Canon slide copying set-up

[Harry Harrison]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

What slave are you using?

I'm using an old Nissin Syncro-Eye (very cheap and plentiful) on the Illumitran and my Canon flash on a remote cable set to 1/64 manual placed round the back. I remember having problems firing it directly and I read somewhere why that was but I just can't recall the reason now.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, sb photos said:

When using a DSLR it appears to be easier digitising mounted slides rather than my cut strips

The Nikon ES-2 comes with a cut strip holder, otherwise you could try using the Minolta strip carrier placed on a lightbox. 

[Harry Harrison]

20 minutes ago, sb photos said:

When using a DSLR it appears to be easier digitising mounted slides rather than my cut strips.

This "pixl-latr" was due to be marketed by Paterson, they had prototypes at The Photography Show last year. It's possible they might launch it the new Analogue area at the show this year but I haven't heard anything.

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hamishgill/pixl-latr-helping-you-digitise-35mm-120-and-4x5-fi

 

[sb photos]

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Nikon ES-2 comes with a cut strip holder, otherwise you could try using the Minolta strip carrier placed on a lightbox. 

 

The ES-2's I've been looking at are around £100 more than the ES-1, but might bite the bullet and buy one. I already have a 55mm Nikon Macro and a newish 90mm Tamron SP macro lens. Now to have another look for the Minolta fit strip holder. Also have a reasonable light box I used to use with a loupe to examine 4x5 material. Something I learnt long ago was never to make impulsive purchases, there's no immediate rush.

[Harry Harrison]

5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

What slave are you using?

Actually a more elegant solution would be a radio trigger & slave, the slave would need a PC socket for the Bowens lead. Neewer (or Wansen?) do a ridiculously cheap  version, the PT-16GY, for either Nikon or Canon but it's unclear if it works on a Sony.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

Just now, Harry Harrison said:

Actually a more elegant solution would be a radio trigger & slave, the slave would need a PC socket for the Bowens lead. Neewer (or Wansen?) do a ridiculously cheap  version, the PT-16GY, for either Nikon or Canon but it's unclear if it works on a Sony.

That's the sort of thing I had in mind, so I'd hoped you might have been using one!

At least the A58 has a proper hotshoe, and I've checked it with a meter, so I have hopes.

 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, sb photos said:

 

The ES-2's I've been looking at are around £100 more than the ES-1, but might bite the bullet and buy one. I already have a 55mm Nikon Macro and a newish 90mm Tamron SP macro lens. Now to have another look for the Minolta fit strip holder. Also have a reasonable light box I used to use with a loupe to examine 4x5 material. Something I learnt long ago was never to make impulsive purchases, there's no immediate rush.

 

The ES-2 is available direct from the Nikon UK store for £149 including courier delivery which is a lot cheaper than WEX (£179) although the ES-1 is £90 direct from Nikon whereas it is £80 from WEX. You would need a PK13 extension ring as well with the 55mm to bring it up to lifesize assuming you are using a full frame NIkon. 

 

I have not tried the ES -1 with my Tamron 90 (58mm thread) as I don't have the step down ring but I have a feeling it will not work without an extension ring in front of the lens due to the focus distance issue. The Nikon 105 micro does not work according to what I have read. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

58 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's the sort of thing I had in mind, so I'd hoped you might have been using one!

I've actually got a decent Phottix radio slave system but the receiver doesn't have a PC socket on it, only 3.5mm, and it doesn't come with the right leads either. I could make a lead from an old PC lead but went for the route that I've described instead.

[M.Chapman]

Although I've submitted digitised medium format transparencies to Alamy I've never submitted digitised 35mm.

So, as an experiment I've now copied a couple of my 35mm Velvia slides (using B&Q LED downlighter as lightbox) and my Lumix G7 with 45mm Elmarit macro lens at f/8.

The slides were shot on Fuji Velvia 50 using (if my memory serves me correctly) a Contax RTS II and Tamron 17mm SP lens . I've downsized them to 3000 x 2000 pix.

 

My question is, do you guys think are they good enough to meet normal Alamy QC requirements?

 

 

3000 x 2000 image here

 

 

3000 x 2000 image here

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

Edited February 8, 2020 by M.Chapman
Links updated to avoid ads.

[sb photos]

38 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Although I've submitted digitised medium format transparencies to Alamy I've never submitted digitised 35mm.

So, as an experiment I've now copied a couple of my 35mm Velvia slides (using B&Q LED downlighter as lightbox) and my Lumix G7 with 45mm Elmarit macro lens at f/8.

The slides were shot on Fuji Velvia 50 using (if my memory serves me correctly) a Contax RTS II and Tamron 17mm SP lens . I've downsized them to 3000 x 2000 pix.

 

My question is, do you guys think are they good enough to meet normal Alamy QC requirements?

 

 

3000 x 2000 image here 

 

 

3000 x 2000 image here

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

 

I just downloaded both images, they opened to 17.2MB, and file sizes were 1.6 and 1.8MB. I've just been editing a batch of images taken Saturday, all sized to 3000x2000 pixels and saved at jpeg level 12. Mine varied between 4.3 and 4.9MB. Had you saved at a lower quality, or did the site you hosted the images at apply compression? I only ask as relating to the image file name ending in -1, the blue sky at the top shows obvious artefacts when viewed in Photoshop at 100%, especially in the top right corner. This doesn't show if zooming in on the image as hosted, but that appears not to zoom to 100%. The downloads in Photoshop also look soft. Based upon what I see in the downloaded images they would likely fail QC if they were checked. Personally I wouldn't submit them. You must have had doubts to ask for opinions.

[MDM]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Although I've submitted digitised medium format transparencies to Alamy I've never submitted digitised 35mm.

So, as an experiment I've now copied a couple of my 35mm Velvia slides (using B&Q LED downlighter as lightbox) and my Lumix G7 with 45mm Elmarit macro lens at f/8.

The slides were shot on Fuji Velvia 50 using (if my memory serves me correctly) a Contax RTS II and Tamron 17mm SP lens . I've downsized them to 3000 x 2000 pix.

 

My question is, do you guys think are they good enough to meet normal Alamy QC requirements?

 

Mark

 

I think they would probably be acceptable for QC but I would save the originals as level 12 rather than level 10 if that is what you did. They are reasonably sharp and the noise or whatever it is that causes the blotchiness in the sky seems to be a characteristic of scanned slides but I would guess that  it is not so bad that it would be likely to fail QC if this recent thread is anything to go by. The image in that link passed on appeal and the sky has a lot more noise than yours. I tend to select the skies in my scans and apply a little gaussian blur to minimise this effect and then downsize. Not sure about the white balance in the picture with the rocks - they look very green but maybe that was what they looked like in any case. 

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

The ES-2 is available direct from the Nikon UK store for £149 including courier delivery which is a lot cheaper than WEX (£179) although the ES-1 is £90 direct from Nikon whereas it is £80 from WEX. You would need a PK13 extension ring as well with the 55mm to bring it up to lifesize assuming you are using a full frame NIkon. 

 

I have not tried the ES -1 with my Tamron 90 (58mm thread) as I don't have the step down ring but I have a feeling it will not work without an extension ring in front of the lens due to the focus distance issue. The Nikon 105 micro does not work according to what I have read. 

 

Thanks for for the info. The ES-2 now looks more tempting with Nikon's price. Re my Minolta Dimage 5400 Elite, I found my film and mounted slide carriers, now need to find its 24V power supply. Will try that first, and depending upon results, might eBay it as they appear to be going for very high prices. Will have to check if they actually sell at those prices. May main requirement is to scan strips of B&W negatives.

[M.Chapman]

37 minutes ago, sb photos said:

 

I just downloaded both images, they opened to 17.2MB, and file sizes were 1.6 and 1.8MB. I've just been editing a batch of images taken Saturday, all sized to 3000x2000 pixels and saved at jpeg level 12. Mine varied between 4.3 and 4.9MB. Had you saved at a lower quality, or did the site you hosted the images at apply compression? I only ask as relating to the image file name ending in -1, the blue sky at the top shows obvious artefacts when viewed in Photoshop at 100%, especially in the top right corner. This doesn't show if zooming in on the image as hosted, but that appears not to zoom to 100%. The downloads in Photoshop also look soft. Based upon what I see in the downloaded images they would likely fail QC if they were checked. Personally I wouldn't submit them. You must have had doubts to ask for opinions.

I saved at quality level 10. I took the pictures in RAW followed by development in LR and finishing in PS at 16 bit before saving as 8 Bit Jpg level 10. I’ll take a closer look to see if I can spot the artefacts and recheck my editing sequence and may try again and avoid any contrast / level adjustments in PS and save as jpg level 12. You’re right I’m wary, as the IQ isn’t as high as I would normally submit.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

14 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I think they would probably be acceptable for QC but I would save the originals as level 12 rather than level 10 if that is what you did. They are reasonably sharp and the noise or whatever it is that causes the blotchiness in the sky seems to be a characteristic of scanned slides but I would guess that  it is not so bad that it would be likely to fail QC if this recent thread is anything to go by. The image in that link passed on appeal and the sky has a lot more noise than yours. I tend to select the skies in my scans and apply a little gaussian blur to minimise this effect and then downsize. Not sure about the white balance in the picture with the rocks - they look very green but maybe that was what they looked like in any case. 

Thanks for the comments especially about the colour balance. Being red/green deficient makes slide copying more of a challenge for me. I’ll take a closer look. One trick I used to match the digitised image to the slide was to open my developed image in PS with a white background and placed the slide against the screen so I could see them side by side. But although I perhaps got a reasonable match, slide films did vary from batch to batch and the film base has a slight tint too.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

On 02/02/2020 at 21:57, MDM said:

 

I think they would probably be acceptable for QC but I would save the originals as level 12 rather than level 10 if that is what you did. They are reasonably sharp and the noise or whatever it is that causes the blotchiness in the sky seems to be a characteristic of scanned slides but I would guess that  it is not so bad that it would be likely to fail QC if this recent thread is anything to go by. The image in that link passed on appeal and the sky has a lot more noise than yours. I tend to select the skies in my scans and apply a little gaussian blur to minimise this effect and then downsize. Not sure about the white balance in the picture with the rocks - they look very green but maybe that was what they looked like in any case. 

 

OK I made some adjustments to the processing of the first mage.

 

1) Removed some lens vignetting (helps with corners in sky)

2) Altered colour balance a smidgen -100K +5 tint

3) Lightened rocks a bit

4) Applied 0.5px radius gaussian smooth on sky

5) Saved as jpg level 12.

New version is here

 

Mark

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

34 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

OK I made some adjustments to the processing of the first mage.

 

1) Removed some lens vignetting (helps with corners in sky)

2) Altered colour balance a smidgen -100K +5 tint

3) Lightened rocks a bit

4) Applied 0.5px radius gaussian smooth on sky

5) Saved as jpg level 12.

New version is here

 

Mark

 

They are very good as scans and I would be happy to submit them. IMO they have that not-quite-sharpness that all scans seem to have, but that's the nature of the beast.

They are quite a bit sharper than my Transcans.

For colour I would have taken an LR eyedropper off the surf or rocks. I sometimes then adjust the white balance to taste but the tint is usually very accurate.

Edited February 3, 2020 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

38 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

OK I made some adjustments to the processing of the first mage.

I think the changes you've made have been beneficial, and I also agree that the artefacts in the sky are the dye-clumping effects you get with film which you've helped with that Gaussian blur. I do think that this is a difficult image to choose though because the focus is very much on those rocks in the near foreground and falls away so it is easy to look at the image overall as soft, there isn't that much detail to hold on to in those rocks to give a feeling of sharpness either. Also I imagine there are a lot of digital images of the location that it will need to compete with.

 

None of us have seen the slide apart from you, do you think that you are getting all the detail from the slide?

[M.Chapman]

49 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

None of us have seen the slide apart from you, do you think that you are getting all the detail from the slide?

 

Probably. But I do need to double check the corners of the slide to confirm the significant softening in the beach sand at bottom right corner of this image is present in the original slide and not some field curvature effect in my macro lens. (I've already cropped the worst of it out from the digitised copy).

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

25 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Probably. But I do need to double check the corners of the slide to confirm the significant softening in the beach sand at bottom right corner of this image is present in the original slide and not some field curvature effect in my macro lens. (I've already cropped the worst of it out from the digitised copy).

 

Mark

I might be dischuffed to see field curvature on a Leica macro!

Even with my unbranded enlarging lens setup on the 'Tran I can tell that the edge drop-off is down to the camera lens. The mount edge (or film rebate) should give it away.

 

[MDM]

 

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Probably. But I do need to double check the corners of the slide to confirm the significant softening in the beach sand at bottom right corner of this image is present in the original slide and not some field curvature effect in my macro lens. (I've already cropped the worst of it out from the digitised copy).

 

Mark

 

Corner softness could also be due to the slide not being flat in the mount. Heat from a lamp might contribute. Variations in sharpness due to the slide not being perfectly parallel to the plane of focus in the camera are also possible but should show as a variation across the field rather than just in the corners. The ES-1 eliminates the latter problem. It would be possible to distinguish whether it is edge softness in the original or the slide not being flat by focusing on corners. The Tamron 17 is another classic lens, partly because reasonably affordable ultra wideangle lenses were not very common when it was released back in 80s. I never had one but I suspect corner softness could be a problem with it. 

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

But I do need to double check the corners of the slide to confirm the significant softening in the beach sand at bottom right corner of this image is present in the original slide

I think that slide is a much better example of what is possible, I don't think that the softening in the corner matters from a QC point of view but I understand that you need to check whether you have introduced it. For me the bubbles along the surf line and the crisp edge of the surf give the eye something to latch on to, unlike the rocks in the other picture. Depth of field seems to be greater in any case, or at least further away from the camera, as the coastline in the distance looks much sharper. 

[M.Chapman]

21 hours ago, MDM said:

Corner softness could also be due to the slide not being flat in the mount. Heat from a lamp might contribute. Variations in sharpness due to the slide not being perfectly parallel to the plane of focus in the camera are also possible but should show as a variation across the field rather than just in the corners. The ES-1 eliminates the latter problem. It would be possible to distinguish whether it is edge softness in the original or the slide not being flat by focusing on corners. The Tamron 17 is another classic lens, partly because reasonably affordable ultra wideangle lenses were not very common when it was released back in 80s. I never had one but I suspect corner softness could be a problem with it. 

 

I've rechecked my setup and that particular slide. The majority of the softening in the extreme corners is present in the original slide so due to the Tamron 17mm SP lens I took the shot with. A little bit of softening is due to a fall-off in sharpness in the corners of my Elmarit- 45mm macro lens, possibly due to field curvature. I tried reducing the aperture from f/8 to f/11 but the whole frame gets softer. The LED lightbox gets slightly warm which might cause some distortion so I might increase the spacing between the slide and diffuser. Nothing major to worry about though. Not like the days when projecting slides when they used to "pop" into (or out of) focus as they warmed up. Glass mounts kept them flat, but introduced "Newton's rings". Anti-Newton mounts just made them slightly fuzzy. Eee... those where the days 

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I tried reducing the aperture from f/8 to f/11 but the whole frame gets softer

That seems to tally with this review:

 

"Central sharpness is very high wide open, but the corners are notably softer. This pattern persists on stopping down; the highest central sharpness is achieved around F5, with the corners continuing to sharpen up until F8. As is often the case for Four Thirds, the optimum aperture is about F6.3. Diffraction starts to degrade the image significantly at apertures of F11 and smaller, with F16-F22 very soft indeed."

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-45-2p8-o20/3

[MDM]

20 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I've rechecked my setup and that particular slide. The majority of the softening in the extreme corners is present in the original slide so due to the Tamron 17mm SP lens I took the shot with. A little bit of softening is due to a fall-off in sharpness in the corners of my Elmarit- 45mm macro lens, possibly due to field curvature. I tried reducing the aperture from f/8 to f/11 but the whole frame gets softer. The LED lightbox gets slightly warm which might cause some distortion so I might increase the spacing between the slide and diffuser. Nothing major to worry about though. Not like the days when projecting slides when they used to "pop" into (or out of) focus as they warmed up. Glass mounts kept them flat, but introduced "Newton's rings". Anti-Newton mounts just made them slightly fuzzy. Eee... those where the days 

 

Mark

 

 

5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That seems to tally with this review:

 

"Central sharpness is very high wide open, but the corners are notably softer. This pattern persists on stopping down; the highest central sharpness is achieved around F5, with the corners continuing to sharpen up until F8. As is often the case for Four Thirds, the optimum aperture is about F6.3. Diffraction starts to degrade the image significantly at apertures of F11 and smaller, with F16-F22 very soft indeed."

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-45-2p8-o20/3

 

Interesting Mark. I feel only a very tiny touch of nostalgia for the good old days myself in relation to photography. We are living in amazing times for those of us happy to try to adapt. 😀

 

I have not noticed any difference in sharpness between f8 and f11 on my Nikkor 55 for slide copying but I tend to use f11 to maximise depth of field. I remember reading reviews of the lens when I bought it in the early 2000s and I think it was sharp right across the field at close distances as well as at infinity - a remarkable piece of lens design. In theory, diffraction should start to affect image quality on the D810 at apertures smaller than f8 but I have never noticed any real world difference. There is always this interplay between max central sharpness (often around f5.6) and high but consistent sharpness across the field which I find tends to peak at around f11 on a lot of lenses and is going to be very important for copying. Just because it is made by Leica does not necessarily mean perfection I guess. 

 

Focus  stacking remains an option if the copying lens is not quite up to the job or the slide is not flat but not worth it if the original slide is not sharp. 

 

[Harry Harrison]

34 minutes ago, MDM said:

There is always this interplay between max central sharpness (often around f5.6) and high but consistent sharpness across the field which I find tends to peak at around f11 on a lot of lenses and is going to be very important for copying. Just because it is made by Leica does not necessarily mean perfection I guess. 

I think the maths changes for Micro 4/3 though, diffraction probably comes in earlier, depth of field is also more at any given aperture compared to full frame.

 

Edit - or is it, not so sure now I come to think about it.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Harry Harrison