Old slide scans - progress

[geogphotos]

I simply rest my camera+ES1 on a small pile of books and stand a small Lightbox against my printer as the light source. 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

The Nikon ES-1 is good also but fiddly, you can work faster with an Illumitran. 

 

I don't find the ES-1 (or ES2) in the least bit fiddly. Screw it onto the lens, stick the slide in, focus and away you go. I use the camera on a tripod with an LED light on a mini-tripod on a table behind. Focusing is simple because the slide is held perfectly flat in the holder so there is no messing trying to get alignment. 

 

The Illumitran sounds an awful lot more fiddly in comparison. As long as one is just copying 35mm slides, there cannot be anything easier and and faster to use than the ES-1.

 

The ES-1 is available again new on eBay for around £40 or so. A secondhand macro lens plus maybe an extension ring and/or a spacer in front of the lens, a decent small LED light and you could have a complete setup for around £250-£400 depending on choice of lens.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by MDM

[spacecadet]

41 minutes ago, MDM said:

The Illumitran sounds an awful lot more fiddly in comparison.

Much discussed before but of course Matt is new to it so he will have to make up his mind.

In my view it is no more "fiddly" than using an enlarger. I have my own indexed copyholders for slide or neg so lineup is done once. The camera is fixed to the column and likewise lined up once.

There is preliminary work to do and it is not an out-of-the-box setup but I didn't require it to be. More of a project. Were I copying 50 originals I might not have bothered, but I was doing six and a half thousand. FWIW, for £40, not £400. You can spend time or money on this and I spent time.

It is in the big thread so I will leave it there.

Edited December 26, 2023 by spacecadet

[Martin L]

As an alternative Heath Robinson attempt, I picked up one of these for £3 in a charity shop.

All I had to do was remove the lens at the front and point the macro down the barrel.

No idea what the cri of the 'daylight' LEDs are but results seem ok.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

I take it you have (97) licenses since 2020?

Your scheme is akin to those offering photos

freely obtained from Library of Congress

except you have no competition but none

of your subjects are "famous"...?

If willing to say, do you buy old images

at yard sales or online bulk auctions...?

Are you given any information in advance

about the old images you purchase...?

(me: not pursuing, just curious)

[Harry Harrison]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

As long as one is just copying 35mm slides, there cannot be anything easier and and faster to use than the ES-1.

Well I have both and once set up the Illumitran is much quicker. Alignment of the slides is 'fiddly' in the ES-1 because you can't see the lens-facing side of the slide so it is a bit hit and miss with regard to centering, the spring pressure is quite strong and I don't personally like the proximity of the perspex diffuser. It certainly does remain the cheapest way into sliide copying particularly if you are using one of the Micro-Nikkors that it is designed for.

 

In fact it is very easy to insert and remove slides in the Illumitran slide holder and they are also held flat by spring pressure. However setting up an Illumitran in the first place might be described as fiddly and not for everyone, and it will cost more than £40. It is also easy to adapt the Illumitran for negative strips even if you don't have the proper Bowens negative holder whereas the Nikon ES-2 has always seemed over-priced for what it offers. Fortunately there are JJC 'knock-offs' available now, or the Valoi easy35. The latter is expensive but better engineered.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[MDM]

5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well I have both and once set up the Illumitran is much quicker. Alignment of the slides is 'fiddly' in the ES-1 because you can't see the lens-facing side of the slide so it is a bit hit and miss with regard to centering, the spring pressure is quite strong and I don't personally like the proximity of the perspex diffuser. It certainly does remain the cheapest way into sliide copying particularly if you are using one of the Micro-Nikkors that it is designed for.

 

In fact it is very easy to insert and remove slides in the Illumitran slide holder and they are also held flat by spring pressure. However setting up an Illumitran in the first place might be described as fiddly and not for everyone, and it will cost more than £40. It is also easy to adapt the Illumitran for negative strips even if you don't have the proper Bowens negative holder whereas the Nikon ES-2 has always seemed over-priced for what it offers. Fortunately there are JJC 'knock-offs' available now, or the Valoi easy35. The latter is expensive but better engineered.

 

OK - I waa really referring to the whole process of getting an Illumitran system working. I have no personal experience of this - just reading what you and spacecadet have written here and in the other massive thread.

 

I do find the ES-1 very easy to work with. I find the slides are easy to get in place with a few tweaks looking through the lens. I don't tend to go the full 1:1 in order to have a bit of leeway with that as well. The perspex needs to be close for good diffusion so that doesn't bother me. That is a feature I actually really like. Also the ES-1 is very sturdy. I already had the 55 Micro-Nikkor, the Tamron 90 (which is even better because of the autofocus) and a decent LED when I got the ES-1 so the extra expense was minimal. You are still going to need a decent lens with the Illumitran as well as a light source. 

 

Perhaps it is telling that the OP here and the other thread eventually came around to the ES-1 as well. 😀

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Martin L said:

As an alternative Heath Robinson attempt, I picked up one of these for £3 in a charity shop.

All I had to do was remove the lens at the front and point the macro down the barrel.

No idea what the cri of the 'daylight' LEDs are but results seem ok.

 

Have you attempted to get any images taken with this through Alamy QC and, if so, have they passed?

[Harry Harrison]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

the Tamron 90 (which is even better because of the autofocus)

Is that a straight fit for the ES-1? Actually I think you purchased some 52mm extension rings from the Far East but maybe not for that, a selection of those seem to be available on UK ebay now which is handy.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[Martin L]

25 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Have you attempted to get any images taken with this through Alamy QC and, if so, have they passed?

Only via 'Archive' as some are 30 years old, travelled a fair bit and inherently a bit scruffy,  but several have licensed and for pretty good fees.

 

 

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

I take it you have (97) licenses since 2020?

Your scheme is akin to those offering photos

freely obtained from Library of Congress

except you have no competition but none

of your subjects are "famous"...?

If willing to say, do you buy old images

at yard sales or online bulk auctions...?

Are you given any information in advance

about the old images you purchase...?

(me: not pursuing, just curious)

 

There is a big difference between these and LOC. I own the copyright or have permission from the copyright owner. The images are not public domain.

 

Some I buy from Ebay if the seller has inherited and is prepared to write a copyright transfer note/letter.

 

Others I buy from a local auction room then attempt to trace the family to ask about copyright transfer or permission. This is not always successful. The auction house do not offer any assistance at all. I have to follow clues from, for example, addresses written on  slide boxes or information written in captions ie) view captioned as 'view from bedroom' which shows a street sign and I can use my Ancestry account and Google Maps to do detective work. 

 

Some families are suspicious and won't co-operate. Others are delighted. That's why I try and write a blog post about their father/brother/aunt so that they know there is a place on the internet where their relative's life and images is celebrated.

 

As of now old slides do not have high commercial value to the general public. People want to get rid of them. A lot of collections end up in landfill. That is one reason why I am very happy to share this information. A lot of really interesting social history from c 1950s-1980s is being lost.

Edited December 26, 2023 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

I take it you have (97) licenses since 2020?

Your scheme is akin to those offering photos

freely obtained from Library of Congress

except you have no competition but none

of your subjects are "famous"...?

If willing to say, do you buy old images

at yard sales or online bulk auctions...?

Are you given any information in advance

about the old images you purchase...?

(me: not pursuing, just curious)

 

There are some pics of Formula 1 motor racing which show famous cars and drivers. Also, the recent ones from a TV cameraman include some famous tennis players and a famous mock-up of a plane used in a TV series of the 1960s.

 

I did find one of the Beatles but didn't have copright so sold it to a collector.

 

The 97 pics that have sold so far are in a gallery here.

 

https://www.geographyphotos.com/gallery/FilmCopySales/G0000AVjdnoMm1BM

Edited December 26, 2023 by geogphotos

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Is that a straight fit for the ES-1? Actually I think you purchased some 52mm extension rings from the Far East but maybe not for that, a selection of those seem to be available on UK ebay now which is handy.

 

It needs a spacer in front of it to increase the minimum focus distance as the lens can't focus that close but no extension rings (it's a 1:1). The spacer cost a few £ and did come from Hong Kong just as Covid was arriving as well. Mine has a 58mm thread so needs a stepup ring 58-62 to fit the ES-1. There have been several versions of the Tamron 90 going back to the 80s I think. 

 

Interesting thing -  it works fine with Nikon Z system cameras and the FTZII adapter. I no longer have any DSLRs. 

 

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

I don't know how many times I've responded to "Slide and Negative Scanning" and I'm still scanning 35mm chromes and a few color negatives using my old Canon FS 4000 and all six of my licenses so far in Dec. 23 are images scanned from 35mm either E-6 or C-41 film.  I've gotten much faster scanning are retouching.  I bought a perfect Illumitron with three excellent lenses and I was never happy with the results, using a D800e. The only time I've been happy with photographing chromes with a DSLR has been old 120s.  Kodachrome is a pain to work with, but the old Kodak EPP (100ASA daylight) 35mm E-6 scans really well for me.

Chuck

[geogphotos]

For me the methodology is the least interesting aspect of this topic.

 

I'm more excited by the images, sourcing them, clearing permissions, selection, digitising and procesing, researching locations/metadata and then ultimately a client wanting to publish them. 

 

That to me is the magic of these archive pictures that were taken decades before the internet and asscoiated technologies were even imaginable. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

duplicate deleted - not sure why this is happening. 

 

Sorry. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

duplicate deleted - not sure why this is happening. 

 

Sorry. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Illumitran............it will cost more than £40

It will now- we told everyone about it! We all bought them (just me then? OK) and they got rare. It is a lot less competitive now. I wouldn't have spent £150+ on one and its adapters. Still a goer for the handyperson with £40 for a base unit and already in possession of the optics though.

I see that Chuck tried it and wasn't happy with the quality, which is good enough for me and I wouldn't dream of it for non-archive.  But for non-QC-braving, archive images, still in the running.

Edited December 27, 2023 by spacecadet

[Inchiquin]

41 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

It will now- we told everyone about it! We all bought them (just me then? OK)

 

 

 

Not just you. I paid 99p for mine. I must say the news of their rise in price has given me a tremendous incentive to pull my finger out and get round to scanning all my 6x6s, as I will no longer have a reason to keep the Illumitran any more in a house not big enough for everything I own.

 

Alan

[MDM]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Much discussed before but of course Matt is new to it so he will have to make up his mind.

 

I wouldn't dream of it for non-archive.  But for non-QC-braving, archive images, still in the running.

 

This is a key point if providing informed advice to someone  (such as Matt) on what works best. I've only gone the normal QC route with slide copies and I've submitted single images so they would get checked just to make sure. Nothing has failed to date. My copies are also suitable for printing to a reasonable size (up to A3 say).

 

That said, the quality of the copy is down to the lens, the camera, the light source, correct alignment of slide and camera sensor, and the post-processing. Not having seen an Illumitran, I am guessing but I don't think there is any reason why it would not be possible to get the same results from one as from an ES-1 or any other device for holding the slide, all else being equal. It ultimately comes down to ease of use (including ease of creating the setup in the first place.

Edited December 27, 2023 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I see that Chuck tried it and wasn't happy with the quality, which is good enough for me and I wouldn't dream of it for non-archive

If I remember rightly Chuck had issues fitting his large DSLR to the Illumitran. As Michael says though with the right lens and sensor there is no reason why the Illumitran shouldn't produce high quality results, as good as any other system really. They really been given a new lease of life by the advent of smaller mirrorless cameras so that you don't encounter the problems that Chuck came across. The distance from the optical axis to the bellows rail is 43.5mm but only 40.5mm to clear the end stops (and it needs to do this really) which rules out a lot of DSLRs and larger mirrorless, the Fuji GFX50 is 47mm for example. My Fujis are fine and I suspect Sony Alphas are too. Here are some others:

 

Film cameras:

Olympus OM1/OM2 - 30mm

Contax 139 - 30.5mm

Olympus OM10 - 31mm

Nikon FM2 - 31mm

Canon AE-1 - 33mm

Canon T70 - 34.5mm

Nikon F90X - 37mm

Canon EOS100 - 37.5mm

 

Digital cameras:

Fujifilm X-E1 - 32.5mm

Fujifilm X-Pro1 - 32.5mm

Fujifilm X-T2 - 37.5mm

Canon 7D - 42mm.

Canon 5DMkII - 43.5mm

Fujifilm GFX-50 - 47mm

Edited December 27, 2023 by Harry Harrison

[Chuck Nacke]

Years ago, decades, we duplicated 35mm slides for reproduction using Bowens Illumitrans.  I'm sure that I could have made modifications to the central post to use my NIKON D800s to duplicate slides, but as I have written, I prefer to scan them.  I do not use any auto retouching when I scan.  Clean chromes with PEC-12.  Currently using my old Canon FS 4000 connected a new PC running Win 11 and ViewScan to communicate with scanner.  I also downsize most scan to 5000 X.

Chuck

[IKuzmin]

Well.. I guess personal experience matters, and certainly there are multiple ways to achieve reasonable results. Perhaps, it is very much down to minimizing time/effort, and in this regard I agree with those who said that reproduction with Nikon ES-1 is the most preferred approach.

On the other note, as I mentioned above, I had problems with Nikon Coolscan. I do not remember the exact model but most likely it was this. Shades were banded, no way to recover by downsampling or by clipping. The device was in my employer's office, they were happy with the scans for presentation purposes and did not see a reason to bother with any service requests. But for me the results were unacceptable. I did not have banding problems with the scans made earlier in specialized labs by drum scanners but I did not have personal access to those, and did not want to pay for the service. And, the results obtained by copying with ES-1 were way superior compare to those scans. 

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, IKuzmin said:

Well.. I guess personal experience matters, and certainly there are multiple ways to achieve reasonable results. Perhaps, it is very much down to minimizing time/effort, and in this regard I agree with those who said that reproduction with Nikon ES-1 is the most preferred approach.

On the other note, as I mentioned above, I had problems with Nikon Coolscan. I do not remember the exact model but most likely it was this. Shades were banded, no way to recover by downsampling or by clipping. The device was in my employer's office, they were happy with the scans for presentation purposes and did not see a reason to bother with any service requests. But for me the results were unacceptable. I did not have banding problems with the scans made earlier in specialized labs by drum scanners but I did not have personal access to those, and did not want to pay for the service. And, the results obtained by copying with ES-1 were way superior compare to those scans. 

 

Yes I totally agree. I've seen it all even in what were considered to be high quality slide scanners twenty two years ago. I still have a Nikon LS4000 scanner which was state of the art when I bought it in 2001 but the results are not a patch on what I get copying slides with the ES-1. In fact I'm selling it refurbished if anyone is interested although I don't think this is very good advertising 😀.

 

We beat this whole scanner/copying thing to death a few years ago in the other huge thread and I think there were very few proponents of scanning except for Chuck.

 

It's not worth going over it all again save to say that one huge advantage of copying is you are getting raw files so you have much greater control over white balance, dynamic range, noise, grain control, highlight and shadow detail etc etc.

Edited December 27, 2023 by MDM

[spacecadet]

7 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Not just you. I paid 99p for mine. I must say the news of their rise in price has given me a tremendous incentive to pull my finger out and get round to scanning all my 6x6s, as I will no longer have a reason to keep the Illumitran any more in a house not big enough for everything I own.

 

Alan

99p is a favourite price point in my house👍

I've found that 6x6 is prone to vignetting, so if you have a lot to do that may need looking into. It may just be an engineering problem I haven't solved, but it's nothing that can't be fixed with the tool in LR.