AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I could be wrong, but, I think the reason the Col is having a problem getting the lens far enough away from the slide is because that lens he's using was never meant to focus that closely to begin with.
My setup, which I posted earlier, is almost exactly the same only I'm using a Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 lens. The Nikon bellows system works well, IMO.
MadNBad is going thru the same learning curve I did with extraneous light being a factor to eliminate from the equation. All the light hitting the sensor should come thru the slide/film being copied for best results, IMO.
My setup, which I posted earlier, is almost exactly the same only I'm using a Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 lens. The Nikon bellows system works well, IMO.
MadNBad is going thru the same learning curve I did with extraneous light being a factor to eliminate from the equation. All the light hitting the sensor should come thru the slide/film being copied for best results, IMO.
madNbad
Well-known
I started with a crop sensor camera, moved to full frame. Tried normal lenses with extension tubes and bellows, ending up with the Micro-Nikkor. Bought a copy stand but had to modify the mount. Tried light pads, ended up with the Copybox. Along with a lot of learning it a good way to scratch the gear itch.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Thanks for the comment, but the problem is getting the lens close enough to the sensor. Distance from slide is not the problem for 35mm thru a 50mm lens to APS body.
In some other configurations, with longer lenses, it can be a problem to get the slide far enough away. This is especially a problem with the newer PB-6 bellows which is shorter (unless you have the impossible to find rail extension).
In some other configurations, with longer lenses, it can be a problem to get the slide far enough away. This is especially a problem with the newer PB-6 bellows which is shorter (unless you have the impossible to find rail extension).
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
Anyone here using a Nikon ES-2 on a non-Nikon lens?
I use it with my D800 and 60mm af-d just like it is designed, but I am thinking of switching systems.
Which would be better?
1. Keep the Nikon macro and use a lens mount adapter on the new camera. This would lose AF
2. Us a step up/down ring and mount the ES-2 on a new macro lens for my new system. This would retain AF.
I use it with my D800 and 60mm af-d just like it is designed, but I am thinking of switching systems.
Which would be better?
1. Keep the Nikon macro and use a lens mount adapter on the new camera. This would lose AF
2. Us a step up/down ring and mount the ES-2 on a new macro lens for my new system. This would retain AF.
madNbad
Well-known
What about keeping the current Nikon setup just for scanning?
peterm1
Veteran
After considering my options for slide conversion I found a nice Pentax bellows outfit in M42 mount at a camera store and at a reasonable price. So rather than make my own Heath Robinson / Ruse Goldberg outfit, as was my first plan, I decided to buy this. Besides its Steam Punk look was cool
I ended up using a SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 lens (late multicoated version) mainly because settings for this lens were mentioned the kit's instruction manual. I used a Sony NEX7 as the camera.. Though this introduced the additional complication of a cropping factor that I did not really want I felt I could work with it and it had a 24 megapixel sensor which I thought was a good option. For lighting I considered a few options. One option was an LCD light left over from putting new lights in my ceiling (switchable so I would have a choice of white balance but requiring mains power which is a bit clumsy), a new LCD light panel for photography lighting (relatively more expensive than my other options and involving an unspecified delay if bought off eBay) or a simple battery charged LCD work-light from my hardware store. I decided to try the latter as its cost was under $15 and I could have it in my hand that day. It works perfectly and has neutral white balance so there were no problems there. With only 25 LCD light points, it would not work well without a diffuser though, but the slide copier bellows unit's slide holder has one built in so I was set to go.
Never having done it before, I found it to be a headache working out how to set the system up to: (a) focus correctly and (b) provide the correct magnification for my needs. Even with an instruction manual I still do not fully comprehend it all, but with trial and error plus re-reading of the manual step by painstaking step, I managed to set up something that worked reasonably well and give sharp images (though old slide films are seldom as sharp as we are used to today). I am still not sure it is absolutely correct according to the manual though. The cropping was not really a problem in all except one or two slides where there was something near the edges that I would have liked to have kept.
Converting slides is a pain as anyone who has tried it knows. Slides invariably accumulate damage and schmutz over the years unless kept very, very carefully and as a result there is a lot of prep work to get them even near ready to be copied. I had stored many slides in A4 sleeves with small pockets for each slide but the pockets that I have are a nuisance as the slides tend to well, slide out and fall on the floor, which means even more dust to cope with.
To make matters worse in that department, just handling slides is a pain in the derrière . Most slide carriers / frames are made from slippery plastic and if piled up in neat stacks in preparation for digitizing the merest bump sends them skittering everywhere - usually back onto the floor, sod's law being what it is. Because of this I soon learned my best option was to simply clean each slide as I was about to digitize it. The alternative - doing a bunch of them in advance, often wasted work for the above reason. And even with careful prep I still found it necessary to spend quite a lot of time with each slide in post, cloning out resistant dust marks or in a few cases scratches on the scanned product. (Sigh!)
Because slides can be so contrasty getting a good result can sometimes be tricky and occasionally the post processing needed to achieve correct contrast and sharpness tended to fritz with the colors somewhat especially if the slides were a bit off to begin with. Most could be fixed easily but with some, I ended up converting them to black and white to avoid these issues or just because they looked good in monochrome. Here are some samples of some that I am especially pleased with. BTW I used an old but good trick to fix one or two very "thin" slides (i.e. those that were badly over exposed and hence have too little not too much contrast). The little boy looking up wistfully at the camera (see image below) is one such. To give more density to the scan after importing the image onto my PC I opened it in Corel Paintshop Pro (you could use Photoshop) and created a duplicate layer. Then I changed the blending mode to "hard light". This has the effect of increasing the image's density making for a richer result. It still was a tad off so I did it one more time (making three layers in total) and used the slider to adjust the blending mode effect strength.) The "multiply" blending mode could also have been used but in my case I found the hard light one worked better - it depends on the image. Although this can also be achieved without using layers (e.g. in Lightroom where that is not an option) it is harder to get a really convincing result. The above method is about as near to a "one click" fix as I have found and I still like using it after learning about it quite some years ago.
The following are from a sailing and diving trip around the Solomon Islands and New Guinea a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Images of locals made on islands in the East Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea and of diving in and around the Solomon Islands / New Guinea.
Deep Dive by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Eye of the Wind - Solomon Islands by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Eye of the Wind, Wreck Diving - South Pacific by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_3 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_4 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_5 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Life in Shadows Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_6 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Our vessel and home for 2 months - the Eye of the Wind at anchor for the night (with anchor light glowing)
Photo of me back then showing my bona-fides as a helmsman - complete with ship's "parrot" (Yes we did help sail the ship under the supervision of experienced crew members).
Eye of the Wind under full sail, shot from the bow sprit netting (also jokingly called the "cadet sailor strainer")
I ended up using a SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 lens (late multicoated version) mainly because settings for this lens were mentioned the kit's instruction manual. I used a Sony NEX7 as the camera.. Though this introduced the additional complication of a cropping factor that I did not really want I felt I could work with it and it had a 24 megapixel sensor which I thought was a good option. For lighting I considered a few options. One option was an LCD light left over from putting new lights in my ceiling (switchable so I would have a choice of white balance but requiring mains power which is a bit clumsy), a new LCD light panel for photography lighting (relatively more expensive than my other options and involving an unspecified delay if bought off eBay) or a simple battery charged LCD work-light from my hardware store. I decided to try the latter as its cost was under $15 and I could have it in my hand that day. It works perfectly and has neutral white balance so there were no problems there. With only 25 LCD light points, it would not work well without a diffuser though, but the slide copier bellows unit's slide holder has one built in so I was set to go.
Never having done it before, I found it to be a headache working out how to set the system up to: (a) focus correctly and (b) provide the correct magnification for my needs. Even with an instruction manual I still do not fully comprehend it all, but with trial and error plus re-reading of the manual step by painstaking step, I managed to set up something that worked reasonably well and give sharp images (though old slide films are seldom as sharp as we are used to today). I am still not sure it is absolutely correct according to the manual though. The cropping was not really a problem in all except one or two slides where there was something near the edges that I would have liked to have kept.
Converting slides is a pain as anyone who has tried it knows. Slides invariably accumulate damage and schmutz over the years unless kept very, very carefully and as a result there is a lot of prep work to get them even near ready to be copied. I had stored many slides in A4 sleeves with small pockets for each slide but the pockets that I have are a nuisance as the slides tend to well, slide out and fall on the floor, which means even more dust to cope with.
To make matters worse in that department, just handling slides is a pain in the derrière . Most slide carriers / frames are made from slippery plastic and if piled up in neat stacks in preparation for digitizing the merest bump sends them skittering everywhere - usually back onto the floor, sod's law being what it is. Because of this I soon learned my best option was to simply clean each slide as I was about to digitize it. The alternative - doing a bunch of them in advance, often wasted work for the above reason. And even with careful prep I still found it necessary to spend quite a lot of time with each slide in post, cloning out resistant dust marks or in a few cases scratches on the scanned product. (Sigh!)
Because slides can be so contrasty getting a good result can sometimes be tricky and occasionally the post processing needed to achieve correct contrast and sharpness tended to fritz with the colors somewhat especially if the slides were a bit off to begin with. Most could be fixed easily but with some, I ended up converting them to black and white to avoid these issues or just because they looked good in monochrome. Here are some samples of some that I am especially pleased with. BTW I used an old but good trick to fix one or two very "thin" slides (i.e. those that were badly over exposed and hence have too little not too much contrast). The little boy looking up wistfully at the camera (see image below) is one such. To give more density to the scan after importing the image onto my PC I opened it in Corel Paintshop Pro (you could use Photoshop) and created a duplicate layer. Then I changed the blending mode to "hard light". This has the effect of increasing the image's density making for a richer result. It still was a tad off so I did it one more time (making three layers in total) and used the slider to adjust the blending mode effect strength.) The "multiply" blending mode could also have been used but in my case I found the hard light one worked better - it depends on the image. Although this can also be achieved without using layers (e.g. in Lightroom where that is not an option) it is harder to get a really convincing result. The above method is about as near to a "one click" fix as I have found and I still like using it after learning about it quite some years ago.
The following are from a sailing and diving trip around the Solomon Islands and New Guinea a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Images of locals made on islands in the East Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea and of diving in and around the Solomon Islands / New Guinea.
Deep Dive by Life in Shadows, on FlickrEye of the Wind - Solomon Islands by Life in Shadows, on FlickrEye of the Wind, Wreck Diving - South Pacific by Life in Shadows, on FlickrEye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_3 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrEye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_4 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrEye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_5 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrLife in Shadows Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett - Laughlan Islands - New Guinea_6 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrOur vessel and home for 2 months - the Eye of the Wind at anchor for the night (with anchor light glowing)
Photo of me back then showing my bona-fides as a helmsman - complete with ship's "parrot" (Yes we did help sail the ship under the supervision of experienced crew members).
Eye of the Wind under full sail, shot from the bow sprit netting (also jokingly called the "cadet sailor strainer")
peterm1
Veteran
MadnBad, if you are still following this thread may I ask if your response above means that I could use (say) the Pentax Takumar SMC 35mm f3.5 instead of the 55mm f1.8 which I have been trialing (see my post immediately below). As indicated below I compromised on the cropping issue and let some of the outer boundaries of the slides I am digitizing be excluded and mostly this did not matter (with a few exceptions).
Now having tried some scanning your post has new meaning for me and I understand better why you say this. In short, I found it to be basically impossible to position the lens I have been trying out in to capture all of the slide - moving the bellows to change magnification also changes focus enough that the lens seems unable to compensate in my current set up.
Forest_rain
Well-known
Has anyone tried those cheap slide duplicators from ebay with the built in optics? I'm thinking about buying one of those - one wouldn't even need to buy a macro lens to use it, just find the proper adapter.
But I'm wondering if the quality would be better with a macro lens. Has anyone tried any of these slide duplicators with optics built in?
But I'm wondering if the quality would be better with a macro lens. Has anyone tried any of these slide duplicators with optics built in?
madNbad
Well-known
Love the description of the slippery slides. I tried a Nikon bellows with a A5100 but the only Nikkor lens I had was a 55 Micro-Nikkor and abandoned it quickly, not really wanting to struggle with it. For a short period, just prior to getting the Copybox, with the same A5100 and Nikkor lens, I used a set of extension tubes to move a Nikon ES-2 further away from the sensor getting closer to a 1-1. You have a good selection of lenses, try some different focal lengths and see if it gives you a view of the whole frame. There is quite a bit of information on the Negative Lab Pro site about various scanning setups. Apparently, the only rule of camera scanning is there aren't any rules. Your images look great and the slides fall over just as much on this side of the equator.
peterm1
Veteran
I was tempted to buy a simple tube type duplicator (which I think is what you refer to) some of which have the ability to adjust the magnification. On reflection I decided against it as the optics inside look pretty basic - maybe just a single element like the screw-on magnifying filters that used to be available for lenses. These kind of worked OK for taking close ups of flowers insects etc but lacked the flatness of field required for slide duplication. If so even though they appear to be quite slow lenses I would anticipate similarly poor results in the corners of the slide from one of these duplicators. Never the less I have not actually tried one so others can confirm or repudiate my thinking on this.
This type of duplicator directly attaches to the camera's mount (often using a T mount adapter for different mount types) and does not require a lens to be mounted on the camera - they use their own internal optics instead. If on the other hand you are suggesting using a macro lens to digitize as an alternative to the duplicator, yes I think it is a better option results wise, as a macro lens should give good results so long as you have a means of mounting the camera / lens perfectly parallel to the plane of the slide. Not too hard to do in principle with the right tripod though fiddly to get absolutely right. Oh, and you probably need a macro lens which goes to 1:1 repro ratio. These can be harder to find - most seem to stop at 1:2.
Forest_rain
Well-known
OK, I decided to purchase the Nikon ES-1 or some sort of similar slide copier without optics, and a macro lens. Finally time to try to get DSLR scanning going. Hoping it will be a lot faster than my flatbed.
