Canon slide copying set-up

[Chuck Nacke]

4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Hi Chuck

 

Thanks. Yes you're right I downsized to 3500px be sure of passing Alamy QC. I haven't got access to the RAW of that image at the moment, but I have of this one.

(Now I see it on a white webpage I realise I need to clean the background up, replacement will be uploaded tomorrow).

 

 

The RAW file for this image was taken with Lumix G5 Mirrorless with Elmarit 45mm macro lens is 4608 x 3072pix and looks like this at 12.5% in PS. 

 

 

The film stock is Fuji Velvia 50 120 format.

 

And here's 100% crop from that image.

 

 

Probably fine for Alamy QC without downsizing.

 

I hope that's useful.

 

Mark

 

 

Mark,

 

Yours is the best example of a "really excellent" duplication of a film original using a DSLR.  For the record I still have not seen something at your level of

quality duplicating a 35mm chrome using a DSLR.

 

Chuck

Edited January 30, 2020 by Chuck Nacke
English

[John Richmond]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, that sounds like a good solution for Ian then.

If the ES-1 and Canon 50mm are compatible.  I don't own an ES-1 to try it.  Unless any contributor has one they'd be prepared to loan for testing 😀

[Phil Crean]

11 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well, he does seem very keen on it, I only mentioned the 'L' version because I assumed it would be better. Phil Crean doesn't say that he's using the 'L' version in fact. 

I am! And am very impressed with it. Super sharp, almost too sharp when I've used it for portraits!

Phil

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

I am! And am very impressed with it. Super sharp, almost too sharp when I've used it for portraits!

Thanks Phil, MDM spotted that you were using IS so must have that version. The shortlist for Ian seems to be that lens (or possibly the non-IS version) plus perhaps the Novoflex Castel slide setup that you used or the 50mm f2.5 Macro with a 25mm extension tube in the hope that the ES-1 adapter wil fit. Your 100mm seems like the most useful option to have outside of slide copying.

[Phil Crean]

1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks Phil, MDM spotted that you were using IS so must have that version. The shortlist for Ian seems to be that lens (or possibly the non-IS version) plus perhaps the Novoflex Castel slide setup that you used or the 50mm f2.5 Macro with a 25mm extension tube in the hope that the ES-1 adapter wil fit. Your 100mm seems like the most useful option to have outside of slide copying.

I sometimes like to walk around with a fixed focal length on and that is one I use a lot when in that mode! The f2.8 is also very useful when wanting to really isolate things and it is obviously great at Macro!

Phil

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks Phil, MDM spotted that you were using IS so must have that version. The shortlist for Ian seems to be that lens (or possibly the non-IS version) plus perhaps the Novoflex Castel slide setup that you used or the 50mm f2.5 Macro with a 25mm extension tube in the hope that the ES-1 adapter wil fit. Your 100mm seems like the most useful option to have outside of slide copying.

 

Yes, I do want to think about other uses so staying with Canon makes sense and then thinking about the ES-1 adapter if needed later on. 

 

So back to the L lens with IS (at £900 new) as current favourite because it opens up more options beyond slide copying.

 

Thanks for your comments Phil and Harry.

Edited January 31, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

You might just want to take a look at the Tamron 90 before you buy the Canon. This is another classic macro lens that really does the business optically. The link is to the newer stabilised one (VC in Tamron speak - IS in Canon) and there is a cheaper non-stablised one. It is a lot cheaper (£250) than the Canon and probably just as good optically (I have not seen comparative tests on the latest ones but it is held in the same high esteem.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

28 minutes ago, MDM said:

You might just want to take a look at the Tamron 90 before you buy the Canon. This is another classic macro lens that really does the business optically. The link is to the newer stabilised one (VC in Tamron speak - IS in Canon) and there is a cheaper non-stablised one. It is a lot cheaper (£250) than the Canon and probably just as good optically (I have not seen comparative tests on the latest ones but it is held in the same high esteem.

 

 

If considering buying an old Tamron 90mm secondhand it's worth researching which models can suffer from sensor flare.  I think it was something to do with lens coatings not being optimised for digital. 

