[jonlg]

So like many on here I suspect I have 1-200 photos on negs and slides that I would like in the digital domain. I have a multifunction scanner/printer by Canon that could theoretically scan them but it's slow, tedius and after importing them every single one would require cropping etc because such devices are really optimised for A4 etc not tiny negs aren't they?

I stumbled across someone extolling the virtues of using a DSLR to copy them - no cropping, manageable file sizes and miles faster than scanning:

The other way to scan positive slides, or, why I kept my big DSLR by Stefan Schmidt | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

This loks like a good way to go to me, but the question is what lens to use.

I have an old Tamron Adaptall 80-210 F3.8-F4 manual lens with a macro mode providing 1:2.8 macro ratio and it occured to me that with a £30 secondhand Pentax or Tamron 2x teleconverter I would get up to 1:1.4 macro ratio which would enable me to fill the APSC frame with a full frame slide/negative wouldn't it?? (Given that the full frame neg is 1.5x the size of the APSC sensor)

Alternatively I have ordered £10 worth of extension tubes off Amazon and could try those with the 50mm F1.7 SMC-M lens I still have or even the DA 18-55 WR or DA17-70mm but I have no idea what ratios of macro these might give me on my K5 (they're 9mm, 16mm and 30mm) or how well this might work and would welcome views.

I also thought of buying a a device like this: http://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/viewfinder/slidecopying.html The Ohnar slide duplicator but it's £100 new and contains optical glass which may or may not be any good and I can't help thinking that something like a £10 extension tube on my 50mm F1.7 could end up giving better quality.

Perhaps my biggest issue is how to mount/light the slide and that's where something like the Ohnar is ideal and I would really like to be able to buy a mount like the Ohnar has and put it on a second tripod...

Anyway, I'm guessing there's a lot of people on here with a whole load more macro experience than I have (and macro is something I'm rather keen to try now the flowers are out here) so if I can get something that will do the job while also opening up the world of macro photography that would be even better. If I really enjoy it then at some point in the future I might put down the money for a dedicated macro lens.

So fire away with your thoughts!!

Jonlg

[Giklab]

Actually, you're almost set with what you have now. 35mm is 2.25x APSC, so your Tamron with a small crop could do nicely.

[6BQ5]

I posted a long thread about my experience camera scanning slides and negatives. The link is here :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/258...-film-pix.html

If you have a 50mm lens then a simple set of extension tubes behind the lens will get you the magnification you need. You'll also need some tubes and a slide/negative holder in front of the lens. Play around with the different aperture settings to find the sharpest setting. My 50 A series f/1.4 lens worked best at f/16. I got a D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro lens and it works even better. The downside is the price.

I would say you should skip out on the all-in-one duplicator kits. The tubes have an optical element many times that seem to make the image worse. The low end film scanners produce very compressed JPG files and you will have little control of the image IQ. People buy these kits expecting nothing and are thrilled when they see something. I do all of my processing in Aperture and make sure the image is sharp enough that I can resolve film grain.

You didn't mention which camera body you have. I found that 16 MP is plenty for camera scanning. You could probably get away with 12 MP and not lose significant detail.

Use daylight or 5500k - 6500k light sources behind your negatives. I ripped an old monitor apart and turned it into a light box. This works well if you can't get natural daylight.

Let us know how it goes!

[OregonJim]

If you're looking for high quality copies, you will want a true macro lens with flat-field properties for edge to edge sharpness - especially since you plan to fill the frame with the slides/negatives for greatest resolution.

Alternatively, you can go for less magnification with a non-macro lens and keep the slides closer to the center of the frame, which will be sharper - but you'll have to crop later. You will want to stop down the lens to maximize sharpness, of course.

I've used an old slide sorter as a light source. I also have a bellows with a slide copier attachment, which works well with a small soft box as a light source. These days, though, I use a flatbed Epson scanner with a negative carrier. Once you get your workflow figured out, it's just about as quick.

A tip: do them in very small batches at first, until you're satisfied with the results. You don't want to copy 100 slides only to find out you need to do them over...

---

Last edited by OregonJim; 06-15-2014 at 11:41 AM.

[Miguel]

Perhaps my biggest issue is how to mount/light the slide

Commercially I've used an inverted color enlarger head. The glass diffuser is quite effective and you can use the three color dials to manually tweak the white balance. Or not. You can use a negative or slide carrier to hole the material atop the enlarger head. I had my son cut a custom mounter out of thick foamcore sheeting with an exacto blade and patience. Old color heads you should be able to obtain for the asking if you have a good photographers network.

The above advice about using a true macro lens is spot on.

M