Canon slide copying set-up

[Klinger]

On 04/04/2020 at 10:44, Alan Gallery said:

I think that the P adaptor is not seated properly  on  the thing.  The only thing different between my test for alignment and your result is the 67mm P adaptor.  It may be slightly thinner and not wedging in totally square as it should. 

 

I might not be following all of this, P mount or P adapter is? Plustex slide holder? Are you making the extension tube with slide adapter on the end?

 

On 04/04/2020 at 10:16, geogphotos said:

 

Looks nice, also looks a bit skewed, (I don't mean the tilt I mean the right side of the slide is closer to the lens) but later shots look square to the lens, perfect rectangle. Nice color.

 

Here's the big question. Have you uploaded anything and has it passed Alamy review?

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Klinger

[geogphotos]

31 minutes ago, Klinger said:

 

I might not be following all of this, P mount or P adapter is? Plustex slide holder? Are you making the extension tube with slide adapter on the end?

 

 

Looks nice, also looks a bit skewed, (I don't mean the tilt I mean the right side of the slide is closer to the lens) but later shots look square to the lens, perfect rectangle. Nice color.

 

Here's the big question. Have you uploaded anything and has it passed Alamy review?

 

 

 

I would only consider uploading images like this to Archive. They all have imperfections regardless of how they are digitised. 

 

There are some scans of northern Nigeria if you go through to page 10 of my images ( blue link).

Edited April 6, 2020 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

45 minutes ago, Klinger said:

P mount or P adapter is

Cokin P Series adapter for their filter holder system, originals were metal, not sure about the copies that are readily available. There's plenty of originals around.

[M.Chapman]

6 hours ago, Klinger said:

Here's the big question. Have you uploaded anything and has it passed Alamy review?

 

If the quality of the original slide is good enough and the "Thing" aligns the slide accurately (perpendicular to lens axis), then I'm sure it's possible to get images accepted by regular Alamy QC using a setup like Ian's. I recently had a submission of DSLR digitised 35mm slides go thorough regular Alamy QC (with a delay so it seems likely at least one image in the submission was looked at). Lightbox of example images here.

 

Mark 

Edited April 6, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

Yes, Mark is absolutely right. The set up is fine for QC but it all depends on the quality of the slides. These old ones I have shown here are very mucky but of some historical significance so worth doing for Archive.

 

Doing comparative scans/photos of the same slide produces very similar results as far as I can see - so that debate dos not interest me. The photographed images have a lot more spots, dark digital 'grit'  marks where the emulsion has been affected and also long superficial scratches. Using the scanner software removes much of that but does not do such a good job on the cobweb like/mottled marks which appear to be fungus type growths.

 

So one way or another all these old 1950s/1960s slides need  a good clean, even ones that have been well stored over the years often have 'growths'.

 

I have decided to suspend operations until the Pec pads and fluid arrive. It is the preparation of the slide, and obviously the photographic quality of the original that matters most not the digitising technique.

Edited April 7, 2020 by geogphotos

[Klinger]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Yes, Mark is absolutely right. The set up is fine for QC but it all depends on the quality of the slides. These old ones I have shown here are very mucky but of some historical significance so worth doing for Archive.

 

Doing comparative scans/photos of the same slide produces very similar results as far as I can see - so that debate dos not interest me. The photographed images have a lot more spots, dark digital 'grit'  marks where the emulsion has been affected and also long superficial scratches. Using the scanner software removes much of that but does not do such a good job on the cobweb like/mottled marks which appear to be fungus type growths.

 

So one way or another all these old 1950s/1960s slides need  a good clean, even ones that have been well stored over the years often have 'growths'.

 

I have decided to suspend operations until the Pec pads and fluid arrive. It is the preparation of the slide, and obviously the photographic quality of the original that matters most not the digitising technique.

 

Just wondered what you thought. Just being able to digitize old slides for myself is where I am at this point. I have done some old ones and they were disappointing, but with better digital cameras, and years later, working like you have, the results keep getting better. Eventually, even a "poor" quality image that's never going to be good enough for resale anywhere can be good for sharing.

 

I'd say find a slide that's the last one you really care about, before using anything, pads, contact or chemicals. At least that way if the image comes off, sheds, distorts or anything else, you won't lose one you care about. One thing that's similar to sensor cleaning. One direction only, always the same, so if you drag some debris, it's going off the slide, not dragging back and forth.

 

I did like the color and contrast results from yours so far, maybe you can add the specifics of editing or are you getting them that well, in camera now? Nice!

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Klinger

[Klinger]

On 06/04/2020 at 09:03, Harry Harrison said:

Cokin P Series adapter for their filter holder system, originals were metal, not sure about the copies that are readily available. There's plenty of originals around.

 

Thanks, never used those, but I remember them. Never would have associated that Cokin with P mount. Now I'm starting to see how this is being done. 👍

 

This has really been an interesting thread to read and see various good ideas.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Klinger

[Bill Kuta]

Chuck Nacke or other Canon FS4000 user:  I decided that while I'm waiting for my extension ring from Hong Kong, I may as well be using my FS4000. It's been sitting in a cabinet for years, but I tried it tonight and it works fine, on my Win10 PC using Vuescan and a USB cable.

 

The resulting scans don't seem quite as bright as I expected, so maybe I need to clean the internals? Have you ever done this? I googled the subject, and one guy said if you remove six screw on the bottom and slide off the metal cover, you have access to the mirror, sensor and lamp, and can use a blower brush. 

[wiskerke]

4 minutes ago, Bill Kuta said:

Chuck Nacke or other Canon FS4000 user:  I decided that while I'm waiting for my extension ring from Hong Kong, I may as well be using my FS4000. It's been sitting in a cabinet for years, but I tried it tonight and it works fine, on my Win10 PC using Vuescan and a USB cable.

 

The resulting scans don't seem quite as bright as I expected, so maybe I need to clean the internals? Have you ever done this? I googled the subject, and one guy said if you remove six screw on the bottom and slide off the metal cover, you have access to the mirror, sensor and lamp, and can use a blower brush. 

 

That's pretty much what I remember. Dust on the sensor means streaks. No streaks: no dust on the sensor.  A dusty mirror will show as if you've used a soft filter on all your images.

Besides getting dusty the mirror can gets fogged probably because of some of the plastics gassing out. A blower may not work. In that case: just clean it like you would a dslr sensor.  Maybe the sensor can get some of the fog too.  Dust and fogging was much worse on the Nikon Coolscan btw.

 

There used to be a good step by step instruction on the web somewhere. - Sorry, cannot find it.

 

wim

[Chuck Nacke]

2 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

Chuck Nacke or other Canon FS4000 user:  I decided that while I'm waiting for my extension ring from Hong Kong, I may as well be using my FS4000. It's been sitting in a cabinet for years, but I tried it tonight and it works fine, on my Win10 PC using Vuescan and a USB cable.

 

The resulting scans don't seem quite as bright as I expected, so maybe I need to clean the internals? Have you ever done this? I googled the subject, and one guy said if you remove six screw on the bottom and slide off the metal cover, you have access to the mirror, sensor and lamp, and can use a blower brush. 

I've been using my FS4000 scanners for about 15 years and never had to take one apart to clean,  I don't travel with them and keep them covered when not in use.

With the original software there was a Calibration / Check function button, but now using VueScan I do not have  it.  I also never use FARE, I

do all of my spotting by hand. If you want to see a really nice scan from an unmounted RDP chome: Image ID: 2AT52YF

 

Miss the "good old days of sitting and scanning"  been too busy making new images to scan.

 

Chuck

[Harry Harrison]

I bought a Microtek scanner secondhand, I already had a SCSI version and was pleased with it but this was Firewire & USB so future proof. It was noticeably soft and down on contrast and so I looked inside (not easy on this scanner unfortunately).  The mirror had a very even coating film on it, not dust, and I think that Wim may well be right that it was from internal gassing and not associated with how or where it was stored. If it's easy to look inside your scanner then it is well worth doing so, these scanners can be up to 20 years old and a lot can happen over that kind of time.

 

That said, that's a nice looking scan Chuck.

 

Edit:

If you can see the worm gear drive and the grease looks like it's dried out then you might be inclined to add a little fresh grease judicially here and there. In fact the 'film' may have something to do with the grease drying out over a number of years, I have read of similar consequences in other equipment.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[sb photos]

On 10/04/2020 at 09:04, Harry Harrison said:

I bought a Microtek scanner secondhand, I already had a SCSI version and was pleased with it but this was Firewire & USB so future proof. It was noticeably soft and down on contrast and so I looked inside (not easy on this scanner unfortunately).  The mirror had a very even coating film on it, not dust, and I think that Wim may well be right that it was from internal gassing and not associated with how or where it was stored.

 

Outgassing from plastic appears to be quite common. My Epson 4990 flatbed has a haze on the underside of its glass, could be something to occupy myself with soon. I used to own a Microtek A3 flatbed scanner, built like a tank, had it from new. Still remember they were longer than other scanner manufactures updating their drivers for new versions of OSX, irrelevant now as Vuescan is so widely used.

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, sb photos said:

Outgassing from plastic appears to be quite common.

Isoprop's the stuff for this. If you can spare it from the hand sanitiser.

[Harry Harrison]

14 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I used to own a Microtek A3 flatbed scanner, built like a tank

Yes, mine is a Microtek Artixscan 4000tf, very good and yes, you need to use Vuescan. Plastic casing is very difficult to get off for some strange reason, needs to be persuaded to go past the internals. I bought a non-working SCSI version in the dim distant past, the grease on the rather wonderful and substantial brass helicoid gears had dried out completely and gone hard. Cleaned up and regreased it was fine. I imagine those vapours will find their way on to the glass surfaces.

[sb photos]

49 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Isoprop's the stuff for this. If you can spare it from the hand sanitiser.

 

I've plenty of IPA 99%, an unopened  1L tin, and another half used I use for defluxing soldering on PCB's. I find Nilco Nilglass glass cleaner excellent for scanner glasses. The unopened IPA tin will be used with 500 ml of Aloe Vera gel that shipped last Thursday, making my own sanitiser gel. Should last some time.

Edited April 11, 2020 by sb photos

[spacecadet]

32 minutes ago, sb photos said:

IPA

Ours is only about 3.6%🤪

[geogphotos]

Another home-made method here but it is time - consuming involving sticking down each slide on the lightbox one after another, and the lightbox standing up vertically, using a spirit level to get the angle straight with the camera. Just posting it as another example of a 'solution'.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Another home-made method here but it is time - consuming involving sticking down each slide on the lightbox one after another, and the lightbox standing up vertically, using a spirit level to get the angle straight with the camera. Just posting it as another example of a 'solution'.

 

Not the easiest solution I've ever seen. Why on earth didn't he lay the lightbox down on horizontal surface and point the camera straight down? Then he wouldn't need all that sticky tape...

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

32 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Not the easiest solution I've ever seen. Why on earth didn't he lay the lightbox down on horizontal surface and point the camera straight down? Then he wouldn't need all that sticky tape...

 

Mark

 

I suppose it's just the way that he worked it out for himself.

 

Just goes to show the worth of having a forum like this to learn from others.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Another home-made method here

"So that's all there is to it". I should cocoa. Just dreadful, there is literally nothing to take away from that video.

[M.Chapman]

I see Topaz Denoise AI was updated on 2nd April and the changelog states;

 

V2.1.0 Fixed issues with the edges of images not getting denoised

 

Maybe that will solve those "whisps" at the edge of the image.

 

Mark

Edited April 12, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Bill Kuta]

I removed the back panel and metal cover from my Canon FS4000, but the mirror face is at an angle (duh) and not quite visible through a side opening. The lamp is also barely visible, and the sensor is still buried on the other side across the channel where the slide holder moves. So no clear path to cleaning anything. It seems to work adequately, although when it does an IR scan in Vuescan, the middle third of the onscreen display of the IR scan is darker than the outer two-thirds. Not sure what that might mean.

 

So I scanned a few slides that I never digitized from the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian in 2004. They'll be my latest nine images tomorrow or whenever.

[Chuck Nacke]

Bill,

 

While I've been using the CANON FS4000's for decades, as I have written I have never disassembled one, never had a reason to.

I do not use FARE (CANON's automated retouching or IR), but just for my own information I did give it a try while running a 4000

with VueScan and got an uneven scan.  Back nearly ten years ago when I was using the then CANON software I did the same test

and got better results.  As I said I do not use FARE or any auto retouching software.  I import my 16bit, in aRGB color

space, to Lightroom (LR) for color balance and then Photoshop (PS) for spotting before saving to 8bit JPEG's for upload, aRGB for

Alamy and sRGB for others.

 

I've been using the FS4000 since PS3 and the tools in the  current PS (6? in Creative Suite) make spotting much faster.

 

Chuck 

[Bill Kuta]

Thanks, Chuck. I used the IR scanning on "light" setting--that's what I did back when I used the Canon software. I'll have to try it without the IR scan.

 

There was plenty of spotting to do anyway, which I do in Lightroom. 

[Bill Kuta]

I received my spacer ring from Hong Kong, and have inserted it between my 50mm macro lens and the Nikon ES-1. 

 

The spacer ring adds 28mm, and I find that I can nicely fill the frame with just about 100% of the slide content on my Canon SL1 18mp APS-C, with the ES-1 unextended. 

 

The ES-1 can extend 24mm, so I really only needed another 4mm if I were to extend the ES-1 all the way. Kind of lucked out that 28mm was just right.

 

Good to go now on DSLR slide copying 😎

Edited April 21, 2020 by Bill Kuta