 

Mark

Edited January 31, 2020 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

4 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

If considering buying an old Tamron 90mm secondhand it's worth researching which models can suffer from sensor flare.  I think it was something to do with lens coatings not being optimised for digital. 

 

Mark

 

No idea about that but I wasn't suggesting an old one Mark. The link I posted is to the latest version with stabilisation. Only the last few iterations have stabilisation which I think is a prerequisite in any medium telephoto nowadays. I have the previous Nikon version which also has stabilisation but was a lot cheaper. I think Tamron realised how good these lenses were for one thing.

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Mark,

 

Yours is the best example of a "really excellent" duplication of a film original using a DSLR.  For the record I still have not seen something at your level of

quality duplicating a 35mm chrome using a DSLR.

 

Chuck

 

Thanks. Obviously helped by the fact that it's a medium format original and my camera sensor doesn't have a very high MP count.

 

I'll try and find those comparisons I did of 35mm scanning versus DSLR copies which showed my DSLR was beating my Canon scanner for image quality and post examples of the results I was getting.

 

Mark 

[spacecadet]

I hadn't realised money was no object.. My setup cost about £40 all-in, including the bag of 1/4 x20 studding and wingnuts to get the standoff right, which is probably the only reason it's made its money back in sales.

I don't think I've spent £900 on digital cameras altogether yet, and I've had 4.

One advantage is that it's a very fast way of dealing with a lot of slides. I can easily get through a couple of hundred an hour, plus processing of course.

Edited January 31, 2020 by spacecadet

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I hadn't realised money was no object.. My setup cost about £40 all-in, including the bag of 1/4 x20 studding and wingnuts to get the standoff right, which is probably the only reason it's made its money back in sales.

I don't think I've spent £900 on digital cameras altogether yet, and I've had 4.

One advantage is that it's a very fast way of dealing with a lot of slides. I can easily get through a couple of hundred an hour, plus processing of course.

 

I don't think it is a matter of money being no object - it is a matter of having the right equipment depending on the desired outcome. If it is just a matter of a quick and dirty digitisation without worrying about the quality and submitting them here by the archival route only, then it makes some sense to do what you did and not spend too much on it.

 

On the other hand, if one wants digital images that will stand up to QC scrutiny, then the method I am using produces excellent results which are probably as good as what a lot of people submit from digital cameras. Other methods of copying such as Phil's can produce similarly good results with a decent lens and camera. A basic prerequisite here is to have good quality slides or negs in the first place and the ones of mine that I copy fit that criterion. But it is time consuming. I would estimate half and hour per slide at best including careful raw processing and further work in Photoshop (spotting, further noise reduction in skies and so on). 

[spacecadet]

16 minutes ago, MDM said:

quick and dirty digitisation without worrying about the quality

What? I don't accept that the Illumitran route is necessarily inferior- there's no reason it should be. No doubt a branded enlarging lens mine would help but I think the best of them could stand up to QC. They went the archival route because they are archival.

[MDM]

7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

What? I don't accept that the Illumitran route is necessarily inferior- there's no reason it should be. No doubt a branded enlarging lens mine would help but I think the best of them could stand up to QC. They went the archival route because they are archival.

 

 I said that from the way you described it - not intended as an insult and  I apologise if I am wrong. I got the impression that you shot very rapidly ( a couple of hundred an hour) and did not take a lot of care with processing as the main aim was to get it done as quickly as possible without worrying too much about quality and using the archival route. That is orders of magnitude faster than the method I use (half an hour per image at least). And Chuck is another order of magnitude at lease slower again by his own accounts.

 

Why not post some of your results on Dropbox and let us have a look. It is all very interesting. 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

a couple of hundred an hour, plus processing

Just for the copying, as I said

21 minutes ago, MDM said:

That is orders of magnitude faster than the method I use (half an hour per image at least)

The Illumitran setup is just like a copy stand- once you have focus and alignment nailed down it's just a matter of antistatic brush, rocket blower and into the holder, adjust the flash stage distance, expose and on to the next. It's a mechanical process, doesn't take very long and I can't see how that affects the quality. I assume the copying process takes longer with the slide copier method.

They suit my purpose so I won't bother with the posting, thanks. I can commend the method to the forum, certainly for archival, for those with a smaller budget. As I now have five stars, of course, I wouldn't be able to test them with QC, but as it's a done deal I won't need to.

It is all very well to say "the right equipment" but not all of us have  hundreds of pounds for a lens. I do my best with what I have.

I'll leave it there unless anyone wants to know more about my setup.

Edited January 31, 2020 by spacecadet

[Chuck Nacke]

After spending hours and hours scanning, dedicated 35mm desktop scanner, mostly chromes.  I would say that "I prefer the finished look

of chromes scanned as opposed to photographed with a DSLR."  Mark's flower image is the best I have seen done this way, but being from

a MF format original, it is a bit off from what I need to do or am doing.

 

I have tried the Illumitran route using a D800E, built my own stand over the source, with Micro NIKKOR's and tubes.  Since the

Hasselblad Imacon scanners have gone down so much in price I am tempted to give them a try.  The important issue to me is, "How much

can you really get out of 35mm chrome?"

 

Sorry, I know you folks want to talk about Canon V.S. NIKON DSLR scanning.....

 

Chuck

[M.Chapman]

12 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

How much can you really get out of 35mm chrome

Hi Chuck,

 

Out of curiosity. What do you include in the term Chrome? Kodachrome 64? 25? Agfachrome? Colour, B/W?

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I hadn't realised money was no object.. My setup cost about £40 all-in, including the bag of 1/4 x20 studding and wingnuts to get the standoff right, which is probably the only reason it's made its money back in sales.

I don't think I've spent £900 on digital cameras altogether yet, and I've had 4.

One advantage is that it's a very fast way of dealing with a lot of slides. I can easily get through a couple of hundred an hour, plus processing of course.

 

I wouldn't say that money is no object, but I do think it is a false economy to buy 'good enough'. 

 

I don't have any practical skills, and I don't have technical knowledge, so that is why I have to pay more, and have to be careful about making the right decision. That's just the way it is.

 

Then once I've made the decision I get on and use what I have until next time. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

25 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

After spending hours and hours scanning, dedicated 35mm desktop scanner, mostly chromes.  I would say that "I prefer the finished look

of chromes scanned as opposed to photographed with a DSLR."  Mark's flower image is the best I have seen done this way, but being from

a MF format original, it is a bit off from what I need to do or am doing.

 

I have tried the Illumitran route using a D800E, built my own stand over the source, with Micro NIKKOR's and tubes.  Since the

Hasselblad Imacon scanners have gone down so much in price I am tempted to give them a try.  The important issue to me is, "How much

can you really get out of 35mm chrome?"

 

Sorry, I know you folks want to talk about Canon V.S. NIKON DSLR scanning.....

 

Chuck

 

I think that is very subjective really and probably has as much to do with the content of the image as the technique. As I said before, a major advantage of copying rather than scanning is you get a raw file so there is much greater potential in post-processing for doing all the good things that we can do with raw files that we can't do with TIFFs. I know that the best scans I got from my LS4000 were softer and noisier when sharpened than my copying technique but it is not easy to objectify. In any case, the scanner is now apparently dead and most of my scans were sharpened and saved that way so direct comparisons are difficult. However, I do have some that I kept without sharpening and if I can find the slides I will have a go at processing both to the best of my current ability. But it is academic as far as I am concerned as affordable quality film scanners appear to have reached the end of the road (including the Hasselblad scanners which are incredibly expensive still as far as I can see).

 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 But it is time consuming. I would estimate half and hour per slide at best including careful raw processing and further work in Photoshop (spotting, further noise reduction in skies and so on). 

 

Yes - preparing, scanning and post processing slides/negatives can be lengthy.  Unless each slide/negative is carefully cleaned before scanning post processing spotting can be particularly onerous.

[spacecadet]

49 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I wouldn't say that money is no object, but I do think it is a false economy to buy 'good enough'. 

 

I don't have any practical skills, and I don't have technical knowledge, so that is why I have to pay more, and have to be careful about making the right decision. That's just the way it is.

