I got a Jessops duplicator from eBay - new/unused with Nikon T2 adapter box etc for £9.99. Original RRP sticker on the box £39.99. Didn’t expect much as many TH-cam recommendations don’t live up to the hype. I’m never going back to my Epson Perfection 4990 after this. Nikon D800 delivered perfect scans in huge RAW files. Couldn’t be happier. A million thanks - Slainthe! From Scotland. A 70 something film addict.
Just 3 remarks about the slides copy, 1st to have the best possible resolution, use the native ISO of your sensor instead of 800 (probably 100 or 200) , 2nd, remove any noise reduction and 3rd shoot in RAW. I tried a lot of settings and those are the best.
I got my duplication lens today, it works great with slides using an M42 speedbooster on my Canon M50.. I had to focus it in which was easy using focus peaking and the magnifying tool. Thank you for this video it really pointed me in the right direction, I'll scan my black and white negatives from my Spotmatic and Voightlander too when I have developed them, which is another skill TH-cam taught me!
Using two glass sheets will sometimes create Newton's Rings, especially for highly smooth film like colour film or low ISO B&W. A solution is to use Anti-Newton glass, although it is not cheap. Can be bought from Knight Optical.
How do you focus the image with the digital camera and slide duplicator lens combination? Mine has no focussing ring. It has a zoom, but that doesn't solve the focus problem.
This slide duplicator was made for the OM Zuiko system and fots on my A7 with an OM Zuiko to e mount adaptor. Focussing is fixed, as is the length of the tube. Which camera are you using? Sensor size will effect how a duplicator works.
Once again, a great video. To scan, I use 2 methods, the 1st one is a film scanner (35mm) and the 2nd is a camera (OMD-EM1) set at is max resolution (50Mp) for 120mm film. I'm looking for a 120 film scanner, but it's really expensive for the few films I shoot per year.
When you do something like @2:47, make sure you choose an appropriate size from the scanner presets, which varies from small to A4, and it turns out you can in fact obtain a large scanned image, but scanning pictures this way is a last resort for several reasons, especially for smaller copies produced from half-frame film in the 1940-50s on paper with marked texture.
Picked up the last method recently and personally prefer shooting against a bright, even light at ISO100 to keep the noise at minimum. And rather using a slide-copier I use extension tubes and 50mm lens stopped down to maximum to fill the whole frame. Otherwise keep up the good work! Contrary to my username, I love tour videos!
I just bought this "Ohnar Zoom Reverser" that's attached to a Praktica camera and I cant wait to receive it. Of course, I do need a full frame camera, since mine is cropped, but I'm waiting for Panasonic Lumix S1H- 2 to be released
The JESSOP slide duplicators have a T2 thread. ( Not the M42 thread of your old Pentax) To the slide duplicator must be fixed one of the 25 different T2-adapters with a camera mount. Your Jessop has a Olympus OM mount. And with the OM -NEX adapter it has been mounted to your Sony.
Love the idea of 'hybrid' photography, where you shoot film then digitise it for post processing. I'm using an old Russian macro bellows (£15) with an even older enlarger lens (designed for flat field) to copy negs on a lightbox to my DSLR. Even labs can't (usually) ruin developing so you can farm that out if you are not keen on developing film. Great series of videos ;-)
Update 2020. Budget method - having now tried the bellows with enlarger lens and found it too cumbersome, I bought a cheap boom arm and a Pentax 50mm f4 Macro vintage lens. Cheapo PK to EF adapter. Cheapo extension 20mm tube. Heavy tripod to mount everything. Use lightbox as light source, scanner film holder (taped down) to hold neg strips. Mask rest of lightbox out. Turn off room lights and do scanning at night. Once set up you can work quickly to digitise a strip of negs into RAW files. Just slide in the strips. Camera body I use is Canon 5D or 6D using manual settings. Use camera's self timer if you want rock-steady copies. Far superior to any film scanner you can buy and much quicker to use. Boom arm I bought is www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07N8S4HNX?ref=em_1p_0_ti&ref_=pe_115941_441582911
Your Sony said "Processing..." - ??? You have noise reduction switched on, turn it off! Shoot these in uncompressed RAW too, big difference in quality as Sony's RAW files use lossy compression. This way you'll get true 14bit per channel colour. BTW I own a Sony A7Rii so thats 42Mpixel of around 84mb per frame, but its worth doing for the post processing and hard drives are around £25 per terrabyte as I write.
