fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

Like several others here, I have the Epsom V600 and I spent last winter using it to digitize my '70's and '80's 35mm slides. This scanner is fairly inexpensive, provides nice sharp digital images and in the "professional" mode, offers a bunch of post-processing filters, adjustments, etc. showing you the resulting "before" and "after" image before actual scanning. It take 4 slides at a time and depending on the selected resolution and processing it takes about 2 to 5 minutes per batch of 4 slides. If you're like me, and you have several hundred slides to go through, it'll take a good chunk of your time but that makes it a nice winter-long project. Make sure you manually dust each slide before scanning. The scanner has a "dust removal" feature but it really slows down the process.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

The newest toy is a film toaster . If you have a large megapixle camera. Never tried one yet. Current using a epson v600.

mikee

My first post to the group. Hi everyone.

Common problem. I tried a slide duplicator attachment to my camera...didn't focus. Tried taking an image from slide projector...didn't work well either (although I was shooting straight into the light with the projector lens off, trying to just backlight the slide).

My solution was to use a Pyle slide duplicator. Fast, easy, low cost. Under $100 on eBay. Quality is Ok for the usual "snapshot" pics we all had a few hundred (thousand?) of that you want to share with the family. Works like a personal slide viewer. Just put in a sd card, and look at a slide that is inserted in a 6 shot holder. If you want a copy just hit a button and it takes a photo (I think mine produces a 8 megabyte image, and I saw that a newer model will produce a 22 megabyte image). There is even some ability to modify the image (like color shifting). If I wanted a quality copy I'd use my Epson, but the process is painfully slow for anything but a few dozen slides. I digitized a couple hundred slides in a day.

tdefraker

I photographed 13,000 slides at 100 slides/ hour including transfer to an iMac & editing. I used a Nikon D5500, 40mm f2.8 Dx macro lens, Nikon ES-1 slide holder and SB-800 flash set to TTL. Aperature priority at f11. File size about 7 mb. TFraker

Kuzano

Why go to the trouble. The best scans currently are drum scans.

After shooting film from the sixties to currently (I do also shoot digital since 1992) I came to the conclusion that digitizing my film slides and negatives using current flat bed technology, and even a Nikon SuperCoolScan 5 was simply a way to lower the quality of my photographic efforts. Used Epson mostly (except for the Nikon)... the 4990, the V500 (2) and the V750 highly ranked at the time.

All I was accomplishing was a reduction in image quality, and no real savings in storage, because of the lesser quality. Furthermore, I was converting my film archive to a new method of storage that would involve future migrations to new media as technology advances. This would mean a less secure method and some file losses during such transfers. There was certainly no problem with my years old methods of storage. I had less problems with lost or misplaced film images than I do with digital.

So, my plan became one to continue to archive and locate my files easily as I have done for years, and simply get one drum scan for film images that I wanted to do something more current with. I gave up the untold hours of scanning for lesser quality and turned that time into taking more photographs. If I had charged myself my going rate for computer consulting (25 years), I would have bankrupted myself a long time ago. So I abandoned my efforts to digitize all my images from film, and guess what. I have not lost any files from my age old film archiving system.

Scanning is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Trading a proven system for a risk-of-loss system, and deteriorate image quality at the same time. No thank you! My system used for 50 years only requires storage space and is easier to manage. In that respect, as in the loss of image quality, scanning simply takes time away from shooting, as does post processing.

Scanning sucks! I've done about 20% of my film images before concluding it's not for me. I enjoy taking the best pictures I can capture, while foregoing the storage and management digital requires. I do shoot some digital, and have no real problem with digital storage because of my computer consulting skills. But I also still shoot film and have no problem with the lack of digitization there.

I am keen to enjoy photography in the same vein I did from 50 years ago. For me scanning and post processing, including RAW capture holds no pleasure nor interest as a hobby. It's the images that count in whatever format they were captured.

But this is just my opinion, and don't let me sway you from all that expense and wasted time.

Kuzano

Film Toaster is over $1500, and is just a glorified box designed to hold the camera, lens and light box in position to use your DSLR with a macro lens. I understand it works well (and should for that price).

Pentax also makes a version (copy sort of of film toaster) in the same price range.

Any skilled DIYer can put together a similar tool for a very few dollars and do what Film Toaster does. The reason you have not tried Film Toaster was a peek at the price.

As far as a high res, reasonable priced, big file camera, Both Olympus and Pentax have been out for some time with their Sensor Shift and Pixel Shift High Resolution File technologies, producing 50 to 80 megapixel files, and lower price buy in, with the Olympus EM5 II used running about $400 and serving as a very nice Mirrorless camera as well.

I am intrigued by the use of camera instead of scanning as a means to achieve highest quality of duplication over any flat bed scanner, and equal to drum scanning. I may buy one of the high resolution method cameras to test this not so new but innovative alternative to a flat bed scanner.

However, need to find the time from actually shooting to waste on scanning and methods of duplication/conversion!!!

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

You can improve your quality by using a macro lens on your camera and shooting directly from the slides vs projecting them. I use a slide copier (old film, fits on camera) that I picked up off e-bay for $10. Happy shooting

wayne barnett Loc: Grants Pass, Oregon

I use a Film 2 SD Max slide and film copier. Costs about $120. Relatively fast but the real time sink is editing the information into the slide title. If you are satisfied with Img001, etc then the process is much faster. I also am in the process of converting the family pics to digital but do not convert all the slides from other family members, some no longer with us, to digital as those were their memories and most were not identified to place or were of questionable quality. Pics of family members and other family significant images are included.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

The Nikons haven't been for sale for years. They used older ports and software. I think the fastest version available used Firewire 400. The Software that came with probably will not work on any current Mac so you will have to see if VueScan or something else will. The real problem with the Nikons was they broke a lot. That was the reason Nikon gave for stopping production. Minolta also had a good scanner back in those days but probably has the same problems.

I have scanned a number of photos, slides and negatives using the Epson flatbed scanner. It works ok. Biggest issue was cleaning them so I didn’t have to spend months in post erasing dust spots. I certainly can't purchase an expensive camera or take them into a drum scanner as I'm not a 1 percent-er. Not sure how well the slide duplicator route works. Do you need to have a macro lens to use them? And there are a lot of them out there most from brands I've never heard of. Any suggestions for a Canon T4i?

I.A.Teacher

I also have many slides and films that i have been scanning over the years. I purchased a VuPoint scanner Model FS-C1-VP. I'm not sure if it is still on the market. It came with a DVD and two trays, one for slides and one for film however, the one I have is for Windows XP. This indicates that I have an old Computer, that workd for my purpose. Good luck in your search.

SierraP Loc: Eastern Sierras

My advice would be, find a lab with a reasonable price. "Do it your self" at four at a time is a real drag. I have 30-50 thousand (from 1953 and on) and have tried the "Do it your self" four at a time it works, but deadly slow. I suggest having the most important sides processed, within your budget and over time work your to the least important. Otherwise you will end up with a pricey gadget on the shelf and thousands of slides next to it.

I.A.Teacher

There are several Labs, the will convert slides and filmstrips and Copy them to a DVD for you at a reasonable price. You will have to search for them in your Browser. Somehow, I lost the address for the Lab I used. I do remember it is located in Georgia.

PeterBergh

I checked the prices for scanning at my local camera store and it turned out that it was much cheaper to buy a scanner and do the scanning myself (I'm retired, so my labor is free). I bought the PlusTek 120 and it worked very well for me. The accompanying software (SilverFast) is a bit flaky, but not so bad as to make it unusable.

I.A.Teacher

Being retired has its advantage, I know, having been retired since 1992.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You can use a scanner, or you can use a camera and a macro lens to rephotograph the film. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Of course, you can also use a service bureau, but good ones are expensive and inexpensive ones are usually AWFUL unless you have really low standards.

I used to run an elaborate film scanning operation in a major school portrait company (from 2000 to 2005, when we were transitioning from film to digital capture at the camera). I also used to run an audiovisual production lab in a corporate setting, where we used slide duplication setups... essentially rephotographing film on film. So... Having done it both ways, I know the pros and cons of each method.

It is difficult to find a flatbed scanner that makes REALLY SHARP scans. But flatbeds DO often have Digital ICE software, which can remove dust spots and surface scratches from some types of film, and other software routines that attempt to restore the original color of faded prints, slides, and negatives. A dedicated film scanner is usually nice and sharp, but also likely to be slow, outdated, incompatible with modern operating systems, and considered obsolete by its manufacturer, unless it is VERY expensive.

Re-photography with a macro lens can yield great results quickly, but generally requires post-processing of raw files for the best quality. It is my preferred method, because I don't have the money for a really good dedicated film scanner, and I already have what I need to copy slides and negatives with my camera and a macro lens. Here is what you need, from one end of the setup to the other:

Digital camera on an adjustable slider
Macro lens capable of copying an area of a slide or negative SMALLER than the slide or negative
Plano-parallel negative carrier or film holder or slide holder or all three
Color accurate light source (PHOTO quality CFL or LED lamp with really even diffusion material in front of it)
Suitable rig to hold it all in alignment

Old slide duplicators such as the Bowens Illumitran 3 can be used. An enlarger color head, inverted, with a film holder over the light source, can be used with a conventional copy stand for the camera setup. Or, you can build your own rig. Photograph the film with the emulsion facing the lens. FLIP the image in post-processing. Then INVERT the image or REVERSE the CURVES. Then crop it. Then adjust color and tonality with every tool that works for you. Much of this can be handled with a Lightroom preset, or a Photoshop Action. Then you tweak, spot, etc.

Whichever method you prefer, I recommend a StaticMaster brush, Ilford Antistaticum cloths, Dust-Off or similar "canned air" and Photographic Solutions PEC-12 film cleaner be parts of your film cleaning toolkit.