Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
kodachrome slides
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next>>
Feb 12, 2013 09:58:46   #
Mortimer Levy
 
Hi: I'm strictly 'low-tech' and I purchased this from their catalogue,..it's the only one at that very high price. (I live in Montreal but am in Florida now and can't recall the brand name) It's obviously suitable for pro work, especially if you are into a new business venture of. It'll do the job. Why I needed it? Well, I've got about 30,000 KChromes over 60 years of shooting. Some are award winning. and I wanted to download them and then make CD's for posterity. At 84 I won't be around much longer. (BTW, my wife claims I bought it after too many beers)
Good luck,....Regards Mort Levy.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2013 11:28:21   #
hj
 
Mortimer Levy wrote:
Hi: I'm strictly 'low-tech' and I purchased this from their catalogue,..it's the only one at that very high price. (I live in Montreal but am in Florida now and can't recall the brand name) It's obviously suitable for pro work, especially if you are into a new business venture of. It'll do the job. Why I needed it? Well, I've got about 30,000 KChromes over 60 years of shooting. Some are award winning. and I wanted to download them and then make CD's for posterity. At 84 I won't be around much longer. (BTW, my wife claims I bought it after too many beers)
Good luck,....Regards Mort Levy.
Hi: I'm strictly 'low-tech' and I purchased this f... (show quote)


You purchased what? ... no picture, no description?

| Reply
Feb 12, 2013 12:16:04   #
DebAnn (a regular here)
 
Thanks Jim and Papa Joe.
jimbrown3 wrote:
Hi DebAnn and Papa Joe,
Thanks for your input. I don't print my shots. I used to be an active provider of stock photography. What I am trying to replicate is the same fidelity in digital as on existing film so they can be re-submitted. 100% seems to be the magic number and I am experimenting to see if it is possible, and what magnification. Great B&W.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2013 12:34:22   #
DebAnn (a regular here)
 
I just read the David Brooks article on scanning that was posted in this topic. I'm now clear on what is happening when I scan on the Canoscan 4200F.

When I choose 600 dpi and then enter a print size, the scanner scans so that the end product file has enough pixels to print the chosen size at 600 dpi. For example, the file for the picture of the baby posted earlier is 1798 pixels by 2195 pixels for a print measuring 5.993 x 7.317 inches. There's room to play with the image size since it will print at only 300 dpi. So, I think I'm doing it right. Hallelujah!
Papa Joe wrote:
DebAnn wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why you would need to scan at 12,800 dpi which I'm assuming could print something the size of my living room wall! This picture was scanned from a BW negative at only 600 dpi and sized to about 7" x 6.5". I get a pop-up warning that such a big scan could be hard on my computer. Could you explain what I'm missing, please?
jimbrown3 wrote:
Re scanned some slides at 24bit color,12,800 dpi on the Epson V700 and they held up very well. File sizes are BIG, 540mb.
Mortimer, what is the brand you got from Hammacher ?
I'm at a loss to understand why you would need to ... (show quote)


Hi DebAnn,
600 dpi is the highest I used on scanning my slides and I've made quality 11X14 inch prints. That B&W you posted is good and sharp. Nice shot.
quote=DebAnn I'm at a loss to understand why you ... (show quote)

| Reply
Feb 12, 2013 12:42:32   #
Nikonian72
 
This is an excellent article! I am going to ask Mogul to post to our FAQ forum.

| Reply
Feb 13, 2013 08:08:13   #
rayford2
 
Brian in Whitby wrote:
If you are at all in doubt about which hole is the ground, you can use plumbing pipes as long as they are matal (usually copper) pipes.


Not trying to be a know-it-all but please consider this:
Sometimes these metal pipes transition into plastic devices before going to ground. Be careful!
Sometimes that "third prong" ground can be false, especially if a DIY electrician has been tampering with electrical wiring. I've encountered it several times in homes and commercial establishments. Be careful!

| Reply
Feb 13, 2013 23:05:35   #
Brian in Whitby
 
Quite right. There is a way to check the efficacy of a ground but if you need to ask how, it is better to get someone knowledgeable to do the testing.
However, to check the ground (and other connections) you can purchase for a few dollars, a circuit tester. It simply plugs into the receptacle to be tested. A combination of lights are illuminated indicting if the circuit is OK or if it has a number of common faults including a faulty ground.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 02:19:22   #
hpucker99
 
jimbrown3 wrote:
Re scanned some slides at 24bit color,12,800 dpi on the Epson V700 and they held up very well. File sizes are BIG, 540mb.
Mortimer, what is the brand you got from Hammacher ?


The scanner is a Pacific Image Powerslide 5000 scanner. Check Amazon/B&H, etc. for lower cost than Hammacher.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 08:26:57   #
chirschfield
 
with slides the fastest way to convert is to photograph them. I used a small lightbox and a close-up lens. I made a setup with the camera on a tripod shooting down and put a cardboard corner on the lightbox to position the slides.
I was able to do one every 10-20 seconds - say 200 an hour. this is much faster than scanning.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 11:54:05   #
hpucker99
 
chirschfield wrote:
with slides the fastest way to convert is to photograph them. I used a small lightbox and a close-up lens. I made a setup with the camera on a tripod shooting down and put a cardboard corner on the lightbox to position the slides.
I was able to do one every 10-20 seconds - say 200 an hour. this is much faster than scanning.


Can you post some of your results and the specifics of your lens and camera? A few years ago I tested a similar method of photographing slides by projected on a screen.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 12:09:31   #
dickhrm
 
I tried a similar method a year or so ago, but wasn't happy with the results. But then I just projected the slide onto a white wall, then took a photo. Perhaps using a lightbox would work better, so I too would be interested in the details - maybe even a pic of your lightbox and your overall set up. Thanks.

hpucker99 wrote:
chirschfield wrote:
with slides the fastest way to convert is to photograph them. I used a small lightbox and a close-up lens. I made a setup with the camera on a tripod shooting down and put a cardboard corner on the lightbox to position the slides.
I was able to do one every 10-20 seconds - say 200 an hour. this is much faster than scanning.


Can you post some of your results and the specifics of your lens and camera? A few years ago I tested a similar method of photographing slides by projected on a screen.
quote=chirschfield with slides the fastest way to... (show quote)

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 13:15:21   #
Mpeter45
 
[quote=DebAnn]Hi Mpeter45,
I have a Canoscan 4200F on which I have been scanning colour and BW negs at 600 dpi. Before I click SCAN, it gives me a message that scanning at this high a level could be troublesome for the computer. I do it anyway and am choosing a 12" x 8" print size. Yours it a better scanner than mine, I'm sure but I'm wondering if you get a warning like this.
Thanks

I have not had that message. When I scan slides, I do 8 at a time. It takes about an hour at 3200dpi.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 13:16:54   #
chirschfield
 
I have no pictures of the setup which is now dismantled.
Here is a description:
A Promaster 6020 tripod that collapses to 12".
A focusing rail.
The camera with a Raynox DCR 250 closeup lens
The light box
A camera remote.

The Raynox lens allows the camera to focus to about 6"
but exact adjustment was done with the focusing rail and the zoom on the lens.
The idea was to frame just the inside of the slide, eliminating the curved corners of the mount.
Any decent light box will do. I used a battery-operated one.
Using a remote on the camera is important since you do not want to disturb the alignment once you get the first picture aligned.
I taped a cardboard corner on to the light box glass so I could put all the slides in the same location.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 13:19:20   #
chirschfield
 
I forget to mention that this was a tabletop setup with the camera pointed down at the light box.

| Reply
Feb 14, 2013 17:20:06   #
hj
 
I'm sure this method won't satisfy most of you for quality, but for someone that wants to digitize some slides at almost no expense, even temporarily until a better scan method can be utilized.... I tried this today, just out of curiosity. I put a slide into one of those little $2 plastic slide viewers that you just hold up to your eye and clicked a pic through the eyepiece using my point-n-shoot camera. The pic came out with rounded sides due to the viewer and than I just cropped it 4X6 in iPhoto on my Mac. No other post processing. The slide is over 25 years old and not real sharp to begin with. Could probably do about 6 per minute with this method. Certainly good enough to email or view on the computer, but not archival quality for most people.



| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.