In the example with the flatbed scanner, it is sampling at 300 dpi, but if that's its highest resolution, isn't it maybe a very old scanner? My Epson Perfection V500, which contains both a flatbed base and a negative/slide scanner in the lid, can sample at up to 6400 dpi. I bought it in 2008, but in looking recently to see if I would gain anything by uprevving to the V600 or V800, it appears not, as scanning technology apparently hasn't advanced much in recent years.
Correction: What's in the lid of Epson scanners is not a second scanner, but just a light source, which shines through the negative or slide. Then the flatbed scanner can scan what projects through.
I persevere with my old V500, more modern versions don't add enough image quality but are more convenient for large format, etc. There are better flatbeds, but they are rare and/or cost disproportionately more. Film conversion was intermediate technology and is still something of a bodge.
The results from the Jessops Slide Copier look sharp, I made the mistake of buying a used Jessops ZOOM Slide Copier - I didn't need the zoom function and there is a big quality loss from the poor included lens. Slide copiers come in many forms, some look like that Jessops one but are apparently intended to attach to the 52mm or 55mm filter thread of a 50mm lens. I think the type that use a macro bellows with a slide mount might be the best, then using a proper prime lens. I use a studio LED light.
@@zenography7923 Dust is the same enemy whatever scanning or capture method. I don't mind a few dust spots on old slides but I would like a fairly sharp result. I won an auction cheaply tonight for a Makinon Slide Duplicator, someone online has better examples from one of these!
@@zenography7923 how do you adjust for a whiter LED vs say a sunny day outside? Wouldn’t that make the colours change? What light is used in a commercial lab to make prints, and wouldn’t that colour of light work? Sorry for all the questions... I’ve got 20 years of negatives in boxes, and I think I want to do this. I’m not a real photo person, I just took lots of pictures.
Nice. I've seen some variations of your last method that all work well. I am glad to see film photography making a comeback. With film, to have fabulous photographs required an awareness of, and adaptation to lighting conditions as well as an eye for composition. With the advent of the. sophisticated digital darkroom photographs that, if on film, could only be underexposed with poor contrast were capable of being rendered to at least acceptable. To me this loss in the need to be skilled at taking exceptional photographs took away a bit of the art of photography. I actually gave up photography and switched to painting as a result of the transition, because I like the skill in process as much as the final product. Just recently after becoming aware that film was on the rise and could actually be purchased in common retail stores I dug out my film cameras and plan on buying several grades of bulk B & W film and give the art a go again. A part of me would like to use the traditional print making methods of the mid 19th century, but I may do as you seem inclined to do which is shoot and develope B & W film and I then convert the negative into a digital file. I was also thinking that perhaps I may actually use photo paper and the enlarger for the really prize photographs.
I understand your comments about skills being lost - they were lost as film gave way to the hew technology. My take on it's a little different though, because as older skills are lost, new ones emerge to be mastered. And all the formal rules, and cheats, apply to digital as well as to film. In any case, we can still use film! I hope you're enjoying shooting it once again.
@@zenography7923 Raised w 35mm Some BW Dev. Digital To many files-Film reminds me of Oil Painting Natural look can't be beat. Lost art progress? Culture is lost. HD Electronic Hurts the eyes-Human vision was Never 1080P. Great Videos Very Helpful. Trying to obtain Leica 3G w 4.5 Hektor SM-Half price Repair Shutter CLA lens.
Hi, I've got a slide copier similar to yours, it has a T2 to Pk mount. My camera is a Lumix micro 4/3 and I have a PK to M4/3 adapter but as you pointed out, used with the copier it magnifies the image. There is available (from China) a T2 to m4/3 mount available that seems to bring the copier close to the sensor like an ordinary lens. Do you think that would give me a 1/1 image?
Not necessarily - to project the whole of the image onto your m43 sensor the copier tube would need to be twice as long as the copier you first tried. Check its length first!
I find flatbed scans (Epson V500) good enough for web sharing, but darkroom prints much the preferred option. Colour negative printing requires considerable commitment, and materials and facilities are disappearing. The most efficient method currently is a lightbox and a digital camera, but a macro lens is necessary to get the best quality, and they ain't cheap. Then there's conversion software. Your homespun method requires more patience than I could muster, but It's good to see other people's solutions.
the Canon nFD 50mm f/3.5 macro is tack sharp and wicked cheap on ebay. With a simple adapter, it's an excellent and affordable macro lens. Granted I use this on an APSC camera so I don't know how this lens performs on a FF camera. But for APSC, it has performed well above expectations for both film scanning and regular use
Zenography nah just wipe the negative or use a rocket blower before laying it down. I’ve had very little dust problems. Also, I use those finger condoms to handle the negatives so I don’t get oil on them but if you use cloth gloves, a quick wipe between the fingers before laying it down does the trick also
Well look at that.. I have been pondering over this subject this week.. and look what pops up in, 'suggestions'. Please tell me what would be a fantastic, inexpensive lens to use 2 photograph a negative.. Thank you..
Which industar 61 would you recommend? 55mm l/d version or 52mm zebra version ? and do they realyy have 52.4mm focal length? and 53 or 55mm copies are just marketing? i want to get one which takes sharp and contrasty photos.
I use a slide duplicator with a 80d to remedy the problem of crop factor I shoot the negative at the 4 corners and then I merge them into photoshop like a panorama. Works fine. Does anyone know a faster way?
I've seen it done with a lightbox, shooting down onto the negative from above - it's a method I haven't used yet but I believe it yields good results, and a lot less fuss than merging four shots!
My friend I hate to be a negative, no pun intended but, two things I noticed. When you were talking about scanning a negative in the second example you had your fingers all over the negative. That is a total no no. Second when you were scanning from a full frame camera I noticed that your ISO was 800. I have no idea why you would ever use such a high iso to scan negatives.
Palm Labs in Birmingham is excellent. They use Kodak paper top, rather than Fuji like everybody else. Still scanned and laser printed printed onto optical paper though. I don't think you'll find anywhere that does truly optical minilab printing anymore.
It seems a shame really, but things change I guess. I think maybe digital tech introduces subtle differences into the process; nothing seems to quite match 60s Kodachrome prints. Thanks for watching!
Bonjour, Le Sony fait-il l'inversion de couleur ? Nikon D850 le fait maintenant. Mais j'utilise pour les négatifs un Pentax k-01 qui fait l'inversion de couleur comme tout les Pentax. Avec un objectif 50mm FA 2.8 macro. L'ensemble est peu couteux. .... .... Hello, Does Sony do color inversion ? Nikon D850 does it now. But I use a Pentax k-01 for negatives which does the color inversion like all Pentax. With a 50mm FA 2.8 macro lens. The set is inexpensive.
Quite the long process...and making sure I have even light is essential for the photo method but that being said I enjoy it most of the time, other times it feels a little like work when I am archiving my old family photos.
You could speed it up by using a macro lens setup: lightbox, tripod and slide carrier taped down. Move the film strip along and shoot using a remote cable or timer to avoid shake. If you have a Canon EOS, get an old film-era 50mm FD lens and glassless FD to EF adapter (which will only work as a macro but will give great results).
I bought a used Canon 9000F as well and it works fine for my needs. I used a light table, a tripod and digital camera before which gave me the same results but it was a nightmare to install all the setup. The problem with this method is to take a photograph of a 6x6 image...you have to crop the image so you lose megapixels.
The optics of the traditional slide duplicator are poor at best. The three methods discussed represent the worst methods of getting a quality digital image film 35mm film. I suppose the argument for them is low cost. However, a variety of film scanners from the 1990s,usually with a resolution of 3,000 for less. can be found on ebay and elsewhere for $50 - $100. Add Vuescan to match old XP-generation technology with the latest computer operating systems, and you are miles ahead of these ideas, and probably for less money.
Thanks for the tip! As you rightly say, these methods are simple, low cost solutions, and I've found the slide copier method in particular can give very good results.
Hmm, definitely the single lens in a $30 traditional slide duplicator cannot be matched with the complex lens system of a $300 macro. But, as Zeno pointed out, this single lens element gives very good results. I have an option to buy an inexpensive slide copier here from a local guy for $25, honestly, what can I loose to give it a try? I have the camera, the only thing I'd need is an M42 - NEX or T mount NEX adapter ring.
@@miklosnemeth8566 A 300 dollar macro vs zoom duplicator lens, does adding more glass and coatings between a slide and sensor achieve measurably better results?
