[WPRESTO]

I can then lay a slide on the diffuser attachment and let gravity hold it in place

One problem you may have is a central "hot spot." It isn't easy to get uniformly spread light when pointing a camera back toward a diffusion screen being illuminated from behind by a point light source. The slide holder for the bellows has a glass diffusion panel, but I suspect that if I point a flash directly at it, along the axis of the sensor & lens, the image will have a hot spot. That's why I would consider bouncing light (=a strobe) off a Kodak white card.

[Apet-Sure]

It isn't easy to get uniformly spread light when pointing a camera back toward a diffusion screen being illuminated from behind by a point light source.

Yeah, that crossed my mind. The Viv 283 diffuser attachment actually has two slots, which were intended to be used for a color filter in combination with a diffusion screen. I can put the 28mm diffuser behind the 24mm diffuser, or vice-versa, to get 'diffused diffusion'. Maybe not as good as Tamia's cutting board, but close? If that still gives me a hot spot, I do have white cards. The Viv 283 has an attachment to hold them for bounce flash. And you never know, Kleenex may come into play....

[sibyrnes]

Here's another one I tried after covering my light table with black paper and cutting out an area for the slide:

[sibyrnes]

This is starting to be fun:

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[WPRESTO]

While on the subject of converting chromes to digital, flatbed scanners with a slide/negative scanning option do a pretty decent job. Canoscan 8800F used for the images below. The first three images below are a chrome of the Trona Pyramids near China Lake, CA, taken during the 1990's. First image is directly out of the scanner; second is after a PS "auto tone" correction (notice the corners and maybe you can see the numerous dust specs in the sky); the third is after my touch-up eliminating dust specs and the rounded corners of the slide mount, plus a little tweaking of colors, contrast, sharpening, etc. The fourth image is Split Rock Light House (Minnesota) from a chrome taken in the early 90's. The last image is from a visit to Zion NP I made with some college room mates in 1965, taken with a Honeywell Pentax H1a. The original Ektachrome looks awful in comparison to what I was able to do with the digital scan, but I never touched out all the dust specs on this scan - look carefully and you can see them in the blue sky..

[Tamia]

Great job there, Walt. You've really brought out the best in those old slides.

---------- Post added 06-01-16 at 08:50 PM ----------

Here's another one I tried after covering my light table with black paper and cutting out an area for the slide:

That worked out pretty well, didn't it. Well done.

[JimJohnson]

If I am digitizing film for low resolution purposes (like web pages),my Epson scanner works quite well. For digital preservation of my better images, I have used my old Pentax K mount bellows and slide copier on my APS-C camera. I think I might still have a post in the 'do it yourself' area of Pentax Forums on how to manage the transition between film size and sensor size.

However, by happenstance I just found what for me is a new technique for digitizing film (slides or negatives of any size) and capturing every bit of detail from the film. The technique even surpasses the capabilities of professional grade drum scanners.
How to Scan Your Film Using a Digital Camera and Macro Lens

This technique requires very little equipment. Most of it has already been mentioned in this thread. However, it does take more time compared to my above mentioned techniques and can potentially result in huge file sizes,

[LesDMess]

However, by happenstance I just found what for me is a new technique for digitizing film (slides or negatives of any size) and capturing every bit of detail from the film. The technique even surpasses the capabilities of professional grade drum scanners.
How to Scan Your Film Using a Digital Camera and Macro Lens

Nicely done.

BTW, I see your comparison to a V700 but not with a drum scanner. Do you have any?

[JimJohnson]

Nicely done.

BTW, I see your comparison to a V700 but not with a drum scanner. Do you have any?

I did not write the article, just provided the link. However, there is a link by the author to an earlier piece where I do believe he shows a comparison with film scanned by a drum scanner.

Since I brought up the subject, here is the thread where I used a Kr and Promaster 28-70 to dup slides with a Pentax bellows. I eventually upgraded to the K-30 and a Pentax FA 35-70, but the technique still works.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/170530...er-k-dslr.html

At some point, I'd like to trade-up the K-30 for the K-3, but that's another day and another thread...

[LesDMess]

I did not write the article, just provided the link. However, there is a link by the author to an earlier piece where I do believe he shows a comparison with film scanned by a drum scanner.

Sadly, it is not uncommon to see references to drum scanners.

[JimJohnson]

Here is the article with examples of flat & drum scanner compared to merged camera digitalizations.
Why You Should Digitize Your Film Using a Camera Instead of a Scanner

[LesDMess]

Here is the article with examples of flat & drum scanner compared to merged camera digitalizations.
Why You Should Digitize Your Film Using a Camera Instead of a Scanner

Since it's not clear how he conducted his comparison between the Dainippon Screen DT-S 1045Ai 8000dpi drum scanner and the 22MP Canon 5D Mark II, there really is no need to hijack this thread with it.

[JimJohnson]

Since it's not clear how he conducted his comparison between the Dainippon Screen DT-S 1045Ai 8000dpi drum scanner and the 22MP Canon 5D Mark II, there really is no need to hijack this thread with it.

Ummm, not sure how to take this @LesDMess ... I am not interested in a flame war. I intended to write ONE post applicable to this thread about an alternate method I had found for scanning 35mm slides with a DSLR. I am not trying to hijack this thread. It was you that jumped in, first misinterpreting that I wrote that linked article and second wanting more information about what the author of this alternate technique said. Although the link was there in his article where you could have easily found it yourself, I indulged your reply by separately posting that link. And now you accuse me of hijacking the thread?

My apologies to other readers of this thread. All the techniques listed in this thread have their uses depending on your needs. I use them myself. I was just trying to add something I had recently read that seemed like another useful alternative.

[LesDMess]

Ummm, not sure how to take this @LesDMess ...

I apologize for the tone of my response but I was just disappointed with the hyperbol when you stated, "surpasses the capabilities of professional grade drum scanners" based on unsubstantiated third party source that you cited. For the purposes of full disclosure, I have tested a few scanners myself and now experimenting with DSLR copying as an alternative and as I can see where this process is going particularly since I prefer to continue to use film because of its inherent qualities.

[LSI_Horn]

Hi there,

I think the dynamic range of the scanner and the infrared dust and scratch removal are the main pro's for a scanner.
Calibrated workflow, too, of course. I'm not sure if you can capture all the information of very dense film with a cam.
I have to admit that your results are quite good, a bit too reddish for my taste, perhaps.

Bying a digital camera with a Photoshop or Lightroom licence is quite expensive, too.
If you start without any hardware, a decent scanner together with SilverFast software might
be less expensive; in particular since you don't really need Photoshop or Lightroom when you have the HDR Studio
software for your digital images.