Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
35 mm scanning vs macro copying
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Feb 18, 2021 19:59:11   #
Hanson
 
I have a very limited number of 35 mm negatives and slides to be digitalized. Would like to hear any comments on which method renders better result: Epson V600 scanning versus copying with a macro lens (1:1).

| Reply
Feb 18, 2021 20:06:31   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Honestly, the V600 would probably give you better results. The reason I don't use a camera for scanning is needlessly adding to the shutter count.

Additionally, getting the right kind of lighting, in the right orientation, etc. can be more of a pain than using a scanner. I know a good many here will tout their slide copying with a digital camera but ...

Now, as you stated you have a very limited number of slides to digitize, using your camera may be a better route. That is unless you have the scanner.
--Bob
Hanson wrote:
I have a very limited number of 35 mm negatives and slides to be digitalized. Would like to hear any comments on which method renders better result: Epson V600 scanning versus copying with a macro lens (1:1).

| Reply
Feb 18, 2021 20:24:53   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
The V600 has Digital Ice to detect and fix dust and scratches, something your camera can’t do.

| Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2021 20:25:37   #
Hanson
 
I should add that the macrophotography involves a slide on a light box so I assume the lighting is very even and the camera is on a tripod.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 08:18:29   #
bw79st Loc: New York City
 
I would think the V600 would do a better job. I have a V700 and slides and negs are reasonable but not as good as using a dedicated film scanner. I use a Canoscan FS4000 with far superior results.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 12:33:58   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
Here's a link to a post I wrote, just the other day, about digitizing colr negatives with a camera. I have another post in the thread to address the orange mask in colour negatives:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=12011405&t=686176

I do this with large format negatives that won't fit in my scanner. Otherwise, I recommend the use of a scanner.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 13:23:38   #
User ID
 
Hanson wrote:
I should add that the macrophotography involves a slide on a light box so I assume the lighting is very even and the camera is on a tripod.

Done more of this than most folks. Small originals are always attached to the lens, never to the light box, so vibration and alignment issues are banished from the rig regardless of what elements you make or buy (usually a mix of both).

While it’s unreasonable to attach large format originals directly to the lens, the issues of critical alignment and vibration are reduced cuz you’re working at much lower image ratios when the subject is that much larger.

| Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2021 13:39:53   #
one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY
 
Hanson wrote:
I have a very limited number of 35 mm negatives and slides to be digitalized. Would like to hear any comments on which method renders better result: Epson V600 scanning versus copying with a macro lens (1:1).


Like you I dug out my slides and sorted out a few (50) I wanted to digitize. I have a flat bed scanner but it doesn't have the backlight. I didn't want to buy the V600 for 50 slides, even if I could sell it later. I bought a slide copier adapter ($69 amazon) that screws on to the lens 52mm threads. I used step-up and step-down rings to adjust distance. I've been experimenting to find the best set up. I've decided to mount the camera and adapter on a tripod and locate a "daylight" lamp to illuminate the built in diffuser behind the slide and use the "high resolution" 80mp mode on my camera (Panny G9). Preliminary results look promising on LR. I can then use the same set up to copy a few color negatives.

It might have been easier to send to 50 slides out to be digitized for slightly more money but where's the fun in that.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 14:09:56   #
BBurns Loc: South Bay, California
 
Hanson wrote:
I have a very limited number of 35 mm negatives and slides to be digitalized. Would like to hear any comments on which method renders better result: Epson V600 scanning versus copying with a macro lens (1:1).
Many ideas here and if it works for you then that is all that matters.
I had a few slides that I wanted as high a resolution digital copy as I could get.
My solution was to use my Canon Auto-Bellows, Canon FD 50mm F/3.5 Macro with a Canon Slide Duplicator 52 attached.
Camera used was a Canon 5DMkII with a FD/EOS adapter containing no optics.
21MP copy was the result.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 14:17:28   #
Hanson
 
I have a G9 too. Please tell me more details about your lens, adapter and the daylight lamp/diffuser. Thanks.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 14:23:00   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
User ID wrote:
Done more of this than most folks. Small originals are always attached to the lens, never to the light box, so vibration and alignment issues are banished from the rig regardless of what elements you make or buy (usually a mix of both).

While it’s unreasonable to attach large format originals directly to the lens, the issues of critical alignment and vibration are reduced cuz you’re working at much lower image ratios when the subject is that much larger.


Yup! A slide copier kinda device can be used, attached to the lens, to maintain parallelity and precise distance. Nowadays, I still prefer a scanner, especially if there are lots of negatives to digitize. For large-format negatives and transparencies, a drum scanner is great if you have enough volume to support purchasing one. For the comparatively small volume, I have to do, I simply place the lig box at the base of a copy stand and it's easy enough to square things up.

| Reply
 
 
Feb 19, 2021 15:32:13   #
one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY
 
Hanson wrote:
I have a G9 too. Please tell me more details about your lens, adapter and the daylight lamp/diffuser. Thanks.


The slide copier is an Albinar and it comes with a close up lens built in. Stated it was removable but I haven't figured out how without breaking it. I bought a cheap set of step up and step down rings (18 rings for $15). First I tried my Leica 12-60 f 2.8 (62mm front thread). It worked and focused fine but it seemed to zoom too easily changing the frame. I switched to my Olympus 60 mm f2.8 macro (46mm front thread). The 60 mm was a bit too close to get the full slide so I stacked up some step-up and step-down rings to extend the distance to get the full slide.

For a light source, first I tried a white computer screen but got slight banding. I have a couple small desk lamps with goose neck hoods I used for lightbox macro stuff. I plan to use one of them with a "daylight" temperature bulb aimed at the copier which has a frosted diffuser behind the slide slot. Once set up on a tripod all I have to do is load in a slide, autofocus, shoot, remove slide and repeat. With the zoom I noticed the zoom shifting while I was inserting and removing slides.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 16:06:27   #
User ID
 
one_eyed_pete wrote:
The slide copier is an Albinar and it comes with a close up lens built in. Stated it was removable but I haven't figured out how without breaking it. I bought a cheap set of step up and step down rings (18 rings for $15). First I tried my Leica 12-60 f 2.8 (62mm front thread). It worked and focused fine but it seemed to zoom too easily changing the frame. I switched to my Olympus 60 mm f2.8 macro (46mm front thread). The 60 mm was a bit too close to get the full slide so I stacked up some step-up and step-down rings to extend the distance to get the full slide.

For a light source, first I tried a white computer screen but got slight banding. I have a couple small desk lamps with goose neck hoods I used for lightbox macro stuff. I plan to use one of them with a "daylight" temperature bulb aimed at the copier which has a frosted diffuser behind the slide slot. Once set up on a tripod all I have to do is load in a slide, autofocus, shoot, remove slide and repeat. With the zoom I noticed the zoom shifting while I was inserting and removing slides.
The slide copier is an Albinar and it comes with a... (show quote)

You just need more spacers to put the 60 further from the subject. It’s your best lens by far. Maybe you need to break the Albinar or maybe you need to return it. But the glass has to GO. The Nikon ES-1 is $60 and has no glass. It does have a built in diffuser panel. (Yes, I have tested every item I mention here). More 52mm spacers is ~ $15 on eBay. It’s called the “Nikon ‘K’ manual extension tube set”. It’s extremely common. Has no moving parts so it’s a safe eBay buy.

The 60 needs significant extension of the lens to subject distance. Check out the photo below. If you’re a verrrrry accurate handy person you could build with plastic plumbing supplies.
.
The assembly as shown is in focus for duping 35mm (you can read the focus scale on the download).
.
G9, 60mm, 46-52 step-up, K-tubes, ES-1
G9, 60mm, 46-52 step-up, K-tubes, ES-1...
(Download)

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 18:19:57   #
TomHackett Loc: Kingston, New York
 
I have used both the Epson V750 and the Nikon ES-2 for digitizing slides. My sense is that the flatbed scanner is considerably slower (at high resolution). For the ES-2, light passes through a translucent filter which helps with the white balance. I found it somewhat challenging to keep the slide holder level.

| Reply
Feb 19, 2021 18:40:20   #
BebuLamar
 
The V600 would be easier to use but slower if you have a lot of slides. But since you have slides and not negative so it's not difficult. Since you have only limited number of slides so it's better to use the V600 if you already have it. If you don't perhaps it's not worth to buy one for a limited number of slides.
Using a camera would be more difficult to setup but once it's setup you can proceed quite quickly. h
So if you have both use the V600.
Otherwise the camera is better even if you have to buy a macro lens because the lens is useful for other application.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.