Slide film copy with digital camera - any experience?

Carmelo75

Hi everybody, I am wondering if anybody has tried to digitize slide film using a digital camera and diffused light. I have a D300 and a mikro nikkor 60mm f2.8, which should do a quite good job, but I would like to hear others experience before setting up some proper slide support and allumination system.

I have also used a borrowed Minolta Dual Scan III, but I was not very happy of the outcome, especially for slightly underexposed slides. Moreover, even if I had calibrated the scanner with an IT8 target, I found the colors not really matching.

Do you think one can get better results with the camera+macro lens?

Thanks a lot for your advices. Carmelo.

Gary752

Not sure about the way you are referring to, I've never tried it. I would check with your local labs to see if they provide slides to CD service. Most 1 hour labs provides that service around here, as does the one I work at. I usually do some correcting if they aren't too old and faded real bad. Some labs will charge extra to do the corrections, I do it at the regular price.

GaryB

pathfinder

In the days before digital, people frequently copied slides with a macro lens and a bellows - Olympus made a nice slide copier attachment for their bellow and macro lens. I'm sure Nikon and Canon had similar deviceds as well. They also made devices that would screw into the filter threads of a macro lens and hold a slide with an opal light diffuser behind it.

A lens with a extension tube will work for slide copying as well, I suspect.

I would suggest using electronic flash as a light source, - more consistent color tempframe to frame than a light bulb.

I have copied hundreds of slides with a Nikon film scanner, and I suspect the new digital SLRs will do as good a job, and maybe even faster. Good scanner software will have profiles for different color negative emulsions, which using a camera won't necessarily provide.

I just had a thought - the Panasonic GF1 will accept Olympus lenses with an adapter, so my Olympus bellows might still be useful again.

My comments obviously are centered around DSLRs with interchangeable lenses, but a modern high quality point and shoot capable of macro shots with manual exposure mode and flash synchronization should work quite well also. I am surprised to one has thought to sell an adapter for point and shoots to copy slides.

Carmelo75

BroPhoto wrote:

Not sure about the way you are referring to, I've never tried it. I would check with your local labs to see if they provide slides to CD service. Most 1 hour labs provides that service around here, as does the one I work at. I usually do some correcting if they aren't too old and faded real bad. Some labs will charge extra to do the corrections, I do it at the regular price.

GaryB

Thanks Gary, in fact, here in switzerland I have found only one lab close to my place, with too high prices for me, that's why I am looking for a good do-it-yourself solution.

Carmelo75

pathfinder wrote:

In the days before digital, people frequently copied slides with a macro lens and a bellows - Olympus made a nice slide copier attachment for their bellow and macro lens. I'm sure Nikon and Canon had similar deviceds as well. They also made devices that would screw into the filter threads of a macro lens and hold a slide with an opal light diffuser behind it.

A lens with a extension tube will work for slide copying as well, I suspect.

I would suggest using electronic flash as a light source, - more consistent color tempframe to frame than a light bulb.

I have copied hundreds of slides with a Nikon film scanner, and I suspect the new digital SLRs will do as good a job, and maybe even faster. Good scanner software will have profiles for different color negative emulsions, which using a camera won't necessarily provide.

I just had a thought - the Panasonic GF1 will accept Olympus lenses with an adapter, so my Olympus bellows might still be useful again.

My comments obviously are centered around DSLRs with interchangeable lenses, but a modern high quality point and shoot capable of macro shots with manual exposure mode and flash synchronization should work quite well also. I am surprised to one has thought to sell an adapter for point and shoots to copy slides.

I assume that my D300 should do, at least from the point of view of the resolution, better than the Minolta scaner I have tried. Moreover, the scanner has a theoretical 10bits resolution, but practically the dynamic range is lower, such that banding appears if some contrast enhancement is done...

I will try what my equipment (D30 + micro nikkor 60mm)gives, and eventually post the result if it is interesting.

Thanks, Carmelo.

quark

I tried this with a 100mm and my canon. It worked ok but it took more of my time to get the focus correct than I wanted to spend. I had rigged up a device to hold the slides and the camera was on a tripod, but the small differences in the way the slides sit in the carousel required focus adjustments for every slide. I finally bought an off the shelf scanner, but I was working with old family photos so quality and color are not critical.

Carmelo75

quark wrote:

I tried this with a 100mm and my canon. It worked ok but it took more of my time to get the focus correct than I wanted to spend. I had rigged up a device to hold the slides and the camera was on a tripod, but the small differences in the way the slides sit in the carousel required focus adjustments for every slide. I finally bought an off the shelf scanner, but I was working with old family photos so quality and color are not critical.

In fact I want mostly to digitize few of my preferred and/or critical slides, so focusing each of them would not be a big problem. Moreover, in LiveView mode focusing should be pretty easy and very precise...

Do you still have a picture of the slides support you built, or do you have some advice?

quark

I don't think I have any photos, but I basically took a cheap 5x7 wood frame and took the back off and kept the glass. The tracks in the frame for the glass were wide enough for me to place a row of slides in using one of those 5-slide row things, and the glass gave the slides a flat surface to press against. Then I duct-taped the frame/glass assembly in front of a light source. It was hideous but fairly useful.

Good luck!

Carmelo75

quark wrote:

I don't think I have any photos, but I basically took a cheap 5x7 wood frame and took the back off and kept the glass. The tracks in the frame for the glass were wide enough for me to place a row of slides in using one of those 5-slide row things, and the glass gave the slides a flat surface to press against. Then I duct-taped the frame/glass assembly in front of a light source. It was hideous but fairly useful.

Good luck!

Thanks anyhow, I might go for a bit more complex setup, with a fash lamp and 1 or 2 diffusers. I'll post my progresses, maybe somebody will find it helpful...

P.S: why not lepton :smooch?

ziggy53

Here is a slide from 1973 that I copied using parts of a slide copier and partly my own design, along with a a short tele lens and a diopter to adapt the lens for macro purposes:



Link to the full res image:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/250028291_Y9n5B-O.jpg

The setup:



The arrow points to the slide duplicator part which I only use to hold the slide and to offer one layer of diffusion. The only thing missing in the setup photo is the 2 sheets of printer paper between the flash and the slide diffuser, which reduce the flash output and create a very even light source.

Carmelo75

very interesting, that's mre or less what I was thinking to build... what is the material of the white tube between the slide duplicator and the tele? do you know where I can buy a cheap slide duplicator on the net?

thanks a lot, carmelo

ziggy53

Carmelo75 wrote:

very interesting, that's mre or less what I was thinking to build... what is the material of the white tube between the slide duplicator and the tele? do you know where I can buy a cheap slide duplicator on the net?

thanks a lot, carmelo

The tubes are originally from a powdered soft drink container that may be unique to the USA market. I like them just because they are about the right size and they allow some light to diffuse inside to the front of the slide, reducing contrast. (In effect it is a bias light.)

Reduced contrast is, in this case, a benefit as copying without tends to plug the shadows. If you don't use a bias light then 2 exposures, separate exposures to optimize shadow and highlight capture, allow more control at the expensive of time and trouble in post-processing to merge the 2 exposures.

I purchased the slide copier component from KEH.com.

Carmelo75

ziggy53 wrote:

The tubes are originally from a powdered soft drink container that may be unique to the USA market. I like them just because they are about the right size and they allow some light to diffuse inside to the front of the slide, reducing contrast. (In effect it is a bias light.)

Reduced contrast is, in this case, a benefit as copying without tends to plug the shadows. If you don't use a bias light then 2 exposures, separate exposures to optimize shadow and highlight capture, allow more control at the expensive of time and trouble in post-processing to merge the 2 exposures.

I purchased the slide copier component from KEH.com.

interesting... in fact, I was planning to play with exposure blending to fix some difficult slides I have. I had also in mind to shoot at higher magnification different parts of the slides and stitch the shots together (at least for a few I like most). Will post my results when I'll have something.

pathfinder

I will be interested to see your results of shooting portions of a slide and stitching the results together. I suspect the film grain will be more apparent than expected with this technique, and will look forward to seeing your results with interest.

On a sidenote, I just received my latest copy of Shutterbug yesterday, and in their question and answer column, someone asked about copying slides themselves, and the author's suggestion was to use scancafe.com as learning to scan has a significant learning curve as well as equipment needs.