efficient method for digitising 35mm slides having seen the solutions that others have come up with. EDIT: The method Phil Crean suggested on the first page is probably equally as good but might be more expensive depending on what kit one already has a starting point. An advantage of Phil's suggestion is that it can be applied to other formats besides 35mm.
  12. I tried the Canon 4000 against the Nikon LS4000 when they were released back in 2001 I think (a friendly photography store manager loaned me the Canon 4000 to test) and I found the Nikon was way better. The Canon was automatically oversharpening so was much noisier at the standard setting, the dust removal (FARE I think it is called) was not in the same league as the Nikon and the dynamic range was also poor in comparison to the Nikon. I gave it back and kept the Nikon which was 2-3 times the price of the Canon.
  13. I am not so sure that would be a problem at all as the differences are likely to be miniscule at the distances involved here. I have been using an excellent program called Helicon Focus which is specifically designed for focus stacking and it takes size changes and associated distortion at different distances into account as far as I know. Perhaps it might be a problem in scientific applications but for general copying purposes I doubt it would be much of a problem.
  14. They are exceptional lenses. The 90 macro was Tamron's flagship lens going way back and they have been improving them through several iterations. There are two versions at the moment, one with stabilistation (VC for vibration control in Tamron speak) and one without at a very reasonable price for the quality of the optics. Mine is the previous iteration of the VC one which have now almost doubled in price since I got mine but they are still a lot cheaper than the Canon 100L. If one was buying for copying and/or use on a tripod only, then I expect the non-VC version would be a good choice but the VC is excellent and invaluable when using as a portrait lens or for handheld closeup even. The AF is excellent as well.
  15. In relation to the problem of holding medium format file flat as discussed above, a better solution might be to focus on different parts of the film and use focus stacking. That would be the first thing I would try in any case.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.