Canon slide copying set-up

[Chuck Nacke]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Hi Chuck,

 

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

 

Mark

Mark,

 

A Chrome according to me is positive film or film you can view with your eye or a loupe, the film name as you have stated usually ends in "chrome"

Agfa did make a Positive B & W film, I never used it so don't know much about it.

 

I have scanned some 35mm negatives and am pretty happy with the results. - Image ID: 2AHM88N

was scanned from FUJI 1600 ASA neg film, it as all from that take were shot in "Available Darkness."

 

Chuck

[spacecadet]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

 

A Chrome according to me is positive film or film you can view with your eye or a loupe, the film name as you have stated usually ends in "chrome"

Agfa did make a Positive B & W film, I never used it so don't know much about it.

 

 

I think I learnt the term on this forum, very probably from Chuck, but it's perfectly clear what it means and made me wonder why I hadn't been using it for years  to refer to a colour transparency.

Though I still tend to call them slides- I even put some 6x6 Agfachromes in card mounts once, but never got as far as a 6x6 projector.

[Chuck Nacke]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

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. 

Thanks Harry,

 

I was wondering what the advantage of scanning a 35mm chrome at 6300 or 8000 dpi would be and now I think I know, Not Much.

 

Glad I have two old working FS 4000's and some old Lenovo laptops to scan with.  I just wish I could get my head completely around

VueScan....

 

Chuck

[Harry Harrison]

7 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I was wondering what the advantage of scanning a 35mm chrome at 6300 or 8000 dpi would be and now I think I know, Not Much.

It will depend upon the original of course but I struggle to see any difference. I have a haphazard way of trying to fool myself, I compare scans side by side in Lightroom without knowing which side is which. Still, at the end of the day I'm marking my own homework. The Flextight scanners are wonderful pieces of engineering so I'm just making the point that it is definitely a case of buyer beware now, though the situation might be different in the States. The 949 had cooling on the sensor and a brighter light source so the superb Magnagon lens could be taken down a stop compared with mine. Depth of focus is still very limited. It also had a diffuser around the light source.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Mark,

 

A Chrome according to me is positive film or film you can view with your eye or a loupe, the film name as you have stated usually ends in "chrome"

Agfa did make a Positive B & W film, I never used it so don't know much about it.

 

I have scanned some 35mm negatives and am pretty happy with the results. - Image ID: 2AHM88N

was scanned from FUJI 1600 ASA neg film, it as all from that take were shot in "Available Darkness."

 

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Out of curiosity do you recall if 2AHM88N submitted via "News" or "Archival" routes as I'd be worried about subjecting it to regular Alamy QC due to the significant 1600 ASA film grain (or is it noise from scanning process or from opening up the shadows)? 

 

PS. I've found the folder of my Canon Scans of 35mm slides. Turns out it was a Canoscan FS2710 which scans at 2720 DPI. I'll now (re)compare these with some DSLR copes of the same slides done more recently to (hopefully) reconfirm why I ended up ditching the Canoscan.

 

Mark

[Chuck Nacke]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Hi Chuck,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Out of curiosity do you recall if 2AHM88N submitted via "News" or "Archival" routes as I'd be worried about subjecting it to regular Alamy QC due to the significant 1600 ASA film grain (or is it noise from scanning process or from opening up the shadows)? 

 

PS. I've found the folder of my Canon Scans of 35mm slides. Turns out it was a Canoscan FS2710 which scans at 2720 DPI. I'll now (re)compare these with some DSLR copes of the same slides done more recently to (hopefully) reconfirm why I ended up ditching the Canoscan.

 

Mark

Mark,

 

Image #2AHM88N went in and through as Archival, but I often just submit as normal stock to make sure I am meeting Alamy's QC which on occasion is not possible because

the image was shot under such difficult conditions.

 

The FS2710 is a different machine, I had one and it was good, a few of my very first images on Alamy were 35mm scans from chromes using the 2710.  The FS 4000 is a much

better machine and I preferred using the FS 4000 with an Adaptec 16bit PCMCIA card, but my last old Lenovo with a PCMCIA slot, running Windows XP went down and I can not

find graphic drivers for my Windows 10 64bit Pro machines.  That is why I had to buy VueScan.  I will say that - Image ID: 2AT52YF  is really close to the original 35mm

chrome.

 

Lastly, have any of you all noticed that there is a difference between an image on your own computer and after it is uploaded and displayed on Alamy?  I do all work on 16bit TIFF's

at full size, 5500+ at 300dpi before downsizing to 5000 by in 8bit JPEG's for upload.

 

Chuck

[M.Chapman]

49 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Image #2AHM88N went in and through as Archival, but I often just submit as normal stock to make sure I am meeting Alamy's QC which on occasion is not possible because

the image was shot under such difficult conditions.

Thanks for clarifying.

49 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

The FS2710 is a different machine, I had one and it was good, a few of my very first images on Alamy were 35mm scans from chromes using the 2710.  The FS 4000 is a much

better machine and I preferred using the FS 4000 with an Adaptec 16bit PCMCIA card, but my last old Lenovo with a PCMCIA slot, running Windows XP went down and I can not

find graphic drivers for my Windows 10 64bit Pro machines.  That is why I had to buy VueScan.  I will say that - Image ID: 2AT52YF  is really close to the original 35mm

chrome.