Then there's the problem of color inversion and removing the color cast - I don't have lightroom, but it seems like using Vuescan is the easier/quickest way in this workflow?
Can anyone confirm?
Then there's the problem of color inversion and removing the color cast - I don't have lightroom, but it seems like using Vuescan is the easier/quickest way in this workflow?
Can anyone confirm?
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
I'd rather try and re-coup some $. A D800 that just sits around waiting to scan is not a happy D800.
peterm1
Veteran
I can assure you the actual scanning process is a LOT faster than flatbed scanning, particularly at the high resolution required for scanning slides and negatives. And I think it provides a better outcomes. I would suggest your best bet whatever you use (camera or dedicated scanner) is to output the image as RAW or TIFF, not JPG. Of course this then requires suitable software to process. Which is kind of needed anyway - no matter how much I prepared slides there frequently still was dust, marks, scratches etc to fix afterwards.
Can Vuescan even import images that have not been scanned on a dedicated scanner? I had thought it was used at the preview scan stage to pre-emptively correct images during the final scan.
I have been digitizing my slides I have found that unless I nailed the slide's exposure when it was originally exposed it can produce headaches and require more work at post production editing stage and even then may not be able to be fully compensated for.
Scottboarding
Established
It can! It has difficulty with newer Canon cameras in my experience but my solution has been to run them through Adobe's free DNG converter. After that every raw file I've tried has worked. The only constant issue I've found is that if you're not filling the frame with the negative the borders will severely screw up Vuescan's interpretation of the image. Colors and contrast will be messed up beyond all hope. You need to have little to no borders for this work. I definitely prefer Vuescan's images over Negative Lab Pro for black and white. For color negatives, well I don't like any of the options for home scans.
Here's an example image:
Fomapan 200, scanned with a Canon 80D and converted without edits to JPEG in Vuescan.
brbo
Well-known
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
The pentax bellows when fully "closed" gives you a 0.7x magnification with the 55/1.8 ; which is too much for APSC cameras (you need 0.65x) It is easier to set your slide holder and move the front of the bellows for focusing while keeping it as compressed as you can.
You will be going in the wrong direction with the 35mm as the min magnification is 1.05x; I think you'd need a 85mm to get the full slide at a reasonable distance.
I tried a 105mm copy lens (from a Polaroid) which I adapted to the bellows and ran into the problem that the slide copier bellows was too short (need about 50cm), so I made a "canopy" with PVC pipe to keep the stray light out, etc.
So after al that pain and work, I ended up just using a takumar macro 50/4 and digitizing ~95% of the slide.
Focusing is relatively easy if you use your live-view screen at 16x and focus on the grain and the shoot at f/8
I use a LED light and have set custom WB in the camera to compensate for it.
Exposure works fine; I normally bracket +/- 1/2stops for safety
Digital processing with GIMP is not bad after some steep learning curve
However, even with a 50mm lens, it is a wonderful and simple way to digitize large number of negatives; and bring back some memories
You will be going in the wrong direction with the 35mm as the min magnification is 1.05x; I think you'd need a 85mm to get the full slide at a reasonable distance.
I tried a 105mm copy lens (from a Polaroid) which I adapted to the bellows and ran into the problem that the slide copier bellows was too short (need about 50cm), so I made a "canopy" with PVC pipe to keep the stray light out, etc.
So after al that pain and work, I ended up just using a takumar macro 50/4 and digitizing ~95% of the slide.
Focusing is relatively easy if you use your live-view screen at 16x and focus on the grain and the shoot at f/8
I use a LED light and have set custom WB in the camera to compensate for it.
Exposure works fine; I normally bracket +/- 1/2stops for safety
Digital processing with GIMP is not bad after some steep learning curve
However, even with a 50mm lens, it is a wonderful and simple way to digitize large number of negatives; and bring back some memories
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
inzite
Well-known
it's been a while but i manage to shoot and scan about 14 rolls in the past half year!
67ii + 105 f2.4 + pro400h@320 scanned with D800e +105 micro
INZ_5098 by Ricky Cheong Photography, on Flickr
m6 + 35iv + superia400@400 scanned with D800e +105 micro
INZ_4767 by Ricky Cheong Photography, on Flickr
67ii + 105 f2.4 + pro400h@320 scanned with D800e +105 micro
INZ_5098 by Ricky Cheong Photography, on Flickrm6 + 35iv + superia400@400 scanned with D800e +105 micro
INZ_4767 by Ricky Cheong Photography, on Flickrmob81
Well-known
Just been developed and Scanned with D810
Kodak Gold 200
_D811062 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
_D811074 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
_D811072 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
Kodak Gold 200
_D811062 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr_D811074 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr_D811072 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickrmob81
Well-known
_D811296 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
_D811290 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
_D811280 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr