Jump to content

Canon slide copying set-up


Recommended Posts

 

26 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Neither do I, and IMHO they don't.

I've removed my examples. I thought I was being helpful. I didn't put them up to be judged in this way.

 

 

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Eh?

I don't agree and I don't know what you mean. They look like photographs to me. 

I'm sure they could be improved but I spent as much time as I thought sensible- I don't see any merit in trying to make scans from film look like digital images.

I don't know about the software you've mentioned because I haven't used any.

 

It wasn't intended to be an insult, simply an objective assessment. You said yourself you did minimal processing and that they look like photographs. Presumably you meant prints from film as they are all photographs.

 

Broadly speaking there are two end-member approaches to digitising film. One is to just get it digitised as quickly as possible and the other is to try to get the best digital image possible. Both approaches are valid and a lot will depend on the original slide or neg - content and technical quality.

 

My originals are generally of very good technical quality and I want to get the best I can out of them. Some were taken as recently as 2005 and digitised already using a film scanner but the new technology allows me to get even better digital images from them. In contrast you have said yourself that your originals were often not of the best technical quality so your approach of minimal processing is valid. If you show them on the forum then I assume it is fair to comment on them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

The only example of an "almost" in my opinion, acceptable copy of a 35mm chrome made by photographing a chrome was posted by Mark: 35mmVelvia50.jpeg and it was only a 3000 by.

 

In response to Harry,  If you or anyone reading this forum wants to see examples of my scans from 35mm chromes you are welcome to look at my most recent ten images, don't know the exact number, images I have online.  There are a few that are not perfect, but at least I do have the original 16bit TIFF's at over 5500 by.

 

As I have written before on this thread, "I am not looking for the quickest way to digitize a film frame, I am looking for at permanent copy of a chrome at as close to the original as I can get."

or as a dear friend of mine says," Speed, Quality, Cost, choose any two of the three."

 

A problem, I am guilty as well, on this forum is that people do not read all of what is written or they do not understand what is being said.  I for one am trying to make sure that I have read what is written and understand what has been written.

 

Chuck

 

To accurately assess anything for technical quality rather than aesthetic content, it is necessary to see the full size version, not an Alamy jpeg. Short of licensing images for personal use, the only way to judge is if you upload them to a site like Dropbox where we can download them. That is not going to resolve the question as to whether scanning or camera copying is the better method though. You can only do that yourself by actually giving camera copying a fair and proper trial. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

To accurately assess anything for technical quality rather than aesthetic content, it is necessary to see the full size version, not an Alamy jpeg. Short of licensing images for personal use, the only way to judge is if you upload them to a site like Dropbox where we can download them. That is not going to resolve the question as to whether scanning or camera copying is the better method though. You can only do that yourself by actually giving camera copying a fair and proper trial. 

I disagree, the only way to "resolve the question" is how many times and at what fee was the finished image licensed.

 

As I have written, "I have not seen on this forum" or outside in the real world an example of a DSLR photograph of a 35mm chrome that equals a quality scan at above 4,000 by.

I have not seen, but that does not mean that it has not or can not be done.

 

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I have not seen on this forum" or outside in the real world an example of a DSLR photograph of a 35mm chrome that equals a quality scan at above 4,000 by.

I have not seen, but that does not mean that it has not or can not be done.

Well, yes but that was why I was simply asking in what ways, in your eyes, they didn't measure up, but no matter. This thread was really about advising Ian on a route to scan all the slides he's been buying so I suspect he needs the quickest way to obtain quality. I would say that DSLR scanning is the way for him to go, and I suspect that given the time that you devote to each slide your route might not be appropriate, even though of course it is ideal for your requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I disagree, the only way to "resolve the question" is how many times and at what fee was the finished image licensed.

 

 

That is not the question at all Chuck. That is an entirely different question in fact. No doubt with your background and portfolio you will be well out in front there in terms of sales and fees. My primary goal in digitising older material is not financial. And my interest in this thread is academic. It has been really interesting to hear about the different approaches and I have learned a lot by keeping an open mind. 

 

 

Quote

As I have written, "I have not seen on this forum" or outside in the real world an example of a DSLR photograph of a 35mm chrome that equals a quality scan at above 4,000 by.

I have not seen, but that does not mean that it has not or can not be done.

 

Chuck

 

You still have not provided the criteria for what you mean by "equals a quality scan". You are simple making statements without backing anything up. I am a scientist by qualification and previous profession and I base my judgements on evidence and facts.

 

Edited by MDM
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MDM said:

. Presumably you meant prints from film as they are all photographs.

Why presume that? I didn't say "print".

1 hour ago, MDM said:

If you show them on the forum then I assume it is fair to comment on them.

 

 

2 hours ago, MDM said:

If I am digitising old film images now I don't them to look like re-photographed enprints with no colour correction or other post-processing

 

That's "fair comment?" Where did I say I do " no colour correction or post processing"? You're entitled to your opinion, but that's what it is, no more and no less. It may not meet your  standards, but it doesn't have to.

I think I'll leave this thread behind, I was trying to be helpful by putting up some examples, nothing else. I don't feel the need to be told that I need lessons in processing. The buyers seem to manage.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Well thanks Paulette and your input is much appreciated and welcome 😀. Unfortunately you are about 16 hours too late. I had never heard of it until last night but there is a post at the top of this page which has a link to it. I had a look at it last night and it seems like a very interesting app. 

 

I guess you could say I “lost the thread” of the discussion. ☹️

 

Paulette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NYCat said:

 

I guess you could say I “lost the thread” of the discussion. ☹️

 

Paulette

 

Not surprising at all. Actually it was hidden in a comment on the top of the previous page. I had never heard of it before either and would have missed it if Harry hadn't mentioned it in a subsequent post. So had a good look at it and it looks really interesting. These guys take their neg copying very seriously indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

The only example of an "almost" in my opinion, acceptable copy of a 35mm chrome made by photographing a chrome was posted by Mark: 35mmVelvia50.jpeg and it was only a 3000 by.  No I am not basing anything on evidence, I have other work to do...  I make my own judgment first on the image, then on the context and lastly on how it appears on the vehicle that I am seeing it on.  That is life in the digital world.

 

Chuck

 

Hi Chuck, now I'm confused. I thought your compliments related to this image and this 100% crop from it which are from a DSLR digitised 120 medium format shot.

 

But the filename you are quoting relates to this sequence of images.

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 1.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1a.jpg (2nd attempt - saved at level 12 and better colour balance and processing)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1b.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 2.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 2a.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

Although I think they are aesthetically pleasing images, I'm struggling to see why they are technically (IQ) better than examples posted by Micheal (MDM). For example this one which shows lots of detail (although to me the sky looks retouched). I look forward to seeing some of Harry's examples. Maybe you could post some of yours Chuck at 100% with watermark.

 

*Regarding Topaz Denoise. I have persevered with it and have found that (IMHO) it can be useful, (but tedious), if I use the following workflow.

Shoot in RAW

Open in LR (or ACR) and make all colour and tone adjustments

Export as 16 bit TIFF downsized to 2000 x 3000 = File1.tiff

Open in File1.tiff in Topaz Denoise AI and apply the default noise reduction (15) and sharpening (15) and detail recovery (0) and save as 16 bit tiff = File2.tiff

Load both File1.tiff and File2.tiff into layers in Photoshop CC with File2.tiff on top.

Adjust opacity (or use soft eraser) of top layer to get optimum blend between noise reduced and original image.

 

Why such a convoluted workflow? So far this is the only way I've managed to get Topaz to work reliably. No matter what setting I use in Topaz I find it's over aggressive, particularly with respect to sharpening on high contrast edges. The only way I've found so far to reduce this is to blend back with the original image.  I also downsized to 2000 x 3000 firstly because Topaz runs faster on smaller images (tip don't run it full screen either so the previews are quicker) and secondly because for some reason it didn't seem to work properly on larger images (see my earlier post).

 

Any comments on my latest efforts involving Topaz welcome.

 

I've still got some further experiments to try yet to see if I can simplify the workflow.

 

Mark (hoping I got all those links right - and there are no Russian women anywhere)

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware this thread relates to digitising slides/film with a DSLR, but just in case anyone else also has a Minolta Dimage 5400 and has the capability of running the scanners original old software, it can be downloaded from here: https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/DiMAGE-Scan-Eli.3089.0.html

 

It's not available via menus on the Konica Minolta web site. 

 

I now have an ES-1 and PK-13, just waiting for a suitable light source to arrive on Friday before I try it out with a D750 and Nikon 55mm F2.8 macro lens. It will be interesting to compare scans between the ES-1/D750 and the Dimarge 5400, once I find its 24V PSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I'm aware this thread relates to digitising slides/film with a DSLR, but just in case anyone else also has a Minolta Dimage 5400 and has the capability of running the scanners original old software, it can be downloaded from here: https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/DiMAGE-Scan-Eli.3089.0.html

 

It's not available via menus on the Konica Minolta web site. 

 

I now have an ES-1 and PK-13, just waiting for a suitable light source to arrive on Friday before I try it out with a D750 and Nikon 55mm F2.8 macro lens. It will be interesting to compare scans between the ES-1/D750 and the Dimarge 5400, once I find its 24V PSU.

 

Welcome to the ES-1 club. 😀

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Hi Chuck, now I'm confused. I thought your compliments related to this image and this 100% crop from it which are from a DSLR digitised 120 medium format shot.

 

But the filename you are quoting relates to this sequence of images.

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 1.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1a.jpg (2nd attempt - saved at level 12 and better colour balance and processing)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1b.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 2.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 2a.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

Although I think they are aesthetically pleasing images, I'm struggling to see why they are technically (IQ) better than examples posted by Micheal (MDM). For example this one which shows lots of detail (although to me the sky looks retouched). I look forward to seeing some of Harry's examples. Maybe you could post some of yours Chuck at 100% with watermark.

 

*Regarding Topaz Denoise. I have persevered with it and have found that (IMHO) it can be useful, (but tedious), if I use the following workflow.

Shoot in RAW

Open in LR (or ACR) and make all colour and tone adjustments

Export as 16 bit TIFF downsized to 2000 x 3000 = File1.tiff

Open in File1.tiff in Topaz Denoise AI and apply the default noise reduction (15) and sharpening (15) and detail recovery (0) and save as 16 bit tiff = File2.tiff

Load both File1.tiff and File2.tiff into layers in Photoshop CC with File2.tiff on top.

Adjust opacity (or use soft eraser) of top layer to get optimum blend between noise reduced and original image.

 

Why such a convoluted workflow? So far this is the only way I've managed to get Topaz to work reliably. No matter what setting I use in Topaz I find it's over aggressive, particularly with respect to sharpening on high contrast edges. The only way I've found so far to reduce this is to blend back with the original image.  I also downsized to 2000 x 3000 first because Topaz runs faster on smaller images (tip don't run it full screen either so the previews are quicker) and also because for some reason it didn't seem to work properly on larger images (see my earlier post).

 

Any comments on my latest efforts involving Topaz welcome.

 

I've still got some further experiments to try yet to see if I can simplify the workflow.

 

Mark (hoping I got all those links right - and there are no Russian women anywhere)

 

Mark you are king of the convoluted and complicated workflow. I am almost sorry I mentioned Topaz DeNoise 😀. I messed about with it yesterday and took the sharpening off completely and the Denoise down to 5 which seemed to get rid of the artifacts I was seeing and still has some effect on the noise. But for the most part I think I will get adequate quality (for Alamy QC and my own prints) using Lightroom noise reduction and Photoshop for selective blurring.

 

The sky in the versions of Sollipulli922 that I posted had the sky darkened and some saturation added in LR before opening in Photoshop, spotting the sky to remove dust spots on the slide and the camera sensor before a gaussian blur of 1.5 to the sky only and downsized to short side 2000 pixels. There was no retouching as such but the extra saturation and darkening is something I often do in LR with skies. It is probably a bit over the top here I agree. I have just uploaded two further jpeg versions to  the same gallery of the same raw image directly exported from Lightroom with no spotting or sky blurring (but I did downsize them). Sollipulli922a has the saturated sky from Lightroom and Sollipulli922b has it removed. In fact it probably looks better than the saturated version anyway but feel free to download and have a look at the noise levels before blurring. 

 

Edited by MDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Hi Chuck, now I'm confused. I thought your compliments related to this image and this 100% crop from it which are from a DSLR digitised 120 medium format shot.

 

But the filename you are quoting relates to this sequence of images.

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 1.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1a.jpg (2nd attempt - saved at level 12 and better colour balance and processing)

35mm Velvia 50 - 1b.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

35mm Velvia 50 - 2.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment)

35mm Velvia 50 - 2a.jpg (My latest effort using Topaz AI Denoise)*

 

Although I think they are aesthetically pleasing images, I'm struggling to see why they are technically (IQ) better than examples posted by Micheal (MDM). For example this one which shows lots of detail (although to me the sky looks retouched). I look forward to seeing some of Harry's examples. Maybe you could post some of yours Chuck at 100% with watermark.

 

*Regarding Topaz Denoise. I have persevered with it and have found that (IMHO) it can be useful, (but tedious), if I use the following workflow.

Shoot in RAW

Open in LR (or ACR) and make all colour and tone adjustments

Export as 16 bit TIFF downsized to 2000 x 3000 = File1.tiff

Open in File1.tiff in Topaz Denoise AI and apply the default noise reduction (15) and sharpening (15) and detail recovery (0) and save as 16 bit tiff = File2.tiff

Load both File1.tiff and File2.tiff into layers in Photoshop CC with File2.tiff on top.

Adjust opacity (or use soft eraser) of top layer to get optimum blend between noise reduced and original image.

 

Why such a convoluted workflow? So far this is the only way I've managed to get Topaz to work reliably. No matter what setting I use in Topaz I find it's over aggressive, particularly with respect to sharpening on high contrast edges. The only way I've found so far to reduce this is to blend back with the original image.  I also downsized to 2000 x 3000 firstly because Topaz runs faster on smaller images (tip don't run it full screen either so the previews are quicker) and secondly because for some reason it didn't seem to work properly on larger images (see my earlier post).

 

Any comments on my latest efforts involving Topaz welcome.

 

I've still got some further experiments to try yet to see if I can simplify the workflow.

 

Mark (hoping I got all those links right - and there are no Russian women anywhere)

Mark,

 

The image that I was referring to: 35mm Velvia 50 - 1.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment), 1b is better, vertical of rocks on water,  and as close to what I would consider a usable copy from a 35mm chrome as I have seen on this thread.  Yes, this thread was about photographing a 35mm chrome with a Canon DSLR and as I have written many times, "I have not seen an example of copying a 35 using a DSLR that I would find acceptable."  Keep in mind that my finished target is over 5,000 by.  Also just to note, most of my scans did go through Alamy's QC.

 

Michael,

 

I live with a physicist.  When it comes to images I am only concerned with the finished product, read my previous posts.  If copying chromes with a DSLR worked so well, then why are professional color houses just copy them that way?

 

You all are welcome to go to the images that I have online with Alamy, but I do not have time to go back and post a 50+mb file for the sake of this discussion.

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

.

 

*Regarding Topaz Denoise. I have persevered with it and have found that (IMHO) it can be useful, (but tedious), if I use the following workflow.

Shoot in RAW

Open in LR (or ACR) and make all colour and tone adjustments

Export as 16 bit TIFF downsized to 2000 x 3000 = File1.tiff

Open in File1.tiff in Topaz Denoise AI and apply the default noise reduction (15) and sharpening (15) and detail recovery (0) and save as 16 bit tiff = File2.tiff

Load both File1.tiff and File2.tiff into layers in Photoshop CC with File2.tiff on top.

Adjust opacity (or use soft eraser) of top layer to get optimum blend between noise reduced and original image.

 

Why such a convoluted workflow? So far this is the only way I've managed to get Topaz to work reliably. No matter what setting I use in Topaz I find it's over aggressive, particularly with respect to sharpening on high contrast edges. The only way I've found so far to reduce this is to blend back with the original image.  I also downsized to 2000 x 3000 firstly because Topaz runs faster on smaller images (tip don't run it full screen either so the previews are quicker) and secondly because for some reason it didn't seem to work properly on larger images (see my earlier post).

 

Any comments on my latest efforts involving Topaz welcome.

 

I've still got some further experiments to try yet to see if I can simplify the workflow.

 

Mark (hoping I got all those links right - and there are no Russian women anywhere)

 

 

I am not sure I can see any difference worth mentioning between your Topaz images and the previous versions but I have been on my computer most of the day so my eyesight is a little strained right now for distinguishing very fine detail. Unless I am missing something, I think the effort and time taken is not worth it. If you are going to do some Photoshop work, then there are a some better options I think.

 

1. Select the sky and apply a gaussian blur as I have described by selecting the sky. Sky selection in those two images would be trivial in Photoshop.

 

 or

 

2. Process two images in Lightroom, one with strong noise reduction and no sharpening and the other with no noise reduction but some sharpening for the ground area. Open as a single file with two layers in Photoshop and do as you describe or better still use layer masks which allow non-destructive editing. Ultimately this might be better than 1 as LR noise reduction is probably better than a gaussian blur in Photoshop. For real accuracy select the sky in Photoshop so you don't paint or erase over the boundaries. This whole process would be even better with a pressure-sensitive tablet than a mouse.

 

Or process the entire image in Lightroom with local noise reduction. I find Photoshop much more accurate though for detailed selections. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Mark,

 

The image that I was referring to: 35mm Velvia 50 - 1.jpg (1st attempt - loaded to the forum for comment), 1b is better, vertical of rocks on water,  and as close to what I would consider a usable copy from a 35mm chrome as I have seen on this thread.  Yes, this thread was about photographing a 35mm chrome with a Canon DSLR and as I have written many times, "I have not seen an example of copying a 35 using a DSLR that I would find acceptable."  Keep in mind that my finished target is over 5,000 by.  Also just to note, most of my scans did go through Alamy's QC.

 

Michael,

 

I live with a physicist.  When it comes to images I am only concerned with the finished product, read my previous posts.  If copying chromes with a DSLR worked so well, then why are professional color houses just copy them that way?

 

You all are welcome to go to the images that I have online with Alamy, but I do not have time to go back and post a 50+mb file for the sake of this discussion.

 

Chuck

 

Is she an experimental or theoretical physicist? If the former I bet she would suggest you base your arguments on evidence rather than conjecture 😀. Looking at your online images is meaningless as previously stated. The only way to judge is at full size. It is far quicker to upload an image than to keep on arguing. I recall you are on zenfolio. Ah go on!!

Edited by MDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

 

If copying chromes with a DSLR worked so well, then why are professional color houses just copy them that way?

 

 

 

We are talking affordable solutions here so film scanners that are in the range of most of us fairly ordinary people not drum scanners or whatever it is professional color houses use nowadays. I have never had an Imacon or one these very expensive scanners - my top of the range was a Nikon 4000. I can unequivocally say that the ES-1 setup as I have described is way better. But I believe Harry has some high end film scanners and he is advocating the camera route.  He has promised to post some examples as well. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MDM said:

Mark you are king of the convoluted and complicated workflow.

 

Another accolade :lol::lol: Yes I'm trying to simplify it as I think (after some effort) Topaz can achieve a better result than I can with sliders and selections in PS or LR

 

Did you mange to get Topaz plugin to work in PS or LR? I can only see it in LR?

 

I just looked at your other versions, THANKS FOR POSTING THEM. I think the main thing I notice with 922DS.jpg is the selection of the sky has struggled at top left and some of the rock line is degraded (blurred), also the residue of the blurred grain looks strange (to my eyes). Making an automatic selection and blurring doesn't always get it right (even in LR) and doing it manually can be a pain and using a blur close to the edge will highlight any errors....

 

However, it's been really useful working with your images (they are sharper than mine - probably because you took the original photo with better gear). I think it's allowed me to investigate what the third slider in Topaz does.  It's called Recover Original Detail. I now suspect that it maybe a simple blend between the noise reduced image and the original. That potentially saves me having to generate 2 files and blend them in PS.

 

Before you discard Topaz, try the following. Load your jpeg 922b.jpg and then apply the following 

Remove Noise 15

Sharpen 0

Recover original detail 25

 

It looks to me to give a very good result. The selection of the sky is perfect with better rocky edge than 922DS. The rocky hillside is slightly sharpened, there's no halo, Grain in the sky is almost totally gone (personally I think totally smooth skies look fake). But if you want to reduce the grain more, change Recover Original Detail to 10.

 

12 hours ago, MDM said:

I am not sure I can see any difference worth mentioning between your Topaz images and the previous versions but I have been on my computer most of the day so my eyesight is a little strained right now for distinguishing very fine detail.

 

I agree the difference between my images 1a and 1b is subtle. IMHO The banded rocks are sharper and cleaner without excessive grain. I think one of the problems I have with making adjustments to sharpness and noise reduction in LR or ACR is I find there are way too many sliders with confusing names. Many of which just work in opposition to each other. In the end I usually give up and just use smart sharpen and noise reduction in PS or the sharpen and blur brushes there. It's another thing I like about Topaz. Just 3 sliders. If it was a PS plugin filter that would be even better (maybe there is one, but I couldn't see any Topaz stuff appear in PS, even though it asks during install if I want to install PS support. The online help only talks about the windows version).

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

You all are welcome to go to the images that I have online with Alamy, but I do not have time to go back and post a 50+mb file for the sake of this discussion.

 

Seriously?? As you know, the resolution of the Alamy thumbnails and previews are inadequate for making any sort of judgement. 

 

Just post a jpg at quality level 12 to demonstrate your points about the merits of scanning versus DLR slide digitising. Assuming you have somewhere to post the image, it should take less time than writing some of your forum posts.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

If copying chromes with a DSLR worked so well, then why are professional color houses just copy them that way?

 

Because they want to convince customers that it's a really complex process requiring special equipment so they can charge a lot?

Whereas, in reality, maybe DSLRs have pretty much caught them up?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Well thanks Paulette and your input is much appreciated and welcome 😀. Unfortunately you are about 16 hours too late. I had never heard of it until last night but there is a post at the top of this page which has a link to it. I had a look at it last night and it seems like a very interesting app. 

 

I took a look at the site as well. Very interesting. I found the bit on light source collimation interesting. See Section 4 on this page. The author claims a collimated light sources give better sharpness and contrast. I might try increasing the separation between my light source and my slide to see what happens. Although, with my less than perfect slides, I suspect the limit on the sharpness I can get lies way back at the time I took the picture (lens + film + technique).

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Because they want to convince customers that it's a really complex process requiring special equipment so they can charge a lot?

Whereas, in reality, maybe DSLRs have pretty much caught them up?

 

Mark

Actually, I watched a Utube video last night that was quite interesting. The photographer was very good, can’t remember his name, but it’s here in this link. It’s a quite lengthy vid, but I found it worth watching. It answered some questions that ran around in my mind. He is actually interested in what’s best for prints. 

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/29/film-scanning-shootout-drum-vs-fluid-mount-vs-dslr/

 

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Actually, I watched a Utube video last night that was quite interesting. The photographer was very good, can’t remember his name, but it’s here in this link. It’s a quite lengthy vid, but I found it worth watching. It answered some questions that ran around in my mind. He is actually interested in what’s best for prints. 

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/29/film-scanning-shootout-drum-vs-fluid-mount-vs-dslr/

 

Betty

 

I only watched a few snippets to see what he was doing and it's not really relevant to the current discussion Betty in relation to using a camera to digitise slides.  He is digitising a panoramic 6x17 negative, using a Canon 6D camera which required him to take a load of shots and then try to stitch them afterwards. This is nothing like the sort of procedures we have been talking about here but it illustrates the extreme difficulty of getting a piece of film aligned with a camera. This is completely different to using a ES-1 adapter on a quality camera as I have described in terms of quality and difficulty.

 

His comparison of his actually scanning methods for panoramic medium format film is probably a lot more valid. The drum scan turns out the best quality unsurprisingly but it is incredibly expensive. Check out the Michael Strickland website he used for prices. 

Edited by MDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

The photographer was very good, can’t remember his name, but it’s here in this link. It’s a quite lengthy vid, but I found it worth watching. It answered some questions that ran around in my mind. He is actually interested in what’s best for prints. 

Very interesting, I hadn't come across him before but he's called Nick Carver and obviously put a lot of work into preparing for this particular video. Scanning 'normal' medium format frames (6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5) with a digital camera is a bit of a pain because of the stitching if you want to extract maximum detail and for his huge 6x17 frames it clearly wasn't really appropriate in terms of workflow, particularly as photomerge just wasn't working correctly for some reason. Given the cost of drum scans then the results from the Epson were very good, though he was fluid mounting to get the best quality. I think Epson flatbeds are very good for medium format. He wouldn't talk about the actual optical resolution of the Epson scanner but nevertheless scanned with it set at both 3200 ppi & 4800 ppi. In order to get his 21,600 x 7,200 pixels he actually needed true 3400 ppi. I've read that the Epson doesn't even reach 3200 ppi and that seems to have been borne out by his results.

 

He absolutely hated inverting the colour negative from the DSLR but he found the afore-mentioned Negative Lab Pro the best method. He loved Negafix from Silverfast. Actually he seemed to fall out with Aztek because they wouldn't give him the colours that he liked from colour negative which he was getting by using Negafix on the Epson. A little unfair actually as colours from colour negative are so subjective.

 

In terms of relevance to DSLR scanning of a single frame as in this thread he seemed to be saying that the Canon 7D was more or less on a par with the drum scanner in terms of detail captured but he disliked the 'Canon' colours which made it looked like it was shot on a digital camera (he hates digital cameras). I think he might have tried creating his own colour profile actually. The drum scanner was best for dynamic range but he was very impressed by the dynamic range from the Canon (and Nikon are probably better still).

 

Of course he was scanning for a print as you say, a huge 72" x  24" print at that, and so it was interesting that he should point out that at the end of the day, once you view the print from a reasonable distance of 18" or more then all the differences became irrelevant and that grain seen on screen just seems to dissolve away in the print - and probably only photographers would think of looking at it from closer than that.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Is she an experimental or theoretical physicist? If the former I bet she would suggest you base your arguments on evidence rather than conjecture 😀. Looking at your online images is meaningless as previously stated. The only way to judge is at full size. It is far quicker to upload an image than to keep on arguing. I recall you are on zenfolio. Ah go on!!

MDM,

 

She has a P.h.D. in Solid State Physics and your posts have made her laugh hard..... There are digital images of her, working out outside on Alamy (shot with a DSLR) 

 

To everyone else,

 

I am afraid that I do not wish to post a full sized file on this thread, I have my reasons.  I have been very careful with everything I have written and expressed my own opinion.  I do happen to know and have worked with professional pre-press people, very high-end printers, and I can assure you that they have extensive training and experience working on images with their sophisticated and expensive imaging equipment.  I have still not seen a 35mm chrome copied with a DSLR that meets my standards using my simple desktop scanner, just my opinion.

 

Chuck

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.