| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2005 12:15:16 PM · #1 |
I just got closeupfilters for my L lenses and was trying it out..
I borrowed a filmsaceenr a few weeks ago, the Dimage II and it was lousy, I threw all the scans away...
now I took my 580EX and put the StoFen omnibounce on it, then I taped my slides film on the stofen, set up my camera and focused on the film, I had the ST-E2 transmitter on my camera, used the 70-200L IS f2.8 set at f32 ISO 100 and shutter was set at 1/80 sec and I had HOYA 4X and HOYA 2X filters on my lens.
I took this picture 
and this is a 100% crop 
the results are much better than with the Dimage scanner :)
I have more tests to do with this, this was only my first try.
please comment on my results. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 12:18:07 PM · #2 |
| My dad does this with an extension tube and gets phenomenally good results. He put a 12mm tube on his nikkor 28-105 lens and gets almost 1:1 with it. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 12:22:53 PM · #3 |
Commercially made slide adapters are available that will permit most cameras to copy slides and 35mm film. Check on eBay, usually several there at modest prices.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:23:47 PM · #4 |
| I own the Dimage II slide scanner, in what way is it lousy? |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:53:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I own the Dimage II slide scanner, in what way is it lousy? |
the resolution, contrast, focus, and just about everything was bad, I even tried to scan in the highest resolution possible and got a 1.6GB file and even then the image was bad.
I took the same image and had t scanned in a drumscan and it came out perfect, I took the negative to my darkroom and developed it and it was very good, it was only the scan from the Dimage II that was really bad.
as I said, I borrrowed it, it might have been faulty since all my scans were bad, but all my negatives and slides were good. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 07:55:48 PM · #6 |
I own a Dimage Elite Scan 5400 and it isn't worth the space it takes up as a paperwieght.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:13:06 PM · #7 |
I've been considering using a similar set-up to "scan" the rest of my Dad's 3,000 slides. I have about 1000 left to scan, and I need to make multiple scan passes with my old Nikon LS-30 on higher density slides. Takes forever.
The only thing you lose with the camera vs. the film scanner is the ability to do an infrared "cleaning" of the dust on the slide. It's a trade-off that may or may not be worth the extra speed.
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 21:13:44.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:15:02 PM · #8 |
| Do those camera attachments use ambient light or an internal source? If exterior, the color of the light can be critical. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 09:17:30 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do those camera attachments use ambient light or an internal source? If exterior, the color of the light can be critical. |
Most of them require a separate, external light source. Daylight or a flash works best. As long as the source is well-known, the results can be batch-processed from RAW with the same settings.
For my use, I'm not so worried about it, since many of the slides I have to scan need significant corection anyway.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 11:42:18 PM · #10 |
Scanning with a camera is not an option for me. I have too many files. I am about to invest in a Nikon Coolscan 5000. It supposedly does batch scans of 50 slides. If it works I can live with that.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 06:24:24 PM EDT.
