A fast, easy and cheap solution for digitizing slides and negatives

stompyq said:
Wow. Off topic, but the tones you are getting with APX25 is incredible. I love this series. What developer did you use?
Click to expand...
thanks!

after 24 years I don't remember the developer :)

What you see in these pictures is not the developer, it is mainly the PP, that is
  • import in LR5
  • CS6 for positive conversion (ctrl + I) and some general contrast corrections and eliminating of any dust spots (like we used to do after dark room work)
  • LR5 again for final fine tuning of the desired contrast and sharpening
BTW,
if you could remove the pictures in your quote, it would be not so long and do not repeat the pictures again for other viewers
thanks and regards
dierk
 
Well those conversions are excellent.


dierk said:
thanks!

after 24 years I don't remember the developer :)

What you see in these pictures is not the developer, it is mainly the PP, that is
  • import in LR5
  • CS6 for positive conversion (ctrl + I) and some general contrast corrections and eliminating of any dust spots (like we used to do after dark room work)
  • LR5 again for final fine tuning of the desired contrast and sharpening
BTW,
if you could remove the pictures in your quote, it would be not so long and do not repeat the pictures again for other viewers
thanks and regards
dierk
Click to expand...
 
This will be a big project for me as I have 50 plus years of slides to scan.

Good ideas presented here.

I was thinking of using my enlarger as I could start with a bigger image to photograph. If I make the digital stuff using RAW with my Canon, I may be OK. I still have with the enlarger, in good shape, the base which is white for my Omega B22 enlarger.

I also have a flat bed scanner but haven't hooked it up yet.

Looking to spend as little as possible amount of time getting the slides digitized.

My 2 cents.
 
A Y said:
Thanks Dierk for those great images. I've been digitizing with my Sony NEX-5N and an adapted Canon FD 50/3.5 macro lens too, and really like the results. It's tempting to get the new A6000 for more resolution, though after looking at my prints from the 5N (up to 24x36 inches), I don't feel that I need more resolution.

Like others I've been having trouble with C41, and here's an idea that I want to try out when I have time: illuminate the C41 negative with a light that has more blue content instead of a white light. If you look at the individual color histograms for C41 shot against a white light with a DSLR, the blue channel is really low, which makes it difficult to correct and keep the noise down. Blue is also opposite the color wheel from the orange that's used, so I guess that makes sense.

I'm using an old light table right now, but with an iPad, one can make different colored blank screens that you can display on it. For B&W, just use a white one as Dierk mentions, but perhaps for C41, one can try different shades of blue to get through the orange mask.
Click to expand...

A mirrorless with a macro lens seams to be ideal for this method. A used NEX for example is very cheap on the market. For this method you don't need the newest model and no fast AF.

Resolution:
  • the resolution of any camera with 10 MPix or even less is more than sufficient for the usual viewing on Internet, a screen, a tablet or a HD TV
  • if you really need more resolution, you always can use the negative or slide again and shoot with higher resolution
  • if you need more resolution, you can shoot parts of the image and stitch until the grain limits.
  • for 24x36 images you may need a special setup with a macro lens, that goes beyond 1:1
Color:
  • on slides you may look for any white spot in the image and use it for WB, not perfect, but old slides are not perfect anyway and you will need some PP anyway
  • as mentioned above, color negatives are are different story. As I am mainly interested in B&W, it is not too important for me.
  • I don't know, if it is an idea, but if you take a macro photo of the space between the negaive, of the pure film material, enlarge it on your tablet till it fills the whole image, do a screen shot, invert the image and use this as light for this particular film???
Time:
  • as said before, I copy a stripe of 6 negatives in a view minutes, that is the same with larger formats (for stitching it takes a bit longer, but not much!
  • I scanned a 6x6 with my old Epson Photo 2450 on 2400 PDI and it took about 10 minutes!! And i get less resolution than with my NEX-6
  • With a newer scanner with higher resolution it may not be much faster
Contrast and DR:

I did not use or try it jet, but if you think, the film or slide has more contrast and/or dynamic range than your sensor can handle, you may even shoot bracketing and PP in HDR
 
bonatto said:
Very cool effort, lots of work from the looks of it :)

Thank you for sharing.

Out of curiosity, what do you do with a digitally scanned and stitched twin 4x5" panorama?

Have you printed these files?

I imagine if you run them through an HP and some quality Hahnemuhle roll paper you would get something quite special.
Click to expand...
bonatto,
no, I did not print the image, I was always looking for high resolution and wanted to try it.

Compared with the resolution you get today from stitched images, the IQ of this image will be be not good enough.
I just did a panorama with the Sony A7R from 7 images and got a 38.000 wide image of 200 MPix with incredible resolution and details (here it is)

I have many prints hanging in the size of about 1x2 meters, made out of 100+ MPix stitched images

I made more panoramas in the early 1990s. Here are two examples:

Hamburg harbor 1992

stitch with PTGui of 4 images 6x6 color negative Agfa Ultra 100
at that time nobody could imagine to soft stitch images.
I planed to mount large prints and now with the digital copy I was lucky to have enough overlap for the stitching :)
The images are full of dust and I needed a lot of time for cleaning, but there are still small dust spots.


about 90 MPix and 20.000 pixel wide





 
more from the setup

Sony NEX-6 with E-mount Macro 3,5/30mm
the lens has AF and it works, but the edges are a bit soft

6x6 negative with the negative holder of my Epson scanner

14353210202_2c5613338b_c.jpg



parallel alignment of the film and sensor plane with amirror
you align the camera, till you see the image of the lens in mirror in the center of the camera display

14353212302_10d058c171_c.jpg


what else is important:
  • focus with open aperture and stop down for the shot, I use f/11 to compensate any misalignment
  • avoid any surrounding light to avoid reflections of the lens on the film, I use it late after sunset, when it is dark or in the bath room without windows
  • use a remote shutter release, I use an IR remote release
  • I place a mate etched glass over the tablet, this avoids to fool the AF. Otherwise the AF often focuses on the high contrast of the LCD pixels of the tablet. You can see it in the first post.
  • if you don't have a repro stand you can use a tripod as well and align it as described. This repro stand is from B.I.G. for about 30€
 
dierk
Thanks for the inspiration this thread gave me.
I did a really cheap and dirty setup with my D7000 and new to me old Nikkor Micro 55mm 3.5 lens I got for my birthday from my son.
I'm still working on eliminating the flare from too much light from the sides but have it figured out now.
As a light source, I tried my laptop screen using a white area in MS Paint for the source. Not enough light. So I took a picture of an LED flashlight with a film of Mylar over it and transferred the picture into the laptop. Brought up the picture and use it as the light.
My biggest problem is flare from surrounding light but I haven't tried this after the sun sets yet.
Here's a shot of my setup.
I know it isn't as good as yours is but it sure works a lot better than my Nikon 995 with the slide attachment since it is only 3.2mp.
Thanks again for sharing.
 
Nicely done. Certainly not a new concept but your execution is a cut above the rest.

I had good success using just a light box (had a cool white flourescent tube) for B&W, however the light source was not perfectly even (important for thin negs). I suspected the spectral output of the bulb was not that good either, which led to sickly looking C41 inversions. A tablet probably has a better spectral output (but not as bright) and is definitely more even.

When using a tablet for a light source, the diffusion screen is a must. Without it, even at a 1/2 inch away (practically a mile in macro terms), the background had odd bokeh patterns.

Keep up the good work!
 
The flare problem goes away after the room goes dark.
I'm pretty pleased with the results I can get from my setup.
Might not be 'pro' quality but it sure beats what I had to work with prior to this.
 
I always do my DSLR scans in a dark room, too.

Another thing that may be helpful is to use a computer monitor to help focus: lots of cameras output live view through an HDMI port these days, and I display the live view on a 24-inch monitor which makes it much easier to focus.
 
Very very nice work on your setup (for the various negative sizes too!).
LOVE your B&W results !!!

>> This thread should be a "sticky" , if it isn't already <<
 
thanks for all the comments and samples.
I am glad, that I got the idea shared.

Yesterday I bought a Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm enlarging lens and want to use it with my Nikon bellows on the A7R. I will show the results asap.


Just for fun, here are some more samples
made with Sony A7R and the Leica Makro-Elmarit-R 60mm

Pentacon Six 6x6, Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/180mm, Kodak T-MAX 100

click for larger view










 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom