Canon slide copying set-up

[MDM]

49 minutes ago, Klinger said:

 

Yes, but I own it. 🙂

 

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

 

Because it is ancient and it was the first film scanner I ever used back in 1994 so I know what the quality is like. I had a fondness for it as it was amazing to be able to digitise some slides for the first time - the closest thing in the digital world at that time to seeing a print develop in a darkroom. I didn't own it though. It was bought by the computer guy in the place I was working at the time. Do post some of the scans at full res somewhere if you want as it would be interesting to see them.

Edited March 15, 2020 by MDM

[Klinger]

20 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Because it is ancient and it was the first film scanner I ever used back in 1994 so I know what the quality is like. I had a fondness for it as it was amazing to be able to digitise some slides for the first time - the closest thing in the digital world at that time to seeing a print develop in a darkroom. I didn't own it though. It was bought by the computer guy in the place I was working at the time. Do post some of the scans at full res somewhere if you want as it would be interesting to see them.

 

I don't expect that anything from the LS 1000 scanner will be suitable for Alamy or stock. The old T mount duplicator has a lens inside the tube, I don't trust that to make best quality images.

 

That's why I had concluded that the answer to the original question, had pretty much come back as the Nikon duplicator adapted to make it work on geophotos Canon equipment. That's best for two reasons I can see. Quality and cost.

 

[KevinS]

On 26/01/2020 at 14:43, geogphotos said:

I have a Canon 5D.

 

What exactly do I need to buy to be able to copy 35mm slides in the way that has been described here ( I think using a Nikon camera) using a slide holder illuminated by a light source behind

 

I am prepared to buy what is needed and would prefer to get properly set up.

 

lens?

 

adapter?

 

slide holder?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to add to this already long thread, but I use Canon and have looked into this. I previously posted about the Canon 50mm Compact Macro and Nikon 55mm Micro-Nikkor, saying the Nikon was a bit sharper than the Canon. Just tried the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro (non L) and that's what I expect to be using. The 58mm filter size meant it was easy to get some threaded extension tubes online. I guessed at the length needed and ordered the closest combination available on that day, knowing I was a bit short. Two filters with the glass removed gave enough length to make it work. The Macro lens itself is about 4.75 inches in length, and the Nikon ES-1 plus extension is about 5.75 inches in length. Total extension is about 3.2 inches. With the ES-1 racked all the way out it's easy to focus and the image very nearly fills the frame.  AF did not stop hunting, which is OK. The results of a five minute test gave the best results of the three lenses I've tried, and will be fine for Alamy, I believe (will post accepted images here). One of the trial slides was old and had a lot of sky. There were hundreds of dust spots, so that one will have to go to the Nikon Coolscan 8000ED. It might be possible to completely clean the slide before shooting, but no time to try that just now. Most likely I'll use the ES-1 for slides without a lot of sky, and the scanner for the rest.  

Edited March 24, 2020 by KevinS

[MDM]

31 minutes ago, KevinS said:

Sorry to add to this already long thread, but I use Canon and have looked into this. I previously posted about the Canon 50mm Compact Macro and Nikon 55mm Micro-Nikkor, saying the Nikon was a bit sharper than the Canon. Just tried the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro (non L) and that's what I expect to be using. The 58mm filter size meant it was easy to get some threaded extension tubes online. I guessed at the length needed and ordered the closest combination available on that day, knowing I was a bit short. Two filters with the glass removed gave enough length to make it work. The Macro lens itself is about 4.75 inches in length, and the Nikon ES-1 plus extension is about 5.75 inches in length. Total extension is about 3.2 inches. With the ES-1 racked all the way out it's easy to focus and the image very nearly fills the frame.  AF did not stop hunting, which is OK. The results of a five minute test gave the best results of the three lenses I've tried, and will be fine for Alamy, I believe (will post accepted images here). One of the trial slides was old and had a lot of sky. There were hundreds of dust spots, so that one will have to go to the Nikon Coolscan 8000ED. It might be possible to completely clean the slide before shooting, but no time to try that just now. Most likely I'll use the ES-1 for slides without a lot of sky, and the scanner for the rest.  

 

It's good to see it's still alive so don't apologise especially because you are adding something new. Let's keep it going as it is definitely an excellent activity for the pandemic. 

 

It's interesting you say it's better than the Nikkor 55. I found the Tamron 90 pretty much the same as the Nikkor 55 in terms of image quality and corner to corner sharpness which is vitally important I think. The AF on the Tamron has been excellent as well, better than the MF on the Nikkor which cuts out more light with the PK-13 attached. 

 

I have never cleaned any of my slides apart from using a blower with no brush. The ones I have done to date have all been kept in boxes rather than plastic storage sheets and they have stayed remarkably clean - not more than 10 dust spots per slide and often less. 

[KevinS]

On 24/03/2020 at 13:55, MDM said:

It's interesting you say it's better than the Nikkor 55. I found the Tamron 90 pretty much the same as the Nikkor 55 in terms of image quality and corner to corner sharpness which is vitally important I think.

So far I've only taken a quick glance at image quality. Could be that the two lenses are on par. Disclaimer: I'm not very scientific and am short on time at the moment. Agreed that boxed slides have fared better than ones in sheets, simply due to dust.

 

After reading this thread I found it the perfect excuse to try a new lens. The longer focal length macro lens is more versatile, as has been said, and I do hope to shoot a lot with it as Spring progresses. I used to do quite a few assignments involving private flower gardens. IIRC the most used lens back then was Nikkor 105 (not micro) with extension tube. On one job, I did the whole thing with a Nikkor 135 f/2; the plants as well as the owner's portrait. Currently interested in native plants as they come into bloom so the Canon 100  Macro should get a workout.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by KevinS

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

I have never cleaned any of my slides apart from using a blower with no brush. The ones I have done to date have all been kept in boxes rather than plastic storage sheets and they have stayed remarkably clean - not more than 10 dust spots per slide and often less. 

 

Mine have been kept in magazines and I'm also finding they are quite clean. I just use a quick sweep with a brush on both sides and then digitise followed by a quick use of the spot healing brush in PS after I've run the image through Topaz Denoise (I find the dust spots are more obvious after the grain is reduced). I've also found the blur brush in PS does a good quick job at removing those "whisps" that Topaz can introduce around the edge of the frame, or removing any isolated patches of noise that Topaz sometimes misses.  Here's a Lightbox of my efforts so far. I've got several hundred more images in progress during the "lock down".

 

Mark

Edited March 24, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

 

My very first attempt with the Canon 100mm L - pretty much handheld but on a wobbly tripod looking down onto slide on Lightbox. Then edges slightly straightened using Transform tool

 

Screenshot from Photoshop 100%

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

I seem to have killed this thread! 

 

Anyway, even without the Nikon adapter I am finding, gradually, using my tripod, how to get some decent 'scans' from this lens.

 

Dusty old slides, also dust on the Lightbox, but reducing file size to 26-30 Mb and a bit of spotting makes it fairly quick.

 

The extremely shallow depth of field has meant quite a few errors today but I am getting there and I will start knowing more tomorrow morning than I did when I started today. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I seem to have killed this thread! 

 

Anyway, even without the Nikon adapter I am finding, gradually, using my tripod, how to get some decent 'scans' from this lens.

 

Dusty old slides, also dust on the Lightbox, but reducing file size to 26-30 Mb and a bit of spotting makes it fairly quick.

 

The extremely shallow depth of field has meant quite a few errors today but I am getting there and I will start knowing more tomorrow morning than I did when I started today. 

They are very sharp, even for Kodachromes. I did think of a macro lens when I did mine, but concluded it wouldn't be cost-effective. Now they're all done, no need to revisit.

You may get a bit cheesed off with the tripod after a few hundred!

[M.Chapman]

On 24/03/2020 at 19:01, geogphotos said:

 

My very first attempt with the Canon 100mm L - pretty much handheld but on a wobbly tripod looking down onto slide on Lightbox. Then edges slightly straightened using Transform tool

 

Screenshot from Photoshop 100%

 

 

 

 

If the 2nd image is a 100% crop, it looks like the overall image wouldn't contain enough pixels for Alamy ? (Alamy need >~6MP, eg. 3000 x 2000)

The 100% crop is just 500 x 433 pixels, and appears to be about 1/4 (by area) of the 35mm slide. So the digitised 35mm slide is only about 1000 pixels wide?

 

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

They are very sharp, even for Kodachromes.

 

It may look nice and sharp, but I think that's because it's not really a 100% crop from a 6MP (or higher) image.

The 3rd image suggests Ian (Geogphotos) hasn't anywhere near filled the frame....

 

Mark

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

I seem to have killed this thread! 

 

Anyway, even without the Nikon adapter I am finding, gradually, using my tripod, how to get some decent 'scans' from this lens.

 

Dusty old slides, also dust on the Lightbox, but reducing file size to 26-30 Mb and a bit of spotting makes it fairly quick.

 

The extremely shallow depth of field has meant quite a few errors today but I am getting there and I will start knowing more tomorrow morning than I did when I started today. 

A really critical part of this process is having the slide as close to parallel to the plane if the sensor as possible so using a tripod and lightbox is going to make your task much more difficult, frustrating and time consuming. Any variation in sharpness across the original will be exaggerated by not having it close to perfectly parallel. The ES-1 with extenders in front of the lens would certainly make your task a lot easier and it is not expensive. 
 

Edit - if you have to transform the edges then the slide is not parallel to the sensor. 

Edited March 25, 2020 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

Edit - if you have to transform the edges then the slide is not parallel to the sensor. 

100% agree - Rotation is the only adjustment you might have to do.

 

Mark

Edited March 25, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

16 minutes ago, MDM said:

A really critical part of this process is having the slide as close to parallel to the plane if the sensor as possible so using a tripod and lightbox is going to make your task much more difficult, frustrating and time consuming. Any variation in sharpness across the original will be exaggerated by not having it close to perfectly parallel. The ES-1 with extenders in front of the lens would certainly make your task a lot easier and it is not expensive. 
 

Edit - if you have to transform the edges then the slide is not parallel to the sensor. 

 

 

Yes I know that's why I used the Transform tool! It will not be perfectly parallel because I didn't use an ES-1. Vice versa.

 

I just put the lens on the camera and this was my very first shot.

Edited March 25, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

If the 2nd image is a 100% crop, it looks like the overall image wouldn't contain enough pixels for Alamy ? (Alamy need >~6MP, eg. 3000 x 2000)

The 100% crop is just 500 x 433 pixels, and appears to be about 1/4 (by area) of the 35mm slide. So the digitised 35mm slide is only about 1000 pixels wide?

 

 

It may look nice and sharp, but I think that's because it's not really a 100% crop from a 6MP (or higher) image.

The 3rd image suggests Ian (Geogphotos) hasn't anywhere near filled the frame....

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

3786 x 2635 = 28.5 M

 

Archive images need to be over 5M

 

So easily acceptable for Alamy even with only partially filling the frame.

Edited March 25, 2020 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I will start knowing more tomorrow morning than I did when I started today

Your first results should be very encouraging, but I hope it will also encourage you to get an ES-1 and the appropriate extender tubes to mount it now that you've seen what could be possible. It will make your life so much easier without having to make compromises, no need to aim for just acceptable images and a much, much faster workflow. 

 

It's really good that KevinS has come in with all the detail about fitting the ES-1 to his non-L 100mm Macro. Because the front element appears to be the same size you should just need a step-down ring to 58mm and then just use what he used.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[geogphotos]

23 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Your first results should be very encouraging, but I hope it will also encourage you to get an ES-1 and the appropriate extender tubes to mount it now that you've seen what could be possible. It will make your life so much easier without having to make compromises, no need to aim for just acceptable images and a much, much faster workflow. 

 

It's really good that KevinS has come in with all the detail about fitting the ES-1 to his non-L 100mm Macro. Because the front element appears to be the same size you should just need a step-down ring to 58mm and then just use what he used.

 

Harry, thanks for that. Yes I fully intend to do all that.

 

Going back to my original question all those pages ago.

 

I have a Canon 5D mk 3, I now have a 100m lens.

 

KevinS wrote this:

 

The 58mm filter size meant it was easy to get some threaded extension tubes online. I guessed at the length needed and ordered the closest combination available on that day, knowing I was a bit short. Two filters with the glass removed gave enough length to make it work. The Macro lens itself is about 4.75 inches in length, and the Nikon ES-1 plus extension is about 5.75 inches in length. Total extension is about 3.2 inches. With the ES-1 racked all the way out it's easy to focus and the image very nearly fills the frame.

 

What I need now is a list of what I need to buy without any of the guesswork and improvisation? 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

What I need now is a list of what I need to buy? 

Kevin should be able to come in with the precise length of the extension tubes, and maybe even a source that would suit you too since it's probably from China. My theory (yet to be tested) is that your lens is fatter and so has a larger filter ring simply because of the IS. In any case it looks to me that you could use a 67mm to 58mm step-down ring and then use Kevin's setup without any risk of vignetting because your front element is much smaller than 67mm, and seemingly much smaller than 58mm also. Note that the 67mm to 58mm step-down ring will have some length to it so you might be able to do without one of the 'glassless' 58mm filters that he used.

 

This is quite exciting, we're near to getting a result!

Edited March 25, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

3786 x 2635 = 28.5 M

 

Archive images need to be over 5M

 

So easily acceptable for Alamy even without nowhere near filling the frame.

Edited 33 minutes ago by geogphotos

 

See later post too.

 

Oh that helps. So archival only needs to be 5MB uncompressed. So for a 35mm 2:3 format that's an image which is 1620 x 1080 pixels or larger.

So far so good. What's the size of your final cropped image in pixels 3786 x 2635? From the 100% crop I suspect it's not that big, indeed if that's a 100% crop I think the final image would be <5MB?

(Sorry I'm just trying to understand what's going on).

 

Although you clearly don't need to fill the frame, you'll get better results if you do. Then downsize to a level you feel matches the quality of the slide you've copied. It would be a shame to throw away quality unnecessarily. This might also open up the regular (>17MB) Alamy QC route for images that don't have archive value.

 

Mark

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by M.Chapman

[KevinS]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

What I need now is a list of what I need to buy without any of the guesswork and improvisation? 

There are limited choices for extension tubes. I looked for tubes of both 58mm and 52mm diameter. Found two 19mm long tubes in the 58mm diameter, and one 28mm long in 52mm. That was all that was available, but it was close enough to what I needed. The step-down ring goes between the 58 and 52mm tubes. The ES-1 telescopes, so you don't have to find an exact amount of extension. For my lens (non-L), the exact amount is 81mm. Yours may vary. 

[Harry Harrison]

27 minutes ago, KevinS said:

There are limited choices for extension tubes. I looked for tubes of both 58mm and 52mm diameter. Found two 19mm long tubes in the 58mm diameter, and one 28mm long in 52mm. That was all that was available, but it was close enough to what I needed. The step-down ring goes between the 58 and 52mm tubes. The ES-1 telescopes, so you don't have to find an exact amount of extension. For my lens (non-L), the exact amount is 81mm. Yours may vary. 

Thanks Kevin.

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

What I need now is a list of what I need to buy without any of the guesswork and improvisation? 

Ian, it's all about improvisation but Kevin should have taken the guesswork out of it, look on ebay for "58mm threaded extension tubes", they are available from Hong Kong in 19mm, 12mm, 8mm, 4.5mm & 3.7mm lengths. Going from Kevin's advice it looks as if you'll need a total length of around 66mm. The generic 67mm to 58mm step down adapter looks as if it might be around 5mm, so maybe 60mm, the ES-1 slides in and out so it doesn't have to be exact. 3 of the 19mm tubes might just do it but why not order an 8mm as well, they're fairly cheap.

 

Remember you need both a 67-58mm step down from the lens to the tubes and a 58- 52mm step down from the tubes to the ES-1 but these are very cheap and available from the UK.

 

MDM has done something similar with his 105mm Micro-Nikkor so hopefully he might chip in to endorse this method (or otherwise).

 

Edit:

It does look as if you didn't get very close to the slide but you can presumably do so in order to get a tightish crop. Then just measure from the end of the lens to the slide and compare with Kevin's measurements from his non-L lens to see if it compares, I suspect it will. This isn't really improvisation, it's just normal, non-bellows, macro-photography.

 

Also, have a look at "M58 to M58 Focusing Adjustable 25mm-55mm Adapter Macro Extension Tube 25-55mm", one of those would work in conjunction with a single 19mm ring and allow for adjustment.

Edited March 25, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[KevinS]

42 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Going from Kevin's advice it looks as if you'll need a total length of around 66mm

That is without counting the step-down adapter and the empty filters. 81mm is my total extension. The ES-1 threads into the end of that. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. Now I'm getting curious about results, so I'll hurry to finish taxes and see if I can get images to Alamy. 

[Harry Harrison]

19 minutes ago, KevinS said:

81mm is my total extension

My mistake, I thought it was 81mm to the slide, including the ES-1. Hopefully Ian will measure the distance to the slide himself but then he would need to deduct the length of the ES-1 to get the extension required. With that 81mm extension does that get you to the middle of the range of adjustment built in to the ES-1 itself, and roughly how much is that in fact?

Edited March 25, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

 

3786 x 2635 = 28.5 M

 

Archive images need to be over 5M

 

So easily acceptable for Alamy even with only partially filling the frame.

 

I'm still struggling with this one Ian. The image above (according to PS dialog and your post) is 3,786 x 2,635

 

The area shown by your 100% crop, taken from an image of that size, would be roughly 1689 x 1464 pixels

 

 

But the 100% crop you have posted is only 500 x 433 pixels.

 

So some downsizing has gone on somewhere?? Maybe by Photoshelter, or by you to reach Alamy archive 5MB mimimum?

 

I tried the following calculation.

If your 3786 x 2635 image is downsized to the Alamy archive minimum (5MB) it becomes 1585 x 1103 and the crop should be roughly 707 x 613

But the crop posted is smaller still (500 x 433).

 

Mark (just trying to understand why your "100%" crop looks surprisingly sharp)

Edited March 26, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

59 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

 

Mark (just trying to understand why your "100%" crop looks surprisingly sharp)

 

 

I've got a feeling that we are back to that 100% not really being 100% on recent Macs. 

 

I don't know about all the maths and calculations just posting screenshots from my usual workflow.

 

This is at 200% - I do not normally view at this level. 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I've got a feeling that we are back to that 100% not really being 100% on recent iMacs. 

 

But I'm not looking at your image on an iMac.  A retina display would make your 100% crop look sharper to you, but not to me as I've only got a regular display. I suspect Photoshelter has downsized the cropped image or it's not a 100% crop from a 3,786 x 2,635 image.

No worries. I was just being curious.

 

Mark