Not true, using a Micro Four Thirds camera you certainly don't only get the centre of the frame. If you use an M43 macro lens you get the full frame in excellent quality, that you couldn't tell was not shot with a full frame camera. I have done thousands of them.
I'm sure you can copy negs just fine with the equipment you describe, but a slide duplicator designed for 35mm mounted on a micro four thirds body would, I think, only see the central portion of the image.
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N4f7d0-psIc/mqdefault.jpg)
I got a Jessops duplicator from eBay - new/unused with Nikon T2 adapter box etc for £9.99. Original RRP sticker on the box £39.99. Didn’t expect much as many TH-cam recommendations don’t live up to the hype.
I’m never going back to my Epson Perfection 4990 after this. Nikon D800 delivered perfect scans in huge RAW files. Couldn’t be happier. A million thanks - Slainthe! From Scotland.
A 70 something film addict.
Just 3 remarks about the slides copy, 1st to have the best possible resolution, use the native ISO of your sensor instead of 800 (probably 100 or 200) , 2nd, remove any noise reduction and 3rd shoot in RAW. I tried a lot of settings and those are the best.
I got my duplication lens today, it works great with slides using an M42 speedbooster on my Canon M50.. I had to focus it in which was easy using focus peaking and the magnifying tool. Thank you for this video it really pointed me in the right direction, I'll scan my black and white negatives from my Spotmatic and Voightlander too when I have developed them, which is another skill TH-cam taught me!
I use a macro lens mounted on a camera shooting from a tripod; the slide is positioned on a light emitting panel. Works well.
The CRI of your light source matters.
Using two glass sheets will sometimes create Newton's Rings, especially for highly smooth film like colour film or low ISO B&W. A solution is to use Anti-Newton glass, although it is not cheap. Can be bought from Knight Optical.
How do you focus the image with the digital camera and slide duplicator lens combination? Mine has no focussing ring. It has a zoom, but that doesn't solve the focus problem.
This slide duplicator was made for the OM Zuiko system and fots on my A7 with an OM Zuiko to e mount adaptor. Focussing is fixed, as is the length of the tube. Which camera are you using? Sensor size will effect how a duplicator works.
Once again, a great video. To scan, I use 2 methods, the 1st one is a film scanner (35mm) and the 2nd is a camera (OMD-EM1) set at is max resolution (50Mp) for 120mm film. I'm looking for a 120 film scanner, but it's really expensive for the few films I shoot per year.
When you do something like @2:47, make sure you choose an appropriate size from the scanner presets, which varies from small to A4, and it turns out you can in fact obtain a large scanned image, but scanning pictures this way is a last resort for several reasons, especially for smaller copies produced from half-frame film in the 1940-50s on paper with marked texture.
Picked up the last method recently and personally prefer shooting against a bright, even light at ISO100 to keep the noise at minimum. And rather using a slide-copier I use extension tubes and 50mm lens stopped down to maximum to fill the whole frame. Otherwise keep up the good work! Contrary to my username, I love tour videos!
I just bought this "Ohnar Zoom Reverser" that's attached to a Praktica camera and I cant wait to receive it. Of course, I do need a full frame camera, since mine is cropped, but I'm waiting for Panasonic Lumix S1H- 2 to be released
The JESSOP slide duplicators have a T2 thread.
( Not the M42 thread of your old Pentax)
To the slide duplicator must be fixed one of the
25 different T2-adapters with a camera mount.
Your Jessop has a Olympus OM mount.
And with the OM -NEX adapter it has been
mounted to your Sony.
Indeed it has!
Love the idea of 'hybrid' photography, where you shoot film then digitise it for post processing. I'm using an old Russian macro bellows (£15) with an even older enlarger lens (designed for flat field) to copy negs on a lightbox to my DSLR. Even labs can't (usually) ruin developing so you can farm that out if you are not keen on developing film. Great series of videos ;-)
Update 2020. Budget method - having now tried the bellows with enlarger lens and found it too cumbersome, I bought a cheap boom arm and a Pentax 50mm f4 Macro vintage lens. Cheapo PK to EF adapter. Cheapo extension 20mm tube. Heavy tripod to mount everything. Use lightbox as light source, scanner film holder (taped down) to hold neg strips. Mask rest of lightbox out. Turn off room lights and do scanning at night. Once set up you can work quickly to digitise a strip of negs into RAW files. Just slide in the strips. Camera body I use is Canon 5D or 6D using manual settings. Use camera's self timer if you want rock-steady copies. Far superior to any film scanner you can buy and much quicker to use. Boom arm I bought is www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07N8S4HNX?ref=em_1p_0_ti&ref_=pe_115941_441582911
@@jameswburke thanks mate.
