View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: Slide Copying: Scanner vs Duplicator |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I started out using my Epson 3170 scanner to duplicate my slides. But even when set to maximum resolution -- 3200 dpi -- it seemed I wasn't getting all the detail. More recently, I bought an Epson 4990. Still, even at its max resolution -- 4800 dpi -- I felt that the maximum level of detail hadn't improved by all that much.
So I bought an Opteka slide duplicator, which is attached to the front of a lens, and which contains an optical element to achieve close focusing. This worked, but it was somewhat of a hassle to use, since I was constantly having to adjust its horizontal position because my lens's front element rotates. Also because I was using a 1.6x crop body camera, it required the use of a zoom because it worked out to a necessary 69mm or so for 1:1 dupes.
Finally, I modified my rig by removing the Opteka's optical element (it just unscrews), threading the copier barrel onto my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, and using 30mm worth of extension tubes. At last, this gave me 1:1 dupes with no other optics in the light path other than the Micro-Nikkor.
Here is a shot of the slide I used for comparisons. It was taken in 1989, Fujichrome 100, Canon F-1 with a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 macro lens.
Here are the results. The camera for the two slide dupes was a Canon XS (1000D). 100% crops for the ones using the Opteka, 50% crop for the Epson 4990. No post processing of any kind were done.
Epson 4990 scan at 4800 dpi
Opteka slide duplicator with element and Canon EF 28-80mm lens
Customized rig using Opteka, 55mm Micro-Nikkor, and 30mm of ext tubes
If we can ignore the differences in color balance and exposure for the moment, we can see that the dupe using the Opteka with element is clearly sharper than the Epson 4990 scan, and that the rig using the Opteka with the 55 Micro and extension tube is even sharper than the Opteka with magnification element. The last image does look a bit overprocessed, though. I think I may have the camera's sharpness level turned up a bit too high. Still, you get the idea. It's pretty obvious that using a slide duplicator rig something like what I put together does a clearly better job than even a good quality scanner. And speaking of the rig, here it is -- showing both the slide and roll film stages.
_________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:45 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Wow, fascinating stuff! I've got a slide duplicator hanging around here that I haven't tried yet (I hoard all sorts of crap it seems ). I will first try it with a zoom as in test 2, as I have a number of slides from my old Praktica BX20 which I'd like to see digitised. Many thanks for demo! _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Here are some more examples of slides I've duped using the above described rig with the Micro Nikkor. All slides are Kodachrome 64 and were taken in Southern California during the 1980s.
Canon F-1, Vivitar S1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Canon F-1, Vivitar S1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Canon F-1, Vivitar S1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Canon FTb, FL 35mm f/2.5
Canon FTb, FL 35mm f/2.5
Canon F-1, Vivitar S1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
_________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
nice demo and great samples from 30 years ago |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well -- more like 20 to 25 years ago, but who's counting?
Thanks, btw. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1397 Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
Interesting. I have an Epson 4490 which produces very soft scans, and even trying to adjust the film placement makes little difference.
I might try a slide duplicator to scan b&w film I shoot with my analog cameras (btw nice Canon RF in the pic, which model is it?), but I'm a bit puzzled by the crop factor. You write that you need a 69mm focal length to compensate for the 1.6 crop factor, but going by logic it seems that the focal length should be wider to include more in the frame. Can you clarify this a bit for me?
If I can use my Flektogon 35mm (which already focuses very close) with extension tubes instead of having to buy a macro lens, it could turn out into a very cheap scanner replacement. Unless I *do* need a macro lens for its flatter geometry etc. I'm a total newbie at macro. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
ludoo wrote: |
Interesting. I have an Epson 4490 which produces very soft scans, and even trying to adjust the film placement makes little difference.
I might try a slide duplicator to scan b&w film I shoot with my analog cameras (btw nice Canon RF in the pic, which model is it?), but I'm a bit puzzled by the crop factor. You write that you need a 69mm focal length to compensate for the 1.6 crop factor, but going by logic it seems that the focal length should be wider to include more in the frame. Can you clarify this a bit for me?
If I can use my Flektogon 35mm (which already focuses very close) with extension tubes instead of having to buy a macro lens, it could turn out into a very cheap scanner replacement. Unless I *do* need a macro lens for its flatter geometry etc. I'm a total newbie at macro. |
Hey Ludoo,
I think that, if you actually perform resolution tests on your 4490 that, you'll find its actual image resolution is closer to 1800-2000ppi than that which is claimed. Here's a link to the Hybrid Photo site, showing a discussion I started about determining maximun resolution, and one member's method for doing it (I dunno, you might have to join, but this is a good site, so it's worth it). Go to the second page of this thread, post #12. If you follow Marco B's methods, you'll be able to determine fairly closely what your scanner's resoltuion is.
http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1461
The Canon RF is a IVSb, which I sold not too many months after taking that picture. It's taken me almost 20 years, but I have just recently re-acquired another Canon RF -- the "new" one is a IIIa, which looks almost identical to the IVSb, except it does not have the IVSb's side flash rail (not visible in the above photo anyway).
As for the crop factor/lens issue, your intuition is correct. But I just mentioned the crop factor to indicate that full-frame would be a different requirement -- probably closer to 100mm. We also have a magnification factor that we're dealing with. The Opteka's optical element allows the use of a typical 28-80-style zoom, requiring the ability to focus down to about 2.5 ft (~0.75m), and to be zoomed out to about 69mm for a 1:1 copy.
I found that, by replacing the Opteka's element with my Vivitar 2x macro teleconverter, I was still looking at about 69mm for a 1:1 copy. Using my Nikkor 35mm, I was at 70mm and losing just a little bit of the image.
Mostly I wanted to get rid of any optics in the light path other than the taking lens, which I wanted to be a macro lens. Back in the 80s when I was an avid Canon FD user, I had a set of the Canon Auto Bellows with slide duplicator that I used to use with an F-1 and a Canon 50mm macro for doing slide dupes, and it worked very well. I wanted something for my DSLR that would still work on par with this. I rejected my Tamron 90mm because the focal length was too long, so that left the Micro Nikkor 55mm. As fortune would have it, the 55mm with 30mm of extension was just right.
I'm seriously considering buying another set of bellows with a slide duplicator, but I haven't bothered yet to crunch the numbers to see if I'll be able to achieve 1:1 image size with bellows on a crop body. I'm afraid that, even when fully collapsed, there may be too much extension. On the other hand, for other macro subjects, the 1.6x crop factor should allow me even better close-ups than what I can get with a FF camera. Decisions, decisions . . .
As for your 35mm Flektogon, well you should be able to pick up a set of extension tubes for pretty cheap. The Nikon mount ones I bought off eBay set me back $8 + shipping. They're cheap, but they work just fine. Shoot at about f/8 and you will probably be fine. But it never hurts to have a macro lens in your inventory. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:58 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
One other comment I feel I should add that is generally true with slide duplicating, no matter the method you use, as opposed to scanning the slides, is the issue of contrast. Copying slides increases contrast. This was true back in the days of film and it's still true in the digital age. Scanners, on the other hand, do a better job of controlling any increase in contrast. Thus, a scan will probably provide better image detail in the shadow areas of a copy than a dupe, but at the expense of resolution.
A couple of methods used by people who duplicated using film was 1) use a special, fine-grained low-contrast film made especially for duplication, or 2) use Kodachrome 25 and "prefog" it to reduce contrast. Prefogging was a technique where the film was prefogged by triggering a flash at low setting and small lens aperture prior to the regular exposure. This required the use of a camera that permitted multiple exposures, or the very careful respooling of the film onto the camera's take-up reel so the frames are aligned.
I've used both methods, and I was not really able to tell much difference between either. However, even when using the special slide film or prefogging K25, there was still some contrast build-up.
With my DSLR, I have run into almost the exact same problem, although it isn't quite as severe. What I do to counteract this problem to some extent at least is to turn down the contrast setting in my camera's selection menu. Then in Canon's Digital Photo Professional software, where I can make non-destructive changes to the RAW files, I may increase or decrease the contrast even further, depending on the requirements of the individual image. And then in my image processing software, where I have finer control over contrast settings, I may make a final adjustment to it, all the while doing my best to retain shadow detail. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1397 Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
Michael, thanks for your extensive replies.
I read about the contrast issues, but strangely the crop you show above taken with the DSLR+duplicator shows more details in the shadow than the scanned one. I'll try to get a cheap duplicator and a set of extension rings and make a few tests, if it works better than my 4490 I may be able to save (uhm, spend on lenses) the money I wanted to spend on a dedicated film scanner.
As for the Canon RF, I had a IIF a while ago and it was a marvellous camera. I sold it to finance my DSLR but I keep checking auctions and will probably get another one (a 2nd series like yours or maybe a later V L etc.) sometimes in the future. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Yeah, there's something about Canon rangefinders. I'd like to add a P to the IIIa. Of all the more modern Canon RFs, I like the P the best.
Regarding the slide dupe's preservation of shadow detail, well I was very careful to preserve as much as I could. With the scan shown and with the dupe using the Opteka's element, I might not have been as observant during post processing.
Your 4490 is a good scanner, and is on par with my 4990 as far as resolution goes -- they're the same generation of Epson scanners. It's just that it doesn't work as well with 35mm as we need. However, I find that the 4990, and even my old 3170 (max claimed 3200ppi), works great for medium format slides and negatives. So if you have medium format photos, try scanning them with your 4490. I think you'll be impressed.
Yeah, now that I've demonstrated to my satisfaction that I can obtain critically sharp copies of my slides using my DSLR, I don't see much point in buying a dedicated film scanner. I would rather put that money toward a future DSLR purchase, one with a higher megapixel count than my current one has. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
Hi Michael..
the result with Micro-Nikkor -- simply rocks!
Can you tell me, if there is something similar applicable on EOS 5D Mark II?
And also -- does this work on negative film, i.e. BW or coloured?
Thanks!
GREAT PICTURES !! - I love film BTW.
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Hey Trifox,
Well, I'm using my old Micro-Nikkor with a Canon XS DSLR, so something like this will work fine with your 5D Mk II. I don't know without trying, but you would probably have to use a different combination of extension tubes to achieve the same result.
But because your camera is full frame, you have a big advantage -- you can use bellows with slide duplicator attachment as they were meant to be used for this purpose. Rather than going with the Canon FL or Autobellows, I'd probably go with a set of Nikon bellows and use an adapter for the camera mount, and a Nikkor lens. But this is mostly because I already have a Nikkor macro.
I've shot dupes of negatives using an old T-mount zoom slide duplicator I also own. It works pretty well, but has an element to adjust for focus distance and magnification. As a result, dupes are only slightly sharper than scans from my Epson. I have a roll-film stage for my rig (as shown in the photo), which allows me to shoot negs as well. But duping negs is tricky. It takes a fair amount of work getting the color balance right, and sometimes I can't quite get it exactly right. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
I was interested in this system to digitalize 35mm (yep for MF on the Epson scanners 4490, 4990 and my v700 are enough).
My main problem is that I don't have slides mounted, but usually still in rolls and don't knwo if I can make them fit into the opteka system. _________________ Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
A G Photography wrote: |
My main problem is that I don't have slides mounted, but usually still in rolls and don't knwo if I can make them fit into the opteka system. |
I have a lot of unmounted slides as well, plus pages and pages of negatives that I want to digitize also.
The Opteka I have looks like this one:
It is good for slides only. I have seen photos of other Opteka models that appear to be more flexible when it comes to handling slide or negative strips. But even the model I own, which apparently is Opteka's most recent version, is no longer available. From what I was told by the place where I bought mine, they should be coming out with a new model some time this month.
There is another similar duplicator available with the Bower label on it. Bower duplicator will handle unmounted slides and negative strips, but you have to buy an accessory sleeve-like thing to slide them through it. It is similar in operation to the Opteka, in that it has a removable element, and threads onto the end of the lens. Like the Opteka, this element and the tube it unthreads from has a 52mm diameter, so it should work the same as my Opteka does for my application.
Since they both sell for about the same amount, I'd recommend the Bower over the Opteka. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318
|
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
Just looked at your test and I don't really follow your logic. It looks to me as if the resolution has exceeded the detail in the last one (the blanket has very little fine detail) and you appear to have sharpening fringes or pixelation created either by attempting to bring up detail through sharpening or by blowing it beyond the native resolution of the sensor (i.e. beyond "actual pixels" view).
With that lens, I believe you need a 27.5mm tube to get a true one-to-one resolution on a 35mm frame. If there was no sign of the image breaking up/blurring out at that resolution then you could be confident that the slide equalled or exceeded the resolution of a 10MP full frame digital camera - which I guess brings in a question about "pixel quality" between crop and full-frame sensors.
Anyway, if the image is blurred and breaking up with 5mm extension it doesn't seem to me to prove it has outresolved the sensor - quite the opposite.
Interesting example, though. _________________ View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pablo
Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 6 Location: New England
|
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: Light source for digital slide duping |
|
|
pablo wrote:
Can you describe the light source you used for duplicating these slides into a DSLR? Is it a diffusion type or a condensing type? Would that make a difference in a DSLR?
TIA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Hi Pablo,
Wow, I'm surprised I left that important bit of information out. The slide duplicator has a piece of white diffusion plastic that is positioned between the slide and the light source.
Probably most often, people will rig up a strobe as the light source for duplicates. Back in the day when I shot film duplicates of slides, I usually used a small flash for illumination.
But in this case, most often I use a reflective white surface illuminated by the sun during hours close to mid-day. Too early in the morning or late in the afternoon, and the reflected light will take on a yellowish-orange color, which affects the color, and I've found that my camera's white balance doesn't entirely correct for this.
I have also had good results shooting duplicates on overcast days by just pointing the rig skyward and taking the pictures. On overcast days, the skies are a nice, neutral tone which works very well for duplication.
I don't currently own any sort of off-camera flash setup that I can use with my DSLR to do things the way I did years ago, so I just make do with natural light. So far it's worked well.
[UPDATE: Now I use a simple off-camera flash setup with sync cords and a couple of adapters. I mount the flash to a small light stand and point my dupe rig at the flash. I have the flash set to 1/32 power, and for this particular flash model (an old Canon 420EZ) that allows me to position the front of the rig about 20cm from the flash.] _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pablo
Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 6 Location: New England
|
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pablo wrote:
Hi cooltouch,
Thank you for your reply. I was thinking of using some sort of LED arrangment for a light source. Adorama had a light source that was a small bank of LEDs whose color temperature was 5600k. I can't find it on their website now, but it was about $40.
This would give me a Nikon Coolscan-like light source.
On the other hand, over Christmas, various stores were selling strings of white LED Chistmas lights that I thought maybe I could mount in a grid, and put a diffuser over.
I used to have a Beseler 23C enlarger. I wish I still had the condenser lenses from it, then I could choose between diffuse or condenser type of lighting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Sounds like you've given this some thought. I've recently constructed a light box for proofing slides. The illumination is two fluorescent light tubes. Unfortunately the light fixtures came with "warm" bulbs, which have a yellow cast to them. I've been thinking about using this light box as a light source for duplicating slides, but I'll probably have to change the bulbs out. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1397 Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
If you know how to solder, LEDs are really cheap and very easy to work with: all you need is a current source (say, a 12V adapter) and a handful of resistors. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11015 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
These are fun: Click here to see on Ebay (the tiny Minolta Mini-35 Slide Projector, only 3.5"x4"x7" in carrying case)
for even lighting:
I bought two because the tripod-mountable lamp-condenser assembly is a single unit, simply removed from the cover with a few screws. (see black unit in first photo) I plan to use it as light source for slide/negative dup. Unit is
Some inventive folks have automated the process using projector without a lens; press the projector advance, press the shutter, repeat... http://babryce.com/slidedigitizer.html _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Cool little projector. Yeah, I've seen the projector-duplicator rig. Clever, but it sure helps if you already know something about electronics and breadboarding your own circuits and stuff.
My rig's a lot simpler _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
Is there any different when duplicating/copying a negative instead of slide?I tried copying some few year old negatives last week and the result was horrible. Maybe I am doing something wrong?
By the way what lens are you using when duplicating the slide/negatives? Normal 50mm, 50mm macro or something else? _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
pablo
Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 6 Location: New England
|
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pablo wrote:
siriusdogstar wrote: |
These are fun: Click here to see on Ebay (the tiny Minolta Mini-35 Slide Projector, only 3.5"x4"x7" in carrying case)
for even lighting:
I bought two because the tripod-mountable lamp-condenser assembly is a single unit, simply removed from the cover with a few screws. (see black unit in first photo) I plan to use it as light source for slide/negative dup. Unit is
Some inventive folks have automated the process using projector without a lens; press the projector advance, press the shutter, repeat... http://babryce.com/slidedigitizer.html |
I hadn't thought about a slide projector, but that is a good idea. I wish I still had my old Leica projector.
The LED light source I was looking at is here (30 LED, 5500K)
http://www.adorama.com/FPVL30L.html?searchinfo=flashpoint
I can solder well, but I'd need some sort of circuit diagram. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
my_photography wrote: |
Is there any different when duplicating/copying a negative instead of slide?I tried copying some few year old negatives last week and the result was horrible. Maybe I am doing something wrong?
By the way what lens are you using when duplicating the slide/negatives? Normal 50mm, 50mm macro or something else? |
Yes, I've duplicated negatives using the same rig, and I've gotten reasonably good results. The problem I found though was that my image processing software doesn't entirely remove the cyan cast, which is the reverse of the orange cast in a negative. So, I end up having to do a fair amount of color correction to get the color close to being right. It's stil worth it for negatives I really care about, though, since they definitely are sharper than if I scan them in with my scanner.
For my setup I'm using an old 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor. I think it's just about perfect for this task using my 1.6x crop body DSLR. If I had an FF camera, I would be using a bellows with slide duplicator outfit, but I'd still probably be using the 55 Micro Nikkor. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|