I've never tried DSLR scanning before--I have an old Nikon Coolscan V, but I don't use it all that much, as it's a bit time consuming for what you get out of it.
So I am thinking about the DSLR scanning method, as I have *loads* of old film I'd like to get into digital format.
My question for those of you who do DSLR scanning regards the light source. It seems like many of you are using light pads or light boxes as the source.
I have my own studio with pure white seamless paper backgrounds, and a really powerful strobe kit. I've thought I could probably just bounce light off that--and I can bounce enough off it to basically vaporise a light box--as that would give me a large, very bright, very white and evenly lit light source. It would allow me to use the camera's maximum sync speed, reducing camera shake (really, the flash duration would be considerably briefer than the shutter opening, so even less vibration), and I could have almost infinite depth of field, not that I'd need that much certainly. And I wouldn't have to fiddle with aligning the camera to the light box and all that--I could just put the film holder/diffuser on the end of my macro lens, just point it fairly randomly at the centre of the background, and fire away.
Am I correct in thinking this would be an easy, fast, efficient and sensible system for doing the scanning? Or is there some flaw in my plan that I have not considered?
