Canon slide copying set-up

[Chuck Nacke]

6 hours ago, Johnnie5 said:

This is intriguing and simple for copying negatives and maybe slides too.   He doesn't mention color temperature or if it is full spectrum light from the led panel.

WOW, I can see curvature in the film original from just this image.  MF needs a glass carrier.

 

Chuck

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

WOW, I can see curvature in the film original from just this image.  MF needs a glass carrier.

 

Chuck

 

I thought exactly the same. So much for the clever magnetic clamping procedure... Would a glass carrier could give newton rings problem though? Some simple cross bars would help.

 

Mark

Edited February 17, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

It's just possible that he didn't take all the care he needed to because he was just filming it I suppose. Here's a review in which the reviewer says that sometimes you have to try a few times before the film lies flat. He adds a cardboard mask for his slightly smaller Hasselblad frames, I would think that a mask for the individual frame being scanned would be best. 

 

http://www.sebastian-schlueter.com/blog/2016/6/15/mounting-medium-format-scans-with-lomography-digitaliza

 

The Imacon scanner is very good for medium format because the holder is curved once it enters the scanner as if on a 'virtual drum', as they call it. However it can be less good for something like 6x17 because the top of the holder, the outside of the curve, moves in relation to the bottom of the holder, the inside of the curve. A bit of judicious tape here and there helps a lot.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Chuck Nacke]

6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I thought exactly the same. So much for the clever magnetic clamping procedure... Would a glass carrier could give newton rings problem though? Simple simple cross bars would help.

 

Mark

Yes there are Anti-Newton glass carriers for scaners, but I believe they are expensive.  I know NIKON made one for the 9000

 

Chuck

[Harry Harrison]

BetterScanning offer anti Newton ring inserts for some of their holders, specifically for longer strips or particularly problematic negatives/transparencies, dust will be more of a problem. The Digitaliza holder is designed for flatbed scanners and is a very clever design in the way that it clamps the negative whilst it is held perfectly flat by those magnetic plates but perhaps they might offer moveable shims to add a bit of extra support. However their design means that you can scan/photograph the entire frame including some rebate for any different medium format film - 645/6x6/6x7/6x9/6x12/6x17 - and depending on format you can batch scan more than one frame at one time. They've been around for a good few years so I suspect they must work well as the 'internet community' have had plenty of time to discover any major faults.

 

Epson's own wet mounting kit would obviously keep everything perfectly flat but would make a serious dent in workflow times.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I know NIKON made one for the 9000

Obviously this link will only work for a month or two but right now there's one on ebay in the UK that shows the full complement of holders including the rare 'rotating' 120/220 film strip holder with glass, and I guess all those masks in the box are for that. Impressive, but £3250, someone has a bid of £1250 on one that "might or might not be working".

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Obviously this link will only work for a month or two but right now there's one on ebay in the UK that shows the full complement of holders including the rare 'rotating' 120/220 film strip holder with glass, and I guess all those masks in the box are for that. Impressive, but £3250, someone has a bid of £1250 on one that "might or might not be working".

 

£35 at the time of me posting but 6 days to go.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Minolta-Dimage-Scan-Multi-Pro-Photo-and-negative-scanner/114118014326?hash=item1a91f6b576:g:PMcAAOSwMDpeSY2U

Edited February 17, 2020 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

4 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

£35 at the time of me posting but 6 days to go.

I have a feeling that figure is going to escalate quite steeply, looks in good condition and they seem to go for £1000 or so. I never like it when all they say is "Condition is used" though.

[MDM]

Well I got some of the extenders from China and have had a quick play. It's been a busy weekend so not had a lot of time to experiment but I can happily report that the Tamron 90mm (1:1 macro lens) works very well with the ES-1 with about 80-90mm of extenders in front of the lens on my D810. Surprisingly the AF works extremely well (using back button focus for what it's worth) which is a major benefit, as accurate manual focusing is always a problem at these distances. I am not sure if it is down to accurate focusing or the lens itself but the results are even better than with the 55mm Micro-Nikkor.  I will post some examples later hopefully. 

 

For anyone with a full frame Nikon and probably Canon camera wanting to digitise 35mm slides only and in possession of or willing to spend the money on a quality macro lens such as the Tamron 90, then the ES-1 (or ES-2) is the no-brainer choice in my opinion as it completely alleviates problems with alignment of slide and camera. 

 

 

 

 

 

[MDM]

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. 

[Harry Harrison]

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

I can happily report that the Tamron 90mm (1:1 macro lens) works very well with the ES-1 with about 80-90mm of extenders in front of the lens on my D810

Now that's a result, the possible applications for the ES-1 continue to grow. 

[Harry Harrison]

Those Tamrons seem good value

[MDM]

24 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Those Tamrons seem good value

 

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.

Edited February 17, 2020 by MDM

[Chuck Nacke]

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Obviously this link will only work for a month or two but right now there's one on ebay in the UK that shows the full complement of holders including the rare 'rotating' 120/220 film strip holder with glass, and I guess all those masks in the box are for that. Impressive, but £3250, someone has a bid of £1250 on one that "might or might not be working".

A close friend of mine and stock photographer, who also has images on Alamy, only shot 35mm chromes (positive film) for years had both the Imacon  and a NIKON 9000 scanners and he only used the glass carrier with the 9000.  I on the other hand do not have the thousands to invest in scanning equipment, so I still use the CANON 4000 US and now with VeuScan I feel that I am getting very good results.  I do not scan mounted Chromes.  I have still not "mastered VueScan."  I do think that a large part of the problem is that people think they can do many finished scans in a day?  On my best day I can finish three images in one day, but usually it is one, but I have finished 16bit TIFFs in aRGB color of every image that I invest my time scanning.

 

Chuck

[Johnnie5]

If you want a cheap bracket to hold your camera for copying I made one out of this and 2 bolts, fender washers,and 2 wing nuts.  It has sharp edges but if you run a file or sandpaper over them it smooths it out.  Its called a Simpson Strong Tie A311.  Less than 10 bucks for all the pieces.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Simpson-Strong-Tie-3-5-8-in-x-11-in-x-2-in-Galvanized-Angle-A311/100375057

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Johnnie5
more details

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

A close friend of mine and stock photographer, who also has images on Alamy, only shot 35mm chromes (positive film) for years had both the Imacon  and a NIKON 9000 scanners and he only used the glass carrier with the 9000.  I on the other hand do not have the thousands to invest in scanning equipment, so I still use the CANON 4000 US and now with VeuScan I feel that I am getting very good results.  I do not scan mounted Chromes.  I have still not "mastered VueScan."  I do think that a large part of the problem is that people think they can do many finished scans in a day?  On my best day I can finish three images in one day, but usually it is one, but I have finished 16bit TIFFs in aRGB color of every image that I invest my time scanning.

 

Chuck

 

Are your slides scratched or something? Why does it take you so long?

 

Mark

[Chuck Nacke]

13 hours ago, MDM said:

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. 

Michael,

The major problem with that idea is that the size of the image will change a bit during focus and even if it did not you are putting distortion into an image......

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Are your slides scratched or something? Why does it take you so long?

 

Mark

Mark,

No my chromes (slides) are pretty clean, but most are around 30 years old, My scan of Ernestine Anderson was shot on 35mm Ektachrome 200 +1 in 1982.  I do not like any auto retouching and work on all scans of chromes at 100% and once in a while I do send one through Alamy's QC just to double check my post.  I am also now having to convert images from my 16bit aRGB TIFFs to 8bit sRGB JEPG's and the changes or lack of change is interesting.

 

Another interesting note:  Since 1978 in 35mm film I have worked with Nikons, Olympus, Canons (all L glass), Leicas and back to NIKONs in the early 90's.  The sharpest chromes (Kodachrome) are from the Canons, then the Olympus, then Leitz, the 21 f3.4 was a really great lens, and last appears to be the Nikons.

 

Chuck

[wiskerke]

2 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Mark,

No my chromes (slides) are pretty clean, but most are around 30 years old, My scan of Ernestine Anderson was shot on 35mm Ektachrome 200 +1 in 1982.  I do not like any auto retouching and work on all scans of chromes at 100% and once in a while I do send one through Alamy's QC just to double check my post.  I am also now having to convert images from my 16bit aRGB TIFFs to 8bit sRGB JEPG's and the changes or lack of change is interesting.

 

Another interesting note:  Since 1978 in 35mm film I have worked with Nikons, Olympus, Canons (all L glass), Leicas and back to NIKONs in the early 90's.  The sharpest chromes (Kodachrome) are from the Canons, then the Olympus, then Leitz, the 21 f3.4 was a really great lens, and last appears to be the Nikons.

 

Chuck

 

Chuck, as you may remember I have used the Canon 4000 and the Nikon LS 5000 next to each other for a short while. Thinking that would double my speed. Not so: the Canon was very slow compared to the Nikon and the cleaning on the Nikon was also far more accurate because of the one pass of the LS 5000. Because of that I gave up using the Canon after a week or so and sold it soon after.

 

Both were running under Vuescan, which I have used from the very beginning. But I have used (and been a tester for) Silverfast as well. For that job (the whole job took almost a year) both were also scanning film straight from the lab.

 

I too don't like auto retouching, but the Nikon does a good job. However for old or dirty slides I prefer to have 2 layers: one auto cleaned and one not cleaned. It's quick and easy to turn the cleaned layer on and off and see if there are any mistakes. They do occur of course, but most of the cleaning is fine. And if it's too excessive, it's easy to paint the corrected part in on the uncleaned layer from the cleaned one with a very fine brush. Or do some parts by hand altogether.

One caveat: depth of filed is extremely shallow on the Nikon. I have never used Minolta scanners, but the Dimage 5400 seemed to have the same problem.

 

BTW I am exploring the camera route because I have to digitize a photographer's life work. Mostly B/W, so there the auto cleaning won't work and I'm guessing 70% is medium format, mostly 6x9. I will however probably not be cleaning them as we have more or less concluded we will not be printing anyway. So if we need to publish, this will have to be done from the prints. Which of course are larger than most flatbeds. Even the expensive ones. Besides, I hate scanning. Been there done that; bought digital cameras and never looked back.

 

wim

[Chuck Nacke]

3 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Chuck, as you may remember I have used the Canon 4000 and the Nikon LS 5000 next to each other for a short while. Thinking that would double my speed. Not so: the Canon was very slow compared to the Nikon and the cleaning on the Nikon was also far more accurate because of the one pass of the LS 5000. Because of that I gave up using the Canon after a week or so and sold it soon after.

 

Both were running under Vuescan, which I have used from the very beginning. But I have used (and been a tester for) Silverfast as well. For that job (the whole job took almost a year) both were also scanning film straight from the lab.

 

I too don't like auto retouching, but the Nikon does a good job. However for old or dirty slides I prefer to have 2 layers: one auto cleaned and one not cleaned. It's quick and easy to turn the cleaned layer on and off and see if there are any mistakes. They do occur of course, but most of the cleaning is fine. And if it's too excessive, it's easy to paint the corrected part in on the uncleaned layer from the cleaned one with a very fine brush. Or do some parts by hand altogether.

One caveat: depth of filed is extremely shallow on the Nikon. I have never used Minolta scanners, but the Dimage 5400 seemed to have the same problem.

 

BTW I am exploring the camera route because I have to digitize a photographer's life work. Mostly B/W, so there the auto cleaning won't work and I'm guessing 70% is medium format, mostly 6x9. I will however probably not be cleaning them as we have more or less concluded we will not be printing anyway. So if we need to publish, this will have to be done from the prints. Which of course are larger than most flatbeds. Even the expensive ones. Besides, I hate scanning. Been there done that; bought digital cameras and never looked back.

 

wim

Wim,

 

BTDT, but luckily the photographer made great 11 X 14s.  I have also copied several of my B & W 11 X 14s using my D800 and was happy with the results, but for 35mm chromes I still prefer to scan.  Your Layer idea is good, I do something like that as well.  The LS 5000 is a really good machine and they have gotten silly expensive.  The Canon 4000 has a tad lower DIN but it does produce a really sharp scan. I have also heard that the 9000 is a wonderful scanner, but again $$$.

 

A decade ago when I had a Windows XP machine with a PCMCIA slot I only used the CanoScan with a 16bit ADAPTEC PCMCIA card and I liked it a lot better.  I am still trying to fully understand VueScan?

 

Is Image ID: AM5KH5  from a film scan?

 

Chuck

Edited February 18, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
addition

[geogphotos]

I am in awe of the technical knowledge and commitment shown on this thread. When I bought my scanner back in 2002 I just got started without knowing what I was doing ( and yes it really shows in those early scans on Alamy). But if I had waited to learn I might never have got started. 

 

Obviously, a lot depends on purpose here. Spending an entire day on one image ( as Chuck does) wouldn't make sense for me and there would be absolutely no point as his images are of moments of historic importance and mine aren't.

 

Back in the day I used try and get about 40-50 slides scanned in a long day, and intersperse that with dust busting. Four years of that and what a joy it was to go digital! Now I am keen to go back to some scanning/digitising with camera and revisit old slides. I don't have all this technical knowledge so I'll settle on a set-up when I am ready and that will be it.

 

As this thread continues on page 17 just wanted to thank everybody again for sharing and being so helpful. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

18 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

The major problem with that idea is that the size of the image will change a bit during focus and even if it did not you are putting distortion into an image......

Mark,

 

Chuck

 

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. 

[MDM]

15 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Chuck, as you may remember I have used the Canon 4000 and the Nikon LS 5000 next to each other for a short while. Thinking that would double my speed. Not so: the Canon was very slow compared to the Nikon and the cleaning on the Nikon was also far more accurate because of the one pass of the LS 5000. Because of that I gave up using the Canon after a week or so and sold it soon after

 

wim

 

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.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by MDM

[MDM]

9 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I am in awe of the technical knowledge and commitment shown on this thread. When I bought my scanner back in 2002 I just got started without knowing what I was doing ( and yes it really shows in those early scans on Alamy). But if I had waited to learn I might never have got started. 

 

Obviously, a lot depends on purpose here. Spending an entire day on one image ( as Chuck does) wouldn't make sense for me and there would be absolutely no point as his images are of moments of historic importance and mine aren't.

 

Back in the day I used try and get about 40-50 slides scanned in a long day, and intersperse that with dust busting. Four years of that and what a joy it was to go digital! Now I am keen to go back to some scanning/digitising with camera and revisit old slides. I don't have all this technical knowledge so I'll settle on a set-up when I am ready and that will be it.

 

As this thread continues on page 17 just wanted to thank everybody again for sharing and being so helpful. 

 

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.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by MDM

[geogphotos]

I've had a delay over the lens purchase being considered after a muntjac deer dived into the front of my car and caused £500 worth of damage. 

 

And no I didn't get any photos.😟

[Chuck Nacke]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

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.

 

 

Michael,

 

The NIKON LS4000 was a good machine as is the CANON FS 4000.  I do not use Canon's FARE and most importantly I did not use the USB 2.0 connection,  I connected via a PCMCIA card.  As I have said I am now using the 4000s on a Windows 10 machine via VueScan, USB connection and it is OK, I am still not 100% on the software.  I knew the old Canon interface very well.  I did spend hours on the telephone with Canon learning the as much as I could about the 4000, but they are all gone now, I believe?  Arguing about machines is pointless, there are many scanners that will do a good job for editorial submissions, all it takes is learning how to use them.  FYI, I go back to the days of the 300lb "portable" Sytex scanners, those really sucked.

 

Chuck