The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 07:22:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28018 Posts in 5138 Topics by 2910 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  DAM Stuff
| |-+  Scans and Camera Scans
| | |-+  Digitizing transparencies with a digital camera
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Digitizing transparencies with a digital camera  (Read 11589 times)
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« on: July 02, 2008, 06:53:16 AM »

Peter, In your book you discuss using a slide duplicating set-up to digitize transparencies.  Months ago I recall you mentioning the possibility of co-ordinating with either Really Right Stuff or Kirk Enterprises (??) to offer the requisite hardware.  Have you made any progress on that?  I am mainly interested in using a Canon EOS-1DS Mark III to digitize 35mm transparencies.  Have you done any further testing with this system?

Mark Weidman
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 06:40:18 AM by peterkrogh » Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2008, 06:50:28 AM »

Mark,
The RRS hardware is god (pictured in another post at the top of this forum), but they don't have the negative stage as a stock item.  You'd have to make/adapt one.

The MK3 is amazing in the quality it gives.  Recently tried it againast a coolscan 8000 (I think) and it ws easily as sharp and detailed.

Both Richard Anderson and John Harrington have been using these.
Peter


Logged
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2009, 09:29:44 AM »

Peter - have there been any advances or changes in this (using a Mk III to "scan" 35mm slides) since our last exchange some months ago?  I am at the point where I need to either build the requisite copying hardware, or, buy a dedicated Nikon film scanner. 

Mark Weidman
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
markpirozzi
Full Member
***
Posts: 179


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2009, 03:13:22 PM »

One big advantage to going with an RSS setup, or similar, rather that a scanner, is that you will never have the need for drivers or software to support a scanner as you move through OS versions.

Mark
Logged

Mac OSX 10.7, 2009 MacPro
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2009, 02:46:43 PM »

Mark,
I'm in favor of the RRS rig.
What kind of originals do you have to scan, and how many?
Peter
Logged
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2009, 10:09:55 AM »

Peter,  I heard back from RSS and they have not made any progress with the prototype rig.  In the meantime, I set up an old Bencher copystand that has an electronic flash backlight function for copying transparencies.  I shot eight test 35mm slides (both Fujichrome Velvia, Provia & Kodachrome) using a Canon 55 Macro lens on a Canon EOS-1Ds Mk III.  I prepared the RAW files and asked one of my stock agents to review them (Alamy, in the UK).  Half of the images did not pass quality control, in fact though I did not tell them how the slides were digitized, they replied as follows "It is better to use a dedicated film/negative scanner rather than photographing them which is the way that these have been duplicated".  In answer to your question, I have at least 1,000 images to digitize, probably more.  I had been sending them to Jainco for scans on their Imacon scanner, but would like to eliminate that cost by either buying a Nikon Coolscan 5000 or figuring out a way to do camera scans that are acceptable to Alamy.  I have an Epson V750, which is great for medium & large format transparencies, but not that great for 35mm.

Mark Weidman
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2009, 12:35:56 PM »

Mark,
Do you want to send me a copy of one of the rejected images?
Peter
Logged
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2009, 01:23:23 PM »

Peter, yes, that would be great.  I can send you one that was rejected & one that passed.  I can upload the two files to my ftp site and send you a private email with download instructions.  Or if you have another suggestion for transfer let me know.

Congratulations on the new dpBestFlow web site, I am looking forward to exploring it.

Mark
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2009, 01:41:58 PM »

Peter - I read on another forum that the best Canon macro lens is the Canon Macro Photo MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens for EOS - it runs about $950 new.  I have the 50mm EF lens which apparently is not as sharp as the 65mm.  For $950 I can buy a Nikon 5000 film scanner.

Mark
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2009, 03:26:57 PM »

MArk,
Well, if it won't work for the usage you have in front of you, then it won't work.  My testing shows that a 1Ds MK3 beats the pants off a Nikon 9000 ED film scanner.

I don't think you should need the $950 lens.  Were the files rejected for sharpness, color/density, dust, or what?

Peter
Logged
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2009, 05:46:56 PM »

Peter - maybe I did something wrong in the camera scan process, but, I was pretty careful and it is not rocket science.  4 of 8 images failed.  Here is the response I got from my stock agents quality control dept.:  "Some are OK but the following four are far too soft.  It is better to use a dedicated film/negative scanner rather than photographing them which is the way that these have been duplicated."

Interestingly enough, I did not tell them that I had used the camera scan process, but somehow they were able to figure that out by looking at the test images.

Do you still want me to send you a couple image files (one that passed & one that failed)?  And/or, I could send you one of the original transparencies and you could shoot it then we could compare files.

Mark
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
BobSmith
Full Member
***
Posts: 239

bobsmith@mac.com
View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2009, 06:53:51 AM »

Interestingly enough, I did not tell them that I had used the camera scan process, but somehow they were able to figure that out by looking at the test images.

I'm guessing they saw the camera info in the metadata and that immediately affected their expectations.  I own an Imacon scanner and a good copy setup.  For 35mm transparencies a proper digital camera copy is way faster and at least as good.  Yes, the Imacon creates more pixels but in terms of useful image data a high res digital camera copy is going to get about all the real image data that's available from a 35mm tranny.  Do some careful upsampling and sharpening... and strip the exif data... and I bet they love your digital camera copies. The Imacon is great for larger originals but for 35mm a good copy setup should win.

If you have a bellows rig that you can put a decent enlarger lens on... those make perfect lenses for use in this situation.  And given the number of darkrooms being shut down there's lots of great lenses out there that can be had for next to nothing.

If you're hell bent on getting more original pixels out of a copy setup... depending on your copy setup it might be a simple thing to merge two or three frames and use Photoshop's photomerge to combine for a higher res original.  Very fast and effective.  I do that all the time with reflective copy work.  My Beseler slide dupe setup has a sliding film stage that would make something like that easy but I've not felt the need for it.

Bob Smith
Logged
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2009, 07:17:38 AM »

Bob

Thanks for the info - I had not thought about the camera metadata being embedded in the files - good point.  Wow, that is really saying something, that a good camera scan/dupe rivals a scan done with a very expensive Imacon scanner.  No need to rez up the files since the EOS 1Ds Mark III produces a file plenty large for this stock agent.  I use Pixel Genius Photokit Sharpener for all my files.  Thanks for the suggestions.

Mark Weidman
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
Mark Weidman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 09:40:04 AM »

Well, I went ahead and bought a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 and did a careful comparison test of scans done with the Nikon 5000 and with the Camera Scan method I described earlier.  The digital files from the scanner appear slightly sharper, maybe 15-20%, than the Camera Scans (this is both without sharpening and Capture Sharpening applied using Pixel Genius Sharpener).  The files from the scanner also seem to retain tone in the highlights better than the Camera Scans.  The downside of the scanners files is there is more noise in the shadows and the film grain is much more evident than in the Camera Scans.  Also, the scanner files show every blemish and defect in the actual film.  I am using Lasersoft's Silverfast with the Coolscan since I am well versed in it from use with my Epson V750.  Unfortunately Silverfast does not include Digital ICE anymore, but instead only the Lasersoft tool they call SDR.  It has many more controls & features than Digital ICE, but I prefer the ICE for dust removal.  As an aside for those of you considering this route, the Nikon Scan software has compatibility issues with Apple Macintosh Operating Systems 10.4 and newer (part of the reason I bought Silverfast).  Believe me, I much rather use the Camera Scan method of digitizing, but since my test files did not pass QC at one of my stock agents I will be using the Nikon scanner.  Comments are welcome! 

Mark Weidman
Logged

Mark W.

Mac G5 DP, OSX v10.4.11
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 10:11:39 AM »

Mark,
I'd love to see some samples. 
Peter
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!