 

Then once I've made the decision I get on and use what I have until next time. 

Fair enough. The way of the 'Tran does need quite a bit of "fixing up", especially as they usually come with some of the important but detachable bits not only detached but absent. I made my own carriers and M39 adapters.

Edited January 31, 2020 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Since the

Hasselblad Imacon scanners have gone down so much in price I am tempted to give them a try.

I have one, not Hasselblad but an older Imacon Precision II. They are very good of course, you have to dismount the slide but I know you do that anyway, and I opened out my negative carrier a bit to get the whole frame just as I did with my enlarger. There really is very little to be gained by scanning at 6300 dpi, or even 8000 dpi in my eyes and they are very slow but that wouldn't matter to you either as you can be doing post processing. The X5 is very fast but to my mind still very pricy.  The 949 is probably the best of the bunch. Having been on an Imacon forum for a long time I know that Hasselblad are not supporting them and motherboards do go, then they are effictively useless. The original tubes for mine can't be found but there are some alternatives. Great Flextight software though, effectively RAW files. It's very difficult to compare scans unless everyone is scanning the same original, which is clearly impossible. The Haaselblad software for their X1 & X5 branded scanners will not run on the latest 64-bit Mac OS and they are not going to do anything about that, even though they were selling them for huge money up until a very short time ago, they advise just to keep an old computer handy. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Klinger]

On 30/01/2020 at 09:58, Harry Harrison said:

It's not quite that simple, it's only designed to fit on the Nikon 55mm or 60mm Micro-Nikkor lenses. You might be able to adapt it to other lenses using various step-down/step-up rings and extension tubes.

 

Yup, I have drawers full of threaded adapters, extension tubes, and a bellows, 😎 I don't expect that something made for a specific Nikon lens will just drop onto my Canon lenses. I look forward to the challenge. The Canon version is less than impressive. Probably designed for the FL series lenses in that age. Last test I did yesterday, I switched to a 100mm macro, which wouldn't focus at all. Then I found a 28-135 instead of the kit lens and the results were much better.

 

On 30/01/2020 at 07:50, Chuck Nacke said:

Hey,

 

Like the cars in your photos, Always loved the GT-40,  but you really should put more info in the captions?

 

Chuck

 

Thanks Chuck, something that changed with the changes here. I used to put very detailed information in the 2nd or 3rd boxes. When I started the Description was searched, then people abused that, writing small books, after which others complained that the description was searched, and they didn't want that.

 

As a result, of the first change, all my descriptions with detailed information, were no longer searched. I went and adjust well over 1,000 images, to put the detailed data in the box that was searched, but not visible. Alamy decided to change that. I started moving the data again, but just got tired.

 

Now we have changes again, only one description, and the keywords. Actually I like the current system best. I just got tired of replacing the data, and gave up. Anything new should have better title, description/caption, and the keywords now contain more of the specific information. No one should expect best sales, when there are poor keywords or the accurate details aren't available for buyers. 100% agreement.

 

No PMs here for me to ask for advice, no email link on your website.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Klinger

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, Klinger said:

Probably designed for the FL series lenses in that ag

Yes, I've got an early EOS brochure and they repurposed the FL bellows by selling an adapter for it.

[Klinger]

1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I've got an early EOS brochure and they repurposed the FL bellows by selling an adapter for it.

 

Sounds right, I have a couple boxes of FL stuff myself. My first good SLR was a FT-QL that had the TTL low light meter, plugged into the side of the camera. Good fun but hardly a necessary device.

 

Back on topic, I'm giving slide copying another chance now that I've seen some better results. I still have the Nikon scanners, yes two. And my old XP desktop has a SCSI adapter card in it with Vuescan which makes everything work. That was a small project finding software that would work.

 

I think from the recent test images that a good DSLR and a L lens, I should see better results than the first experiments with a kit zoom lens.

 

Till then it's back to the rail and Arduino macros for awhile. Rotating table, 4" that is, also Arduino controlled stepper motor. And the electric dolly for pans. Never a lack of things to do.