Scanning vs. Digital Camera for Copying Slides, Negatives and Prints

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH Horn
  • Start date Start date
None of the optics for digicams (unless you go with a very expensive model
to which you can attach a macro lens with bellows and slide adapter) is well
corrected for copying, nor are the file sizes comparable to what you get out
of a modest film scanner.
Click to expand...

OTOH IF the user is only interested in a high enough quality to
display on a monitor the bellows and slide adapter might be
satisfactory. Still... I'd want somethig I could get from at least a
mid range scanner. Say, 2400 dpi. That would be a bit over 8
megapixel equivelant with a TIF on the order of 20 to 25 megs.
(I'm using 4000 dpi and the TIFFs are 60 megs)

Another reason for going with a scanner is getting one with digital
ICE. It does an IR prescan and removes fingerprints and a lot of
small dust specs without noticeable degradation in the image, at least
with E6 and C41 films. I don't know of any equivelant way to remove
finger prints and dust from the camera image without losing
resolution, or softening the image.

I had poor luck with earlier versions of Digital ICE, but even with
Kodachrome I'm quite happy with current versions. They don't remove
the dust and fingerprints, but at least they don't look worse. <:-))
I've not tried it on B & W negatives, but it shouldn't work on those
either.

Incidentally, the device that was linked to earlier "appears to me" to
be just a mount to hold the camera and slide holder in the proper
relationship to each other. This arrangement worked well with slide
duplicators on 35 mm cameras with interchangeable lenses. However
dirt, dust, and fingerprints were copied right along with the slides
albeit at a higher resolution than most scanners.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com\
 
"Toby" posted
"... None of the optics for digicams (unless you go with a very expensive model
to which you can attach a macro lens with bellows and slide adapter) is well
corrected for copying, ..."

True.

That would probably be a PhaseOne or Betterlight "Scanning" back on a high-end studio view
camera, with a corresponding high-end lens (such as a Schneider Apo Symmar or a "process"
lens). Figure on the cost being roughly the same as a new car ... and *not* an economy
car!
Click to expand...

You don't have to go stratophericif you are just copying 35 slides. For a
professional slide duplicator you have a constant, flat light source, maybe
some filters. Your camera on a rigid stand, generally with bellows, but
extension tubes would be fine. A good lens, I use a Rodenstock 60mm f2.8 that
the company recommends for duplicating. That said I just did a job for a client
who sent me 300 medical slides for a PowerPoint presentation with 2 1/2 days to
do it. The images were difficult and most were taking more than one try to get
right. I took the light box side of my slide duplicator and my Nikon 995 and
shot the rest. The client was happy, and I got some sleep but not much. This
worked for the PPT presentation, but I wouldn't try to publish or print them.

Tom
 
Back
Top