Canon slide copying set-up

[Harry Harrison]

I get the impression that you might have a lot of slides to copy so you need a simple setup and dangling the camera off a tripod with a large expensive lens on it isn't going to be the best route in my opinion. You can get focus creep and 'auto everything' isn't an advantage in this case in my opinion. Macro lenses were never specifically designed just for slide copying of course and bespoke slide copiers like the Bowens Illumitran and the Dia-Duplicator always used the bellows/enlarger lens combination.

[Phil Crean]

41 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Very impressive Phil. Those are fantastic.

 

And that set up - Novoflex Castel-cop-digi - is actually very affordable

 

https://www.novoflex.de/en/products-637/macro/extension-bellows/universal-bellows-balpro-1/castel-cop-digi.2439.html

The other bit is a tad more $$$...but still worth it, my "scans" have more than paid for it in sales 😉

Phil

[Harry Harrison]

I still actually think that a 55mm f2.8 manual focus Micro-Nikkor with a Nikon-EOS adapter and the ES-1 holder will be the simplest and cheapest option but Phil's method with the 100mm f2.8 Macro look very impressive also, and possibly easier for you.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

19 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

I have a set of BPM bellows which I bought in the 1970s (and which have a slide holder included) but I've no idea what's on the market these days.

There's still plenty on ebay but normally without the adapters as people buy them up just for the adapters which they resell separately, a kind of BPM asset stripping!

[Inchiquin]

21 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

There's still plenty on ebay but normally without the adapters as people buy them up just for the adapters which they resell separately, a kind of BPM asset stripping!

 

 

Luckily adaptors are not desperately expensive though. If they were, I wouldn't have one!

 

Alan

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I still actually think that a 55mm f2.8 manual focus Micro-Nikkor with a Nikon-EOS adapter and the ES-1 holder will be the simplest and cheapest option but Phil's method with the 100mm f2.8 Macro look very impressive also, and possibly easier for you.

 

 He would need to check it would focus with the adapter as well as an extension ring on a Canon camera. It will only work apparently with a few Nikon lenses because of focus distances so may not work on Canon at all. And there is the inconvenience of stop-down metering as well as the possibility of focus shift becoming significant at the tiny distances involved. I would probably go with Phil's method myself if I wasn't a Nikon user already.

 

For what it's worth the overall cost of a Nikon setup secondhand would be around £1200 for a secondhand D750 say plus 55mm micro Nikkor, ES1 and a Nikon  extension ring, assuming you have a compatible flashgun or decent LED. Once set up though it is fast to use. 

[geogphotos]

Thank you all so much for your time, excellent advice, and patience with me!

 

I have a lot to absorb and am most grateful to you all.

 

I did pop into a camera shop the other day but the young lad and myself both ended up totally confused with each other.😂

[Harry Harrison]

45 minutes ago, MDM said:

He would need to check it would focus with the adapter as well as an extension ring on a Canon camera.

Agree about the hassle of stopping down, manual exposure and manual focusing, I did mention that, though I wouldn't find it much of a hassle in fact. However if it works with the ES-1 on the 55mm Micro-Nikkor on a Nikon full frame then it will work on the Canon, the adapter just takes up the 2.5 mm difference in the flange focal distances.

 

Edit:

The 55mm Micro-Nikkor does give very good results when slide copying on a Canon, amongst the best, though a couple of my enlarging lenses are very, very slightly better.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

On 27/01/2020 at 14:34, MDM said:

 

This is not true if you use the right equipment such as a high quality macro lens and a good camera (in my case a D810 with 55mm Nikkor and extension ring) a good and consistent light source (flash or photographic quality LED), shoot raw and process the images carefully. I find the results are far superior than using a high end prosumer slide scanner (in my case the Nikon LS4000) and much quicker.

 

 

Yes but the implication is fair- that 35mm. slides weren't necessarily always as "good" as we think they were- they were rarely viewed at anything approaching the size at which we judge digital images for QC. Copying them by any method ruthlessly exposes any shortcomings in lens or technique.

When I view a 20MP images at 100% for QC, I'm effectively enlarging to 70x45 inches. Once I enlarged a portion of a Hasselblad neg to the equivalent of 60x60 and, as I recall it isn't as "sharp" as that, but the criteria aren't really the same. Film and digital are different animals.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Thank you all so much for your time, excellent advice, and patience with me!

 

I have a lot to absorb and am most grateful to you all.

 

I did pop into a camera shop the other day but the young lad and myself both ended up totally confused with each other.😂

Very unlikely that a shop can deal with that sort of enquiry anymore.

I won't mention the Illumitran route again as it's a bit fiddly. Depends how many images you have. I had 6000.

Edited January 29, 2020 by spacecadet

[MDM]

27 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Agree about the hassle of stopping down, manual exposure and manual focusing, I did mention that, though I wouldn't find it much of a hassle in fact. However if it works with the ES-1 on the 55mm Micro-Nikkor on a Nikon full frame then it will work on the Canon, the adapter just takes up the 2.5 mm difference in the flange focal distances.

 

Edit:

The 55mm Micro-Nikkor does give very good results when slide copying on a Canon, amongst the best, though a couple of my enlarging lenses are very, very slightly better.

 

I just wondered if you would need to focus when stopped down because of the the theoretical possiblity of focus shift whereby the plane of focus can change depending on the aperture of the lens, given the tiny depth of field involved. But that is pure conjecture. I use f11 for optimum depth of field so focusing stopped down would be incredibly difficult I expect. Manual exposure is no problem to me as I almost never do anything else anyway and manual focusing is the only way to go that close in. The 55mm Micro-Nikkor is an astonishingly sharp lens corner to corner (and still manufactured by Nikon) so if you say it works on a Canon camera then I believe you. 😀

 

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

if you would need to focus when stopped down

I certainly have to do it with an extremely inexpensive enlarging lens on bellows. It is difficult, but you get an eye for it, and on my fixed setup I find only have to check focus periodically or when changing between types of slide mount.

[Harry Harrison]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

I use f11 for optimum depth of field so focusing stopped down would be incredibly difficult I expect. Manual exposure is no problem to me as I almost never do anything else anyway and manual focusing is the only way to go that close in.

I think we probably both find that we work out a system that works that is easier to do than describe. I tend to do the copying tethered into Lightroom so I check the focus as the image comes in and I also use  around f8/11, the focus didn't seem to change when stopping down. However I prefer the enlarger lens and bellows route partly because there is absolutely no risk of the focus moving and the quality is first rate. Given Phil Crean's results then I too think that the 100mm f2.8 Macro is the way to go.

[Harry Harrison]

13 minutes ago, MDM said:

I just wondered if you would need to focus when stopped down because of the the theoretical possiblity of focus shift whereby the plane of focus can change depending on the aperture of the lens,

Forgot to mention, and didn't want to confuse with too much detail, but I check the focus stopped down with Live View.

 

Edit:

I imagine that a mirrorless camera with an EVF would be very good for slide copying.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Phil Crean]

Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Forgot to mention, and didn't want to confuse with too much detail, but I check the focus stopped down with Live View.

I do all the work on Live View also, including focus at 10x magnification in 5D MKIII, I've sometimes bracketed especially on B&W negs as it's sometimes hard to judge the optimum exposure until looking at the RAW in Lightroom.

Phil

[Chuck Nacke]

4 hours ago, Phil Crean said:

100mm f2.8 is superb. Remember to turn the IS off when on tripod!

I used it with a set up using a Novoflex Castel-cop-digi which mounts on two rails under the camera on a Castel -Q sliding rail then lit the slide with a flash placed about 150mm behind.

It worked with 35mm and 120 slides and also B&W negs. 

 

35mm Fuji100

120 Fuji100

120 Kodak TMax100

Phil

I would disagree with most of what has been written on this thread based on my own experience.

 

I bought several set ups, Bowens, Stands, NIKKOR's and Schneider enlarging optics.  Using NIKON D800's

I was never able to come close to the results I get from my CanoScan FS4000, scanning 35mm chromes.

Phil's image: M92EE4 would not be acceptable to me.  Take a look at my image: - Image ID: 2ANRDF9

That was scanned from a FUJI RDP 35mm chrome using my FS4000.  Since the software from Canon is

no longer supported or updated I am now using Viewscan Professional and I think using a real 35mm film

scanner to be far better than duping film with a DSLR.  I also know photographers who have or are using

the outrageously expensive Flextight scanners and while the final quality is better the money and time

spent preparing the slides and output scans are too much.

 

Feel the need to add that I only scan unmounted slides or negatives.  I carefully clean the film with PEC-12,

only scan one image at a time and I do not use any auto retouching.  I output all scans as 16bit TIFF's

in aRGB color then I do all correcting and spotting by hand.  Currently using this system and putting the

output scans into Lightroom (color correction) and Photoshop (dust spotting) before downsizing to

5000 by in 8bit in aRGB color JPEG's for upload.  This process takes me between four to 20 hours per image,

which includes all the background research for captions and keywords, but many of the scans I have done this

way are licensed over and over.

 

As an old and dear friend of mine use to say, "Speed, Quality, Cost, choose any two of the three."

Out of the Seven licenses Alamy has made for me in Jan 20, four have been scans from film.

 

Chuck

 

[MDM]

23 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I would disagree with most of what has been written on this thread based on my own experience.

 

I bought several set ups, Bowens, Stands, NIKKOR's and Schneider enlarging optics.  Using NIKON D800's

I was never able to come close to the results I get from my CanoScan FS4000, scanning 35mm chromes.

Phil's image: M92EE4 would not be acceptable to me.  Take a look at my image: - Image ID: 2ANRDF9

That was scanned from a FUJI RDP 35mm chrome using my FS4000.  Since the software from Canon is

no longer supported or updated I am now using Viewscan Professional and I think using a real 35mm film

scanner to be far better than duping film with a DSLR.  I also know photographers who have or are using

the outrageously expensive Flextight scanners and while the final quality is better the money and time

spent preparing the slides and output scans are too much.

 

Feel the need to add that I only scan unmounted slides or negatives.  I carefully clean the film with PEC-12,

only scan one image at a time and I do not use any auto retouching.  I output all scans as 16bit TIFF's

in aRGB color then I do all correcting and spotting by hand.  Currently using this system and putting the

output scans into Lightroom (color correction) and Photoshop (dust spotting) before downsizing to

5000 by in 8bit in aRGB color JPEG's for upload.  This process takes me between four to 20 hours per image,

which includes all the background research for captions and keywords, but many of the scans I have done this

way are licensed over and over.

 

As an old and dear friend of mine use to say, "Speed, Quality, Cost, choose any two of the three."

Out of the Seven licenses Alamy has made for me in Jan 20, four have been scans from film.

 

Chuck

 

 

Have you tried the Nikon ES1 with 55mm Nikkor with your D800. I am betting you have not. I have used the Canon FS4000 scanner you refer to as well as the Nikon LS4000 which came out around the same time back in 200 when I had the chance to try both the LS4000 and FS4000 and the Nikon was by far the better (as well as a lot more expensive). Scans from the FS4000 were oversharpened and with poor dynamic range as well as very noisy in comparison to the Nikon. I am not saying you can't get acceptable results from the Canon scanner but it would take a lot of work as is evident from what you describe.

 

However,  neither scanner comes anywhere close to the ES1 slide copier with 55mm Nikkor and extension ring with a D810. One very major advantage is you get a big, high quality NEF to work with which allows for far better noise control as well as amazing highlight and shadow recovery even from contrasty slides in Lightroom. Careful processing in Lightroom with spotting and a tweak or two in Photoshop should take no longer than 30 minutes. 

 

Speed, quality and cost - as I already had everything but the copier and extension ring the cost was about £200.

 

That is all my direct experience. 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by MDM

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Forgot to mention, and didn't want to confuse with too much detail, but I check the focus stopped down with Live View.

 

Edit:

I imagine that a mirrorless camera with an EVF would be very good for slide copying.

 

I tend to forget about Live View partly because I wear glasses for closeup. I am so used to focusing in the viewfinder which is set for my eyesight as well so I would need to put on the glasses if checking anything in Live View. With my setup it is bright enough to focus through the viewfinder anyway but I will keep that in mind. One of my mottos is: I must not be a Luddite - be open-minded and ready to change and adapt. 😀

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

1 minute ago, MDM said:

 

I tend to forget about Live View partly because I wear glasses for closeup

I'm prepared to put on the glasses for doing the copying, provided I can find one of the pairs scattered around the house, and regularly lost, thank goodness for Lidl & Aldi. I wouldn't be able to see the screen properly otherwise which is why I can't contemplate any of these 'new fangled' cameras that just have screens. A mirrorless camera, perhaps with a right-angled finder would probably be ideal.

[Chuck Nacke]

7 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I tend to forget about Live View partly because I wear glasses for closeup. I am so used to focusing in the viewfinder which is set for my eyesight as well so I would need to put on the glasses if checking anything in Live View. With my setup it is bright enough to focus through the viewfinder anyway but I will keep that in mind. One of my mottos is: I must not be a Luddite - be open-minded and ready to change and adapt. 😀

 

 

Michael,

 

Ha, I am a proud "Luddite"  I find what works and do my best to keep it working.  On the NIKON V.S. CANON scanners it is a long and funny story, NIKON screwed up when I ordered

the LS 4000 and I needed a scanner and all I could get right away was the CanonScan FS 4000 and I've been using it ever since, going back to the days of mailing a CD to London.

 

I have tied photographing 35mm chromes with DSLR's and have not been happy with the results.  I assume that Image ID: DGRM9C was done by photographing a film original?

 

I know it is a lot of work to do things the way I am doing them, but I am using what I have and getting results that I and the people licensing my images are happy with.

FYI, I have done extensive testing between the NIKON scanners (up to 9000) and the CANON's and working the way I work I prefer the results from the CanoScan FS 4000.

Also the current versions of LR and PS save me hours finishing TIFF's.

 

One more note that I have been dealing with:  I am finding that images uploaded to Alamy do not always display properly?  I only work in aRGB color space.

[Klinger]

On 27/01/2020 at 08:43, Harry Harrison said:

With respect I'd have to disagree, as MDM says, very high quality results are possible, and I also have a professional high end scanner to compare the results with. Ian is scanning historically important slides I believe in any case, rather than his own. The ubiquitous slide duplicators from Ohnar, Makinon, Jessops etc. were never of good quality as they have poor quality glass inside, they were cheap and not to be compared with the results possible with high quality prime macro lenses.

 

This article says it "can't dispute that the flatbed scanner has the edge over the Ohnar duplicator", which says all one needs to know really.

 

https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/viewfinder/slidecopying.html

 

 

 

 

I meant using the slide copier that mounts on a camera, and I should qualify, I used Fujichrome and Ekatchrome, someone who used a better slower speed, higher quality slide film, may have better results. The examples posted here look far better than mine.

 

 

The dust and any imperfections are also amplified.

 

I'm surprised that anyone recommends a flatbed over a single slide scanner. Years ago, that was the last choice. Times have changed.

 

I still advocate that if someone is going into slide scanning, that they send out their ten very best (or five?) and see what they get from a professional service, which will be the best they can expect from their personal old slides. And then see what they think of that, before diving into buying a bellows, lens (possibly) copier holder and others bits and pieces, to see if they like what they get.

 

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This sort of thing?

 

https://fotodioxpro.com/products/macro-bellows-eos

 

 

 

Nice find, I want one of those! I'm using extension tubes as it is. The bellows would be more adjustable.

 

6 hours ago, geogphotos said:

How about using a tripod with a Canon macro lens on my 5D mk3 shooting directly down over 35mm slide placed on light box ?

 

 

Yes, I did some 2 1/4 slides that way and had good results, although nothing I would use for stock, they are family photos and turned out quite well.

 

GIGO = if the slides aren't the highest possible quality to start with, the results aren't going to be up to digital quality. I'm disappointed that my old slides look faded, soft, and lacking color, compared to what I can shoot now with a simple DSLR.

 

Interesting results, and the slide duplicators I found when I searched Ohnar zoom slide duplicator are interesting and they look very adaptable. This leads me to starting over with a better lens and what I have, instead of the kit lens that was just, trying out for how does that look?

 

 

 

 

[Klinger]

16 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

Ha, I am a proud "Luddite"  I find what works and do my best to keep it working.  On the NIKON V.S. CANON scanners it is a long and funny story, NIKON screwed up when I ordered

the LS 4000 and I needed a scanner and all I could get right away was the CanonScan FS 4000 and I've been using it ever since, going back to the days of mailing a CD to London.

 

I have tied photographing 35mm chromes with DSLR's and have not been happy with the results.  I assume that Image ID: DGRM9C was done by photographing a film original?

 

I know it is a lot of work to do things the way I am doing them, but I am using what I have and getting results that I and the people licensing my images are happy with.

FYI, I have done extensive testing between the NIKON scanners (up to 9000) and the CANON's and working the way I work I prefer the results from the CanoScan FS 4000.

Also the current versions of LR and PS save me hours finishing TIFF's.

 

One more note that I have been dealing with:  I am finding that images uploaded to Alamy do not always display properly?  I only work in aRGB color space.

 

Technology sure has improved. CanoScan FS 4000 looks reasonable priced compared to the Nikon I bought years ago. Maybe that's another reason I was disappointed, and I need to go back and start over. My Nikon Coolscan(s) are SCSI and wasn't that impressive. Older technology.

 

Good that geogphotos brought this up, I had shelved any efforts to copy my old slides.

 

I have the lens and holder and rings and bellows... time to try again. Should that fail, a dedicated scanner would be next.

 

 

[Klinger]

6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

That's pretty much the technique I use, but with Lumix G7 + 45mm macro lens. But... it's a pain to set up (getting everything aligned and level), and be careful about the lightbox colour balance and possible flicker. Also best done in a darkened room to reduce stray reflections on slide emulsion.

 

Mark

 

Yes, or this too... 😎

 

 

[MDM]

45 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

Ha, I am a proud "Luddite"  I find what works and do my best to keep it working.  On the NIKON V.S. CANON scanners it is a long and funny story, NIKON screwed up when I ordered

the LS 4000 and I needed a scanner and all I could get right away was the CanonScan FS 4000 and I've been using it ever since, going back to the days of mailing a CD to London.

 

I have tied photographing 35mm chromes with DSLR's and have not been happy with the results.  I assume that Image ID: DGRM9C was done by photographing a film original?

 

I know it is a lot of work to do things the way I am doing them, but I am using what I have and getting results that I and the people licensing my images are happy with.

FYI, I have done extensive testing between the NIKON scanners (up to 9000) and the CANON's and working the way I work I prefer the results from the CanoScan FS 4000.

Also the current versions of LR and PS save me hours finishing TIFF's.

 

One more note that I have been dealing with:  I am finding that images uploaded to Alamy do not always display properly?  I only work in aRGB color space.

 

Chuck

 

I know from years on the forum that you are a guy who likes to stick with what you know and I appreciate that but the point I was really making is that if you have not tried the ES-1 then it is not valid to say that your way is better. If you by any chance have a 55 Micro-Nikkor or a newer 60 Micro-Nikkor, then I would urge you to check out the ES-1 as it is quite amazing.

 

I think this is definitely the way forward as quality film scanners are no longer available and it is difficult now to even get them repaired. My LS4000 died last year just when I was about to do a comparison with the copying method and I am not intending to get it repaired. Nikon no longer supply the parts in any case so there are no authorised repairers here any more. In fact I would be quite happy to give it to someone who might be able to use it for parts or have parts to repair and keep it.

 

Incidentally I had big problems with the LS4000 when I got mine in 2001 - there was a fault in the early ones and the field of focus was not flat. I had a very friendly and helpful manager in the local camera shop (now closed for many years) who kept giving me different ones to try until I found a good one. After the first three I tried the Canon FS4000  which was fine in terms oif focus but the overall image quality was nowhere near the Nikon. I brought it back and tried LS4000 number 4 which worked fine and is the one I still have.

 

That image DGRM9C was shot on a D800 in fact. The only image I have on Alamy that I duped is 2A8872A which I uploaded some months back on its own just to check it would pass QC as I am used to submitting really clean, sharp images. I am so busy doing all sorts of stuff that I have not really found time to go back through my archive. One day I will get around to it  (a lot of black and white negs as well as slides) but for the moment my interest in digitising film is more academic than practical. You obviously have an amazing, unique and highly saleable archive from your years as a photojournalist and if I had stuff like that then I would be definitely working on it. 

 

Best of luck. 

 

 

EDIT - I should add that 2A8872A is not a great example of the quality attainable - I did it mainly as a test of QC but it does illustrate what is possible with a highly contrasty slide. A full sized version can be viewed here.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by MDM

[Chuck Nacke]

54 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Chuck

 

I know from years on the forum that you are a guy who likes to stick with what you know and I appreciate that but the point I was really making is that if you have not tried the ES-1 then it is not valid to say that your way is better. If you by any chance have a 55 Micro-Nikkor or a newer 60 Micro-Nikkor, then I would urge you to check out the ES-1 as it is quite amazing.

 

I think this is definitely the way forward as quality film scanners are no longer available and it is difficult now to even get them repaired. My LS4000 died last year just when I was about to do a comparison with the copying method and I am not intending to get it repaired. Nikon no longer supply the parts in any case so there are no authorised repairers here any more. In fact I would be quite happy to give it to someone who might be able to use it for parts or have parts to repair and keep it.

 

Incidentally I had big problems with the LS4000 when I got mine in 2001 - there was a fault in the early ones and the field of focus was not flat. I had a very friendly and helpful manager in the local camera shop (now closed for many years) who kept giving me different ones to try until I found a good one. After the first three I tried the Canon FS4000  which was fine in terms oif focus but the overall image quality was nowhere near the Nikon. I brought it back and tried LS4000 number 4 which worked fine and is the one I still have.

 

That image DGRM9C was shot on a D800 in fact. The only image I have on Alamy that I duped is 2A8872A which I uploaded some months back on its own just to check it would pass QC as I am used to submitting really clean, sharp images. I am so busy doing all sorts of stuff that I have not really found time to go back through my archive. One day I will get around to it  (a lot of black and white negs as well as slides) but for the moment my interest in digitising film is more academic than practical. You obviously have an amazing, unique and highly saleable archive from your years as a photojournalist and if I had stuff like that then I would be definitely working on it. 

 

Best of luck. 

 

 

EDIT - I should add that 2A8872A is not a great example of the quality attainable - I did it mainly as a test of QC but it does illustrate what is possible with a highly contrasty slide. A full sized version can be viewed here.

 

 

Michael,

 

This has become an interesting discussion.  I did have problems with the FS 4000's, I have two just in case one goes down,  In the old days I did not use the USB connection, USB 2.0, I used a 16bit Adaptec PCMCIA adapter.  I also never use FARE (Canon's version for Auto retouching).  My experience has been that the CanoScan FS 4000 used the way I am using it, is sharper than the Nikon version and that is against the Nikon 9000.

 

Another important note: I have found that the best 35mm emulsion to scan from is the old Kodak EPP, I would put Kodak's PKL and PKR right behind EPP.  I have not done much B & W, but that is why I have been spending so much time with the scanner, I have a stack of really exclusive Tri-X that I would like to scan and get back out into the market.

 

Using modern ViewScan also makes a huge difference over the old Canon software.  I am still trying to master ViewScan.

 

Concerning your image: 2A8872A, On my calibrated 24' Dell Ultra Sharp monitor, I don't care for how your highlights look, just my opinion.  I think scans look better or as I would say more "Film Like" using a dedicated film scanner.  For everyone else: Flatbed scanners do not cut it, in my opinion.

 

Chuck