 

Indeed that image does look good, albeit at well below 100%. I've just been comparing my 35mm scans using FS2710 with DSLR copies of the same slides tonight. The difference between them from a resolution point of view is pretty insignificant, indeed the on image quality limit seems to be the grain in the film (Velvia 50) and the less than perfect lenses I was using when I took the slides. Looking back at earlier comparisons it's clear that my FS2710 didn't always get the focus right, I'm not sure why, maybe some slides weren't held flat enough.

 

But, by digitising with a DSLR using RAW I find it's quicker than scanning and it's easy to extract shadow and highlight detail, even from contrasty Velvia slides.

 

49 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Lastly, have any of you all noticed that there is a difference between an image on your own computer and after it is uploaded and displayed on Alamy?

 

 In what respect - colour, tonal range, banding and compression artefacts in skies? I assume you're comparing the rendering in PS with that seen in your browser? Remember Alamy convert AdobeRGB to sRGB which makes a small difference. What colour space are you working in? Are you using soft proofing in PS to see (simulate) what the image will look like in sRGB space?

 

I must confess I now work in sRGB colour space in PS and submit in sRGB as I find I get better consistency (WYSYWIG) with the submitted jpgs.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Chuck Nacke]

Mark,

 

From my point of view, converting my 16bit TIFF files down to sRGB would be a waste of my time and energy.  My point of view is that scanning

images is only worth my time if I can create a master file of images that today might be licensed by Alamy and ten years from now might by licensed

by ?  I've been with a few agencies and libraries over the decades and still see licenses from a few that I have not communicated with in over a decade,

a lot of them have also gone out of business.  I also spend way too much time on finishing each image.  While I do sRGB images for web use for clients

and my own web sites, I do not like sRGB.

 

Happy Friday and BREXIT....

 

Chuck 

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

From my point of view, converting my 16bit TIFF files down to sRGB would be a waste of my time and energy. 

 

100% agree, 16bit TIFF is better than 8 bit and I understand why you are using it. Indeed I feel somewhat guilty I don't store my processed images as 16bit TIFF or PSD (I do keep the RAWs though)

 

But I was looking to help answer your question;

 

10 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Lastly, have any of you all noticed that there is a difference between an image on your own computer and after it is uploaded and displayed on Alamy?  I do all work on 16bit TIFF's

at full size, 5500+ at 300dpi before downsizing to 5000 by in 8bit JPEG's for upload.

 

Hence my question;

 

9 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

In what respect - colour, tonal range, banding and compression artefacts in skies? I assume you're comparing the rendering in PS with that seen in your browser? Remember Alamy convert AdobeRGB to sRGB which makes a small difference. What colour space are you working in? Are you using soft proofing in PS to see (simulate) what the image will look like in sRGB space?

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

Happy Friday and BREXIT....

 

Chuck 

Thanks for thinking of us.

Our "tryst with destiny" it wasn't.  "A the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, Little England will awake to c**p and c**pness......"

But we had a good bottle of Mosel Riesling to drown our sorrows.

Edited February 1, 2020 by spacecadet

[M.Chapman]

43 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Our "tryst with destiny" it wasn't.  "A the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, Little England will awake to c**p and c**pness......"

But we had a good bottle of Mosel Riesling to drown our sorrows.

 

We've already had a thread removed recently due to Brexit posts. Lets' try to avoid this useful thread going the same way.

 

Mark

Edited February 1, 2020 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

We've already had a thread removed recently due to Brexit posts. Lets' try to avoid this useful thread going the same way.

 

Mark

Chuck offered his good wishes. I responded to them.

It's Saturday morning..Moderators will be back on Monday, I assume. They can remove the "offending" post if they want to.

When it has been explicitly referred to, I'm not going to pretend that the most significant event in our constitutional history since the war didn't occur.

Edited February 1, 2020 by spacecadet

[Chuck Nacke]

I meant no offence, Even though I did meet your queen, I did not intend to start that debate.

 

We have our own problems on this side of the pond. 

 

Let's keep this thread on track.

 

Chuck

[spacecadet]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I meant no offence,

I took none, Chuck. I took it as offering good wishes, for whatever happens.

[geogphotos]

Canon 5D and 100mm macro used in very simple set up using computer screen as light source

 

Improvisation !

 

https://www.diyphotography.net/old-slides-want-scan-cheap-easy-way-home/

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Improvisation !

Shows it can be done anyway, not the easiest way to get though a lot of slides clearly, you don't want to be fiddling about lining up each individual slide. Whatever you end up doing it's sensible to mask off around the light source and it's crucial to get the slides square, a mirror can be used to check. A lot of people use an LED light panel as a light source, or even LED light units from such places as B&Q. Strictly speaking they need to be rated according their suitability for photographic use but I doubt it makes a lot of difference in practice.

