M8 as/vs. a slide scanner - Looking for advice

[johnalex141r]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But if you are going through that time and effort, why not do it right the first time around?

 

Hey charles; I'm not going to disagree with you, as I wanted my little stand to do other things than copy negatives, but, why not goof around?

 

One never knows what one will learn by doing this. For me, $15.00 on the M body cap from Stephen Gandy gave me more entertainment than I had imagined.

 

If I really wanted to take a lot of macro shots, I'd buy the latest Canon SLR. For me this is having fun with digital photography, and I was impressed with the results. Maybe it does not take much to impress me! (smile)

 

JohnS.

[Philinflash]

Are you copying slides for archiving purposes and for digital output? If so, then use a film scanner. If you are doing just for casual viewing/projection, then copystand would suffice. But if you are going through that time and effort, why not do it right the first time around?

 

Charlie, I want the best result I can get within reason, say archiving, and I want to do it only once.

[johnalex141r]

Charlie, I want the best result I can get within reason, say archiving, and I want to do it only once.

 

Here's a negative I quickly copied with my M8 on stand. Note: exposure etc is off; I just wanted to give an idea to Phillinflash as to what I was achieving with my current setup. An old 6x6 negative taken with a Mamiya C330. Ilford - probably FP4.

 

2 photos - jpegged full image, then a 100% crop of a bit of it.

 

JohnS.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jamie Roberts]

Here's a negative I quickly copied with my M8 on stand. Note: exposure etc is off; I just wanted to give an idea to Phillinflash as to what I was achieving with my current setup. An old 6x6 negative taken with a Mamiya C330. Ilford - probably FP4.

 

2 photos - jpegged full image, then a 100% crop of a bit of it.

 

JohnS.

 

 

Since you're capturing those in colour, I'd try selecting or blending the channels a bit to get better noise results.

 

It's still pretty impressive to me

[Arif]

Thanks to all for your wonderful help. I picked up a used LS5000 for approx. $600. That should keep me busy for a few weeks.

 

Thanks again,

Arif

[Philinflash]

Since you're capturing those in colour, I'd try selecting or blending the channels a bit to get better noise results.

 

It's still pretty impressive to me

 

I agree with Jamie; John's work is impressive. I assume the upper image is a portion of the full 6x6 neg. We see it was shot in colour but was it through RAW to JPEG or just JPEG? And what resolution?

 

I don't suppose you have access to a scanner, John, to do an A-B comparison? Sorry to be so pushy but I am really confused by the polarity of views on the mooted question.

 

Philip Kozloff

[johnalex141r]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I assume the upper image is a portion of the full 6x6 neg. We see it was shot in colour but was it through RAW to JPEG or just JPEG? And what resolution?

 

Yes, 6x6, shot (blushing) at ISO 2500 - the camera was set to it, and I did not think to check. Shutter speed was set to some manual setting, DNG format, preview turned on. I just flicked the shutter speed until the preview seemed to match the brightness of the negative on lightbox (not a good way of determining exposure, but as I was more concerned with sharpness, and time was short...)

 

99% of my medium format negs are 645; and because focusing with this setup is trial and error, I do not wish to adjust the height/focus. I don't know why I grabbed this one - the page just opened to these 6x6 shots, maybe I should have flipped the page to a 645 one.

 

I don't suppose you have access to a scanner, John, to do an A-B comparison? Sorry to be so pushy but I am really confused by the polarity of views on the mooted question.

Philip Kozloff

 

Not any more - the scanner here at work appears not to work. Our photographer (who owns the scanner) simply now uses his Nikon with macro, so the scanner and attached computer are not likely to get fixed anytime soon. If the results are good enough for NASA and the ESA...

 

I guess if you look at this sideways; you have one fantastic sensor in your M8 camera, which is good enough for almost everyone in almost every situation, so, why would it not be good enough to take pictures of old negatives??

 

I know, I know. But, I think that my setup would do for 99% of any duping.

 

JohnS.

[Philinflash]

Thanks, John, for the further explanation. After I sent off my reply that you quote above, I began to worry about losing contrast in the copy stand set up. Thoughts?

 

...I guess if you look at this sideways; you have one fantastic sensor in your M8 camera, which is good enough for almost everyone in almost every situation, so, why would it not be good enough to take pictures of old negatives??

 

...

 

I tend to agree with that. I don't really trust scans. I had some done of 4"x5" negatives by a professional lab and I was very unimpressed. I think what I really need is a technology break-through for a third option. I don't like the options of today.