Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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:

I0000_nQszhx5mR8.jpg

 

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 by Klinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Klinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Klinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Harry Harrison

Share this post


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.