Recommended Posts

I have thousands of slides that I have made over the years but never made any copies for stock.  I am considering using my D3400 DX Nikon with the 40mm Micro Nikon lens and Nikon slide copier.  Do you think this combination would work good enough for Alamy.  I am also considering a D750 for my next camera and was wondering if full frame FX would be better.

Marvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wait until you get the full frame Nikon. I say this as I do a lot of film neg/slide scanning using both systems, and there's no doubt that the greater dynamic range of the FF camera together with the higher resolution is a definite enhancement. Good enough for Alamy - yes, if you're careful.

 

BTW, The 40mm lens may not be ideal for FF and you may need to go 50mm or more. Get an enlarger lens as they are flat field and better served for the purpose.

 

Hope this helps

Edited by ReeRay
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they qualify as archive, rather than just old, you could apply for archival privileges. They bypass QC,

I use an Illumitran with enlarger lenses.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to hijack this thread, but anybody using the Sony FE mount (A7/A9)  got a good solution for copying slides and negatives at good quality.  Which lens, which slide copier,  which software. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, marc said:

sorry to hijack this thread, but anybody using the Sony FE mount (A7/A9)  got a good solution for copying slides and negatives at good quality.  Which lens, which slide copier,  which software. 

 

For 35mm I use an A7r with a Schneider Componon S 50mm enlarger lens and mount on a Leica Beoon stand.  40mm Rodagon enlarger lens for 120 film.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to also hijack this thread... how much time do you typically spend  on “scanning” slides this way and how much on post processing... I had a dedicated Minolta scanner to scan slides and I remember it wasn’t much fun... asking this as I have some nice slides from travels (chile, peru, brazil...)  that I would very much have digitally... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 11:22, ReeRay said:

I'd wait until you get the full frame Nikon. I say this as I do a lot of film neg/slide scanning using both systems, and there's no doubt that the greater dynamic range of the FF camera together with the higher resolution is a definite enhancement. Good enough for Alamy - yes, if you're careful.

 

BTW, The 40mm lens may not be ideal for FF and you may need to go 50mm or more. Get an enlarger lens as they are flat field and better served for the purpose.

 

Hope this helps

Yes the 40mm is for DX only and for FF would need the 60mm.  I have the Nikon slide copier that screws directly on the micro lens.  I have used the slide copier with a 50mm lens and extension tubes and its Ok for family pics and facebook but not up to stock.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael_Jacobs said:

Sorry to also hijack this thread... how much time do you typically spend  on “scanning” slides this way and how much on post processing... I had a dedicated Minolta scanner to scan slides and I remember it wasn’t much fun... asking this as I have some nice slides from travels (chile, peru, brazil...)  that I would very much have digitally... 

 

It's a very quick way of scanning. A roll of 36 frames takes about 5 minutes. Once the rig is set up it's just a matter of positioning each frame and capturing at (say) 1/10th sec, as opposed to waiting 5 minutes for a dedicated scanner to process. As you are then post processing a digital file your normal time scale is relevant. I too have a Minolta MultiPro which produces bigger and better files but takes hours as opposed to the minutes I outline.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Illumitran has its own flash with modelling lamp for focussing and is probably no harder to find second-hand. It's also a lot cheaper- the only Beoon I could find was £400. I paid £30 for my Lumi. I did have to make my own holders though, out of old enlarger bits and cardboard.

In practice, what with getting slides out of their holders, cleaning with an anti-static brush or whatever, and focussing and doing trial exposures, you can probably do 100 an hour. It took me a couple of weeks to do 5000 slides.

 I don't have good enlarger glass. I don't think they'd get past ordinary QC.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used both a Nikonscan 8000, and a digital camera (Canon5D2, 100 mm macro lens) copy setup I made out of old studio parts.

The digital camera copy setup produced a better quality digital file than the Nikonscan 8000. Better dynamic range, better sharpness, faster workflow.

 

There are four important things:

 

Use a MACRO lens at optimum aperture, considering both the centre and corners.

 

UNMOUNT the film and use PEC12 to clean the film, otherwise you spend too much time cloning out dust and dirt.

 

Experiment with different film holders or mounts, as the film has to be absolutely FLAT. Factory Kodachrome mounts will not hold the film flat enough.

 

Watch out for DIRT ON YOUR ILLUMINATION SOURCE and keep it as far as possible from the film, as it might start to come into focus and look like sensor dust. Use high quality full spectrum LEDs or a strobe to illuminate, to avoid heat which would warp the film.

 

If you do all of the above you should be able to get every bit of information from the film without compromise. Very necessary, as I think 35mm Kodachrome film only holds about 8 megapixels worth of information.

 

I used the camera copy setup on a range of 4X5, 6X7, and 35mm. Here is the idea. I would have used this machine, except all my copying was finished by the time it was on the market.

http://www.filmtoaster.photography

 

Pec12

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1109254-REG/pearson_education_pecbtl_pec_12_photographic_emulsion_cleaner.html

Edited by Bill Brooks
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

I would have used this machine, except all my copying was finished by the time it was on the market.

http://www.filmtoaster.photography

 

 

Or as Mark said, pick up a secondhand Illumitran for a tiny fraction of the cost to do much the same job. I got mine for 50p.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Or as Mark said, pick up a secondhand Illumitran for a tiny fraction of the cost to do much the same job. I got mine for 50p.

 

Alan

But is it much the same job or is there likely to be a vast difference in quality of the copies?  I’m betting that Bill’s copies are going to be far superior but there is a vast difference in cost of the setup. It comes down to what the intended usage is and how you value your time as well as the quality of the originals. Spending a few weeks producing poor quality digital images that would not pass Alamy QC could be a big waste of time unless the images are really saleable. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an old Jessops slide copier off Ebay for buttons, does a cracking job if you use common sense and a bit of care. Quick way of working through vast quantities of old negs and slides, which I upload as archival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Illumitran is just a copy stand. The quality depends on your optics. As TC says, a snip for archival with cheap englarging lenses, but you need better for QC. Archival bypasses QC but they need to be genuinely archival or you're abusing the privilege.

Digital copying ruthlessly exposes any shortcomings of technique. One finds an embarrassing number of not-very-sharp images.

I only considered archival after seeing cheap Illumitrans on ebay. For me the sales just don't justify any substantial expenditure. Other than the Illumitran I used what I had or made it.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

The Illumitran is just a copy stand. The quality depends on your optics. As TC says, a snip for archival with cheap englarging lenses, but you need better for QC. Archival bypasses QC but they need to be genuinely archival or you're abusing the privilege.

Digital copying ruthlessly exposes any shortcomings of technique. One finds an embarrassing number of not-very-sharp images.

I only considered archival after seeing cheap Illumitrans on ebay. For me the sales just don't justify any substantial expenditure. Other than the Illumitran I used what I had or made it.

Right on all counts, my cheapo copier has more than paid for itself with archival sales, but heavy outgoings on copying kit would have been difficult to justify, and near impossible to cover in sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 One finds an embarrassing number of not-very-sharp images.

 

... Amen to that .... still finding 'em ....

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an A7rii with a Sigma 105mm lens.  Any thoughts about a copy stand, or bellows or attachment that would allow me to slide copy from this set up.  The illumitrans on ebay are currently quite expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very helpful advice, Bill gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an illumitran for 35mm film to 35mm film with a specialized 1:1 copy lens, but it was only good for 35mm up to 2 1/4 square, and I needed mostly 6X7 and 4X5 as well as 35mm film when copying digitally.

 

At 2 1/4 square setting the diffusion plate over the strobe on the illumitran came into partial focus and that caused all kinds of problems with dust on the diffusion plate, and even the grain of the diffusion plate itself.

 

The illumitran with a macro lens worked well 35mm film to 35mm film camera, so it should work well digitally.

 

If you have a continuous light source in your setup, the in camera exposure meter on auto works really well. I would bracket the exposure from the digital camera’s light meter by 2/3 stop on either side for ease in post processing.

 

As space cadet says Optics Optics Optics

 

I did all of my film to digital scans 1995 to 2006 when a scan from film was as good as, or better than, a file from a digital camera. Digital cameras have improved to the point that I would not attempt a scan from film unless the image was really truly historic. A fantastic shot of a bird or a beach on film cannot compete with a fantastic shot of a bird or a beach from today’s digital camera.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now