[MDM]

39 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Shows it can be done anyway, not the easiest way to get though a lot of slides clearly, you don't want to be fiddling about lining up each individual slide. Whatever you end up doing it's sensible to mask off around the light source and it's crucial to get the slides square, a mirror can be used to check. A lot of people use an LED light panel as a light source, or even LED light units from such places as B&Q. Strictly speaking they need to be rated according their suitability for photographic use but I doubt it makes a lot of difference in practice.

 

I was going to say pretty much the same thing. That is a major advantage of the ES-1 as the slide is fixed in position relative to the lens so once you get focus it stays put. The ES-1 is very solidly made and the slide just clips in from the top. 

 

The issue even then of course is to ensure that there is sharp focus across the field which depends on the slide being flat in the mount. I focus on the centre of the slide and use f11 as an optimum aperture for edge to edge sharpness. The 55mm Micro-Nikkor is up to that as should any superior quality macro lens. However, there may still be some softer areas in the corners due most either to the slide not being perfectly flat in mount or to the original slide having soft corners due to the lens used in capturing the picture. Nothing can be done about the latter but, if it is due to a non-flat slide, then one could do a series of shots with slightly different focus and stack them.

 

As for light sources, I do believe that using a light with a high CRI is very sensible. It is similar to the arguments for shooting raw,  processing in 16 bit and working in a wide colour space (at least AdobeRGB). We may or may not be able to see the colour differences between light sources but these are scientifically proven to exist if nothing else. Why go to all this trouble and have one part of the process let one down. A photographic quality LED is a very good idea in my opinion although off camera flash is a good alternative. 

 

Finally I found it amusing that the guy in the article that geogphotos linked to did some white  balancing using ACR but he made a complete hash of it. He says his Dad did have blue skin so he warmed it up in ACR but he forget to correct the magenta so he now looks very, very purple. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by MDM

[geogphotos]

Yes, I can see that what the guy in the link is doing is basic but it's not a bad way to start just using what you have and figuring out what you need step by step.

 

There are also some useful reviews of the 100mm L lens on Youtube.

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

Finally I found it amusing that the guy in the article that geogphotos linked to did some white  balancing using ACR but he made a complete hash of it. He says his Dad did have blue skin so he warmed it up in ACR but he forget to correct the magenta so he now looks very, very purple. 

Just LR eyedropper off the white shirt would have been my way- it gets pretty close when the original exposure was right, but I don't know if you have it in ACR.

[MDM]

26 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Just LR eyedropper off the white shirt would have been my way- it gets pretty close when the original exposure was right, but I don't know if you have it in ACR.

 

Yes ACR has just about the same functionality as the develop module in Lightroom for equivalent versions. 

 

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Yes, I can see that what the guy in the link is doing is basic but it's not a bad way to start just using what you have and figuring out what you need step by step.

 

 

 

Sure the best way to learn is often to find out what you can't do (or make mistakes) and then adapt. But believe me the biggest problem with copying slides is getting and keeping a flat field of focus as the tiniest movement will mess the whole thing up. For serious copying having a system where you can just pop the next slide in without moving things and just tweaking the focus each time is essential.

Edited February 1, 2020 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

As for light sources, I do believe that using a light with a high CRI is very sensible.

Yes, I would do so myself, I was just trying to minimise the list of technical requirements! In fact I always use flash, either with the Bowens Illumitran or fired down into my masked off lightbox. The Bowens has a handy rocker switch to go between the focussing light and the flash exposure. With the lightbox I was surprised to see that even with a high flash sync speed I was still getting a faint residual image from the lightbox so I always switch that off.

[spacecadet]

17 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I would do so myself, I was just trying to minimise the list of technical requirements! In fact I always use flash, either with the Bowens Illumitran or fired down into my masked off lightbox. The Bowens has a handy rocker switch to go between the focussing light and the flash exposure. With the lightbox I was surprised to see that even with a high flash sync speed I was still getting a faint residual image from the lightbox so I always switch that off.

I'd no idea I had a fellow traveller along the way of the Tran!

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'd no idea I had a fellow traveller along the way of the Tran!

A relatively recent acquisition last year, took a while to get used to it, and to fire it without cooking my camera's flash circuits. It should be OK but I do it via a flash slave just to be on the safe side.

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

A relatively recent acquisition last year, took a while to get used to it, and to fire it without cooking my camera's flash circuits. It should be OK but I do it via a flash slave just to be on the safe side.

I've used it with two Sony Alphas and they seem rather fussy about firing it so I usually draw the curtains and use bulb. What slave are you using? I was considering one of those cheap Chinese jobs, as I need one for studio flash as well- Multiblitz confirmed that my old Minilites have a low resistance trigger circuit that DSLRs struggle with.

[sb photos]

An interesting thread, as was the previous. I'm just collecting data on the options for using a DSLR to digitise E6 and  B&W film, cut into strips of 6. First I'll fire up and check out my Minolta Dimage 5400 Elite, need to find the film strip carriers first. When using a DSLR it appears to be easier digitising mounted slides rather than my cut strips.

Edited February 2, 2020 by sb photos