Your Sony said "Processing..." - ??? You have noise reduction switched on, turn it off! Shoot these in uncompressed RAW too, big difference in quality as Sony's RAW files use lossy compression. This way you'll get true 14bit per channel colour. BTW I own a Sony A7Rii so thats 42Mpixel of around 84mb per frame, but its worth doing for the post processing and hard drives are around £25 per terrabyte as I write.
In the example with the flatbed scanner, it is sampling at 300 dpi, but if that's its highest resolution, isn't it maybe a very old scanner? My Epson Perfection V500, which contains both a flatbed base and a negative/slide scanner in the lid, can sample at up to 6400 dpi. I bought it in 2008, but in looking recently to see if I would gain anything by uprevving to the V600 or V800, it appears not, as scanning technology apparently hasn't advanced much in recent years.
Correction: What's in the lid of Epson scanners is not a second scanner, but just a light source, which shines through the negative or slide. Then the flatbed scanner can scan what projects through.
I persevere with my old V500, more modern versions don't add enough image quality but are more convenient for large format, etc. There are better flatbeds, but they are rare and/or cost disproportionately more. Film conversion was intermediate technology and is still something of a bodge.
Scanners are extremely slow in comparison to digital cameras.
And the software is awful unless you're running Vuescan.
great video, thank you ! it would b great to compare the slide-copier-method to a professional slide - scanner.
2 glass is a good idea. Thank you very much.
The results from the Jessops Slide Copier look sharp, I made the mistake of buying a used Jessops ZOOM Slide Copier - I didn't need the zoom function and there is a big quality loss from the poor included lens. Slide copiers come in many forms, some look like that Jessops one but are apparently intended to attach to the 52mm or 55mm filter thread of a 50mm lens. I think the type that use a macro bellows with a slide mount might be the best, then using a proper prime lens. I use a studio LED light.
I'm still refining this method of scanning - the main enemy is dust!
@@zenography7923 Dust is the same enemy whatever scanning or capture method. I don't mind a few dust spots on old slides but I would like a fairly sharp result. I won an auction cheaply tonight for a Makinon Slide Duplicator, someone online has better examples from one of these!
Thank you very much, this was very helpful.
Many thanks, glad it was of some assistance!
With a slide copier, what source of the light you are using?
Daylight if it's strong enough, otherwise an ordinary domestic lamp with diffuser - and appropriate white balance of course!
@@zenography7923 thank you
@@zenography7923 how do you adjust for a whiter LED vs say a sunny day outside? Wouldn’t that make the colours change? What light is used in a commercial lab to make prints, and wouldn’t that colour of light work? Sorry for all the questions... I’ve got 20 years of negatives in boxes, and I think I want to do this. I’m not a real photo person, I just took lots of pictures.
quite useful and easy to understand..
Nice. I've seen some variations of your last method that all work well.
I am glad to see film photography making a comeback. With film, to have fabulous photographs required an awareness of, and adaptation to lighting conditions as well as an eye for composition. With the advent of the. sophisticated digital darkroom photographs that, if on film, could only be underexposed with poor contrast were capable of being rendered to at least acceptable. To me this loss in the need to be skilled at taking exceptional photographs took away a bit of the art of photography. I actually gave up photography and switched to painting as a result of the transition, because I like the skill in process as much as the final product.
Just recently after becoming aware that film was on the rise and could actually be purchased in common retail stores I dug out my film cameras and plan on buying several grades of bulk B & W film and give the art a go again. A part of me would like to use the traditional print making methods of the mid 19th century, but I may do as you seem inclined to do which is shoot and develope B & W film and I then convert the negative into a digital file. I was also thinking that perhaps I may actually use photo paper and the enlarger for the really prize photographs.
I understand your comments about skills being lost - they were lost as film gave way to the hew technology. My take on it's a little different though, because as older skills are lost, new ones emerge to be mastered. And all the formal rules, and cheats, apply to digital as well as to film. In any case, we can still use film! I hope you're enjoying shooting it once again.
@@zenography7923 Raised w 35mm Some BW Dev. Digital To many files-Film reminds me of Oil Painting Natural look can't be beat. Lost art progress? Culture is lost. HD Electronic Hurts the eyes-Human vision was Never 1080P. Great Videos Very Helpful. Trying to obtain Leica 3G w 4.5 Hektor SM-Half price Repair Shutter CLA lens.
Hi, I've got a slide copier similar to yours, it has a T2 to Pk mount. My camera is a Lumix micro 4/3 and I have a PK to M4/3 adapter but as you pointed out, used with the copier it magnifies the image. There is available (from China) a T2 to m4/3 mount available that seems to bring the copier close to the sensor like an ordinary lens. Do you think that would give me a 1/1 image?
Not necessarily - to project the whole of the image onto your m43 sensor the copier tube would need to be twice as long as the copier you first tried. Check its length first!
@@zenography7923 Thanks for the reply, I'll try to extend the tube using my bellows.
Hello, loving your channel, if you aim your duplication lens at a blue sky with black and white negatives, you get a beautiful sepia image!
Indeed you do - if you don't custom white balance!
@@zenography7923 the effect is worth no white balance, besides, I've not delved into custom white balance yet, I'm a lockdown learner! 😀
So would the glass potentially scratch the film negative? How careful should I bev
Yes, glass could certainly scratch the negative - handle with care!
I find flatbed scans (Epson V500) good enough for web sharing, but darkroom prints much the preferred option. Colour negative printing requires considerable commitment, and materials and facilities are disappearing.
The most efficient method currently is a lightbox and a digital camera, but a macro lens is necessary to get the best quality, and they ain't cheap. Then there's conversion software. Your homespun method requires more patience than I could muster, but It's good to see other people's solutions.
the Canon nFD 50mm f/3.5 macro is tack sharp and wicked cheap on ebay. With a simple adapter, it's an excellent and affordable macro lens. Granted I use this on an APSC camera so I don't know how this lens performs on a FF camera. But for APSC, it has performed well above expectations for both film scanning and regular use
It's one way to do it, but dust can be a problem...
Zenography nah just wipe the negative or use a rocket blower before laying it down. I’ve had very little dust problems. Also, I use those finger condoms to handle the negatives so I don’t get oil on them but if you use cloth gloves, a quick wipe between the fingers before laying it down does the trick also
Well look at that.. I have been pondering over this subject this week.. and look what pops up in, 'suggestions'. Please tell me what would be a fantastic, inexpensive lens to use 2 photograph a negative.. Thank you..
Olympus Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro, Pentax 50mm f4 macro perhaps? They're both 1:2 magnification, so would work even better on micro four thirds...
@@zenography7923 Thank you very much.. Until I manage to obtain a dedicated macro.... trial and error.. with existing.
Which industar 61 would you recommend? 55mm l/d version or 52mm zebra version ? and do they realyy have 52.4mm focal length? and 53 or 55mm copies are just marketing? i want to get one which takes sharp and contrasty photos.
As I understand it, the focal lengths, and the glass in the lenses is the same, I think the l/d was just a marketing thing.
I use a slide duplicator with a 80d to remedy the problem of crop factor I shoot the negative at the 4 corners and then I merge them into photoshop like a panorama. Works fine. Does anyone know a faster way?
I've seen it done with a lightbox, shooting down onto the negative from above - it's a method I haven't used yet but I believe it yields good results, and a lot less fuss than merging four shots!
consider get a 5D I, is reaaally cheap today. And at ISO 100 is a great sensor
The idea with the two glasses ist great but why you scan with iso 800?
I assume low light
My friend I hate to be a negative, no pun intended but, two things I noticed. When you were talking about scanning a negative in the second example you had your fingers all over the negative. That is a total no no. Second when you were scanning from a full frame camera I noticed that your ISO was 800. I have no idea why you would ever use such a high iso to scan negatives.
Whoops that was careless of me! Thanks for watching.
dude.... what was GOOD ABOUT HIS VIDEO? anything? :)))
Excellent method!
Palm Labs in Birmingham is excellent. They use Kodak paper top, rather than Fuji like everybody else. Still scanned and laser printