Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks for sharing that, I find it quite extraordinary what can be done, I came across this site where there seems to be a huge range of photgraphy related options:

 

 

Crikey, there's a slide holder for the Illunitran. Never occurred to me (probably because I don't have a 3D printer) so I used card and plasticard.

Some of those you have to pay for. Not much though.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Harry Harrison wrote: Is there much choice in the quality and properties of the plastic that can be used, strength, flexibility etc. and does that depend upon the type or expense of the 3D printer that you are using"

 

PLA is the most widely used plastic, followed by ABS and ASA (thinking of car bumpers and trim, Lego etc.),  PETG and PC (polycarbonate) in ascending order of difficulty to print.  

PLA is strong, stiff and will hold fine detail plus it does not warp during printing. Not good if printed parts subjected to temperatures above 70C and prolonged exposure to 40-50 C will warp -- that is a sunny inside window ledge in the UK for a few weeks.  Great for quick test prints and prototyping.

 

ABS and ASA are more difficult to print while being tough and resistant to higher temperatures.  ASA resists UV damage and has better colour fastness.

 

PETG (plastic bottles and food containers) and PC (very strong engineering plastic) both are a challenge to print well. 

 

There are flexible almost rubber like materials but are difficult.  All but PLS smell a bit when printing.

 

Almost all 3D printers that use filament rolls will print PLA while most will print the other plastics.

 

The first baseline to consider is the largest thing you would want to print in one piece flat on the print bed like a film strip holder.  I use a real Prusa i3 mk 2 and while not cheap is a good work horse and have given no trouble.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Alan Gallery said:

 

The first baseline to consider is the largest thing you would want to print in one piece flat on the print bed like a film strip holder.  I use a real Prusa i3 mk 2 and while not cheap is a good work horse and have given no trouble.  

 

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply, I've never really known anything about it other than it was possible to make hard to find parts for cars & cameras etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spacecadet said:
4 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Crikey, there's a slide holder for the Illunitran

Yes, parts aren't that readily available unless you buy one with all the holders and they're not cheap. I've made my own 35mm neg holder from 2mm MDF, works well, holds down with a couple of those fancy thin magnets you can get these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 05:44, Harry Harrison said:

 

 

This older video is more comprehensive, he uses something called a 'lume cube' as a light source, which I've never seen before.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNK24oQICUc

 

The Lume Cube has a high CRI and is £90 on Wex here

 

The only thing in this video that I agree with is that PEC-12 and PEC-PADS are important when working with old film originals, but what is shown is not

the proper way to use PEC.  I have used PEC-12 on chromes and negs for over 20 years, after my tech at KODAK recommended PEC and my FUJI rep told

me that it is a must have for film duplicating.

 

For the record:  First make sure all loose material is removed from the film.  Then you lay a PEC-PAD sheet down, apply a bit of PEC-12 solution and place the film on the PAD, then overlay another PAD with a bit of PEC-12 solution on top of the film, then VERY lightly move the film through the two PADS.

 

When preparing a chrome (positive film) for duplication, either with a DSLR or film scanner, I ALWAYS remove the film from the mount, which covers a percentage of the image, before doing anything.

 

P.S.  I still have not seen an example of a 35mm chrome shot, duplicated, with a DSLR that has the same qualities as the same chrome scanned using a 4,000DPI desktop film scanner.

 

Chuck 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 what is shown is not

the proper way to use PEC.

 

 

😮 Great way to get scratches the entire length of the strip!

I haven't had to use PEC on film yet and an antistatic brush and rocket blower are as far as I've had to go, but I've only dealt with my own material which has been reasonably well kept.

That said, I've just copied some portrait transproofs (anyone else remember them- 24x30mm positives from neg?) and they were quite dusty, but then they used to spend a lot of time out in the open so to speak- they were never meant to be used as originals. Although I did once have a 20x16 canvas made from one after some heavy-handed neg retouching. But of course it was new then and hadn't been in a box in the garage for 25 years.

As an aside, I had the C41 negs, but I gave up trying to colour correct them as I have a limited capacity for mental torture. Skin tones!!!

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

The only thing in this video that I agree with is ...

 

 ----- I still have not seen an example of a 35mm chrome shot, duplicated, with a DSLR that has the same qualities as the same chrome scanned using a 4,000DPI desktop film scanner.

 

Chuck 

 

Still waiting for the evidence to back up this statement . This is clearly never going to arrive and is contrary to what just about everyone who has actually tried a high quality camera copying setup and has previously used a decent desktop slide scanner says. The thread is about a camera copying set up anyway so who cares that you can't provide evidence.  It is just an opinion based on ideas and not experience. Old technology, parts unavailable, progress, luddites, adapt or perish, gizabreak, BLA BLA BLA ad infinitum 🤠.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

For the record:  First make sure all loose material is removed from the film.  Then you lay a PEC-PAD sheet down, apply a bit of PEC-12 solution and place the film on the PAD, then overlay another PAD with a bit of PEC-12 solution on top of the film, then VERY lightly move the film through the two PADS.

Yes, definitely preferable to running anything down the length of the film though he had already cleaned it and was using a fresh microfibre cloth so I doubt it would have come to harm.

 

2 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

The only thing in this video that I agree with is that PEC-12 and PEC-PADS are important when working with old film originals

Well obviously I'm disappointed, I thought you were going to say that you'd rushed straight out and bought the ES-2! Actually the reason I posted it is that for anyone that hasn't seen the ES-2 in the flesh (like me) you get a good look at what is supplied and how it all goes together, the rest of the process is going to be down to personal preferences/prejudices.

 

2 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

When preparing a chrome (positive film) for duplication, either with a DSLR or film scanner, I ALWAYS remove the film from the mount, which covers a percentage of the image, before doing anything.

Actually perversely that's the reason I started using DSLR scanning in the first place, I didn't want to tear apart my beautiful card-mounted Kodachromes to scan them on the Imacon. Personally I don't find that I would have revealed anything that was important to the picture by doing so, at least not so far. Most of them were taken with a Leica rangefinder and as you know the framelines are quite conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Still waiting for the evidence to back up this statement . This is clearly never going to arrive and is contrary to what just about everyone who has actually tried a high quality camera copying setup and has previously used a decent desktop slide scanner says. The thread is about a camera copying set up anyway so who cares that you can't provide evidence.  It is just an opinion based on ideas and not experience. Old technology, parts unavailable, progress, luddites, adapt or perish, gizabreak, BLA BLA BLA ad infinitum 🤠.

Michael,

 

I was expressing my own experience, based on working with the equipment I currently have on hand, and I have also written on this thread about systems that I have tried.

I have never said that the way I process my own 35mm chromes is the way everyone should do it.  My system appears to be good enough for THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY and three other major agencies that license my images.  Can you say the same about your photography?  BLA BLA BLA.

 

I am not now nor have I been impressed with your petty posts.

 

Harry,

 

Many of the chromes that I scan were shot with Leica M's and after scanning a 35mm chrome it can be very useful to have the extra parts of the frame while doing perspective correction while finishing the image.  I have also found that using the film carrier on a CanoScan FS 4000 with an unmounted 35mm chrome yields a tiny bit sharper scan.

 

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

I was expressing my own experience, based on working with the equipment I currently have on hand, and I have also written on this thread about systems that I have tried.

I have never said that the way I process my own 35mm chromes is the way everyone should do it.  My system appears to be good enough for THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY and three other major agencies that license my images.  Can you say the same about your photography?  BLA BLA BLA.

 

I am not now nor have I been impressed with your petty posts.

 

 

How much sillier can this actually get. You are talking about image content and congratulations on your sales to the BJP. Once again this thread is about getting the best quality image from a camera copy  not who can produce the most saleable image, in your case work that you probably did over 20 years ago and unique in its content. The BJP are not looking at the noise levels in your images or how sharp they are. So can we now conclude that It is not actually possible to prove what you keep repeating like a stuck record and even if it was true it is irrelevant to the main topic. And Chuck I do not feel in the tiniest bit envious of you, your career, your reputation or how many sales you make. I prefer to live for now and work for now, not revel in past glory. 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian!! What did you so innocently start?!
 

And second...did you ever find out what you needed/wanted to know?

 

Is this thread a record-holder for length?

Betty

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

Is this thread a record-holder for length?

Betty

 

It might be. Not sure how you would check that. 🤔😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDM said:

 

It might be. Not sure how you would check that. 🤔😀

Not sure either, Michael. 🧐 All I know is I’d rather have splinters driven under my fingernails as to be forced to read it front to back.🥱

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Not sure either, Michael. 🧐 All I know is I’d rather have splinters driven under my fingernails as to be forced to read it front to back.🥱

 

There is no need 😀. There are a few simple conclusions which I will summarise soon but the basic one is that it is possible to do what Ian was asking about with a few adaptors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

There is no need 😀. There are a few simple conclusions which I will summarise soon but the basic one is that it is possible to do what Ian was asking about with a few adaptors.

Good to hear a summary is coming.👍🥳

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

 

How much sillier can this actually get. You are talking about image content and congratulations on your sales to the BJP. Once again this thread is about getting the best quality image from a camera copy  not who can produce the most saleable image, in your case work that you probably did over 20 years ago and unique in its content. The BJP are not looking at the noise levels in your images or how sharp they are. So can we now conclude that It is not actually possible to prove what you keep repeating like a stuck record and even if it was true it is irrelevant to the main topic. And Chuck I do not feel in the tiniest bit envious of you, your career, your reputation or how many sales you make. I prefer to live for now and work for now, not revel in past glory. 

M,

 

Never did I talk about content. I also simply allowed to the BJP to publish a small number of my images in a six page story about my work or as you have written,

my "past glory."

 

If you are so focused on the now, what are you doing trying to contribute to a stock library?  All photography is about the past.  Alamy's business is licensing images from the "past."

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Ian!! What did you so innocently start?!
 

And second...did you ever find out what you needed/wanted to know?

 

Is this thread a record-holder for length?

Betty

 

 

Not sure what to say. Yes, am very surprised by the length of it but that's good I guess. A lot of it is way above my head but still interesting to see things being discussed at an advanced level. The knowledge on display is very, very impressive.

 

I do already have a film scanner so can do what Chuck is saying - though I don't spend so much time and care as he does. It does have dust removal software inbuilt. It is slow but can run on another computer while I work so no problem. 

 

As to the alternative route using the camera I am still undecided. I keep changing my mind. What time is saved in avoiding scanning could be lost in additional dust busting, then there's the PEC products for cleanings slides but they seem pricey to me when added on to the top of the lens, adapters, etc

 

The lens is close to £1000 so what I am mulling over is how much extra value I would get from that lens apart from slide copying - how much I actually need that for macro and general photography. Or spend that amount on just creating new pics with what I already have by going on some trips?

 

Anyway, the thread is still going strong and I'm in no rush....😃

 

Thanks again to ALL who have contributed.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

A lot of it is way above my head


Same here. How about most of it, to this absolutely non-technical person.  I have to ask people how to get the nib down in my ballpoint pin. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now used the Topaz Denoise AI 30 day free trial to process over 100 slides. I really like it. It doesn't always do a good job and sometimes makes matters worse, but most of the time it achieves results that I struggle to match with any combination of sliders or selections in LR/PS. What I find most impressive is the way it can reduce film grain whilst retaining or enhancing the underlying detail. So I finally took the plunge and bought a copy. If anyone else decides they want to buy a copy they can get a 15% discount by using this link (and I'll get a $10 rebate too :)).

 

Here's a 100% crop from an example. On the right is the image with default LR detail settings. On the left the result I was able to achieve using Topaz.

 

The package has its quirks (as noted earlier in this thread), so it's worth using the 30 day trial to see whether you like it or not. The workflow I use with it is also shown earlier in this thread (page 18).

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2020 at 14:59, Alan Gallery said:

The first baseline to consider is the largest thing you would want to print in one piece flat on the print bed like a film strip holder.  I use a real Prusa i3 mk 2 and while not cheap is a good work horse and have given no trouble.  

I thought this company looked interesting for anyone without a 3D printer, though I suspect that it would be expensive:

 

https://www.weerg.com/en/

 

I know it's off topic but do you happen to know whether if you actually have a small object that you want 3D printed can you get it '3D scanned' in order to create a file to work from? I'm just wondering how else could they have printed that VW camper.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I know it's off topic but do you happen to know whether if you actually have a small object that you want 3D printed can you get it '3D scanned' in order to create a file to work from? I'm just wondering how else could they have printed that VW camper.

 

Yes that's certainly possible. The company I used to work for (Renishaw) sold top spec equipment that can do this, but I don't think they provide it as a service. Their dental division also sold equipment that used this technique to make replacement teeth (crowns).

 

This thread might give some leads? https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-duplicate-an-object-I-already-have-with-3D-Printing?share=1

 

Also here's a US company that provides a service http://www.dirdim.com/serv_replication.htm

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Thanks for the link, it's possible I suppose that it will get cheaper to do so. In fact I've just remembered that a sculptor friend told me that they use this principle to 3D scan small sculptures in order in this case to scale them up to eventually produce a full size bronze.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note.

 

I sold the Canon slide duplicator. Still working on the black mask for the slides, so I can use a digital camera, back lighted. I located my LS-1000 in storage, and have one SCSI card in an XP computer. With Vu-Scan by the way. I have the old T-mount slide duplicator, bellows, adapters, it's OK.

 

LS 1000 = 12-bit A/D and 2,700-dpi optical resolution, which is supposed to make 10MP images from a slide or 35mm film.

 

If all of those fail, I'm still thinking of just sending some out. 🙂

 

After all these messages, to answer the question that was asked, the Nikon Slide duplicator looks like the best answer for slide copying with a digital camera.

 

----> fork

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Klinger said:

Just a note.

 

I sold the Canon slide duplicator. Still working on the black mask for the slides, so I can use a digital camera, back lighted. I located my LS-1000 in storage, and have one SCSI card in an XP computer. With Vu-Scan by the way. I have the old T-mount slide duplicator, bellows, adapters, it's OK.

 

LS 1000 = 12-bit A/D and 2,700-dpi optical resolution, which is supposed to make 10MP images from a slide or 35mm film.

 

If all of those fail, I'm still thinking of just sending some out. 🙂

 

After all these messages, to answer the question that was asked, the Nikon Slide duplicator looks like the best answer for slide copying with a digital camera.

 

----> fork

 

 

That scanner is ancient and the quality on the other side of terrible by today's standards. More noise than detail. If you are going to spend time on copying slides I would think you would be better to use something else, anything else, or send them out as you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

That scanner is ancient and the quality on the other side of terrible by today's standards. More noise than detail. If you are going to spend time on copying slides I would think you would be better to use something else, anything else, or send them out as you say.

 

Yes, but I own it. 🙂

 

I was just listing my current options. Why are you so negative and looking for things to be wrong?

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
×
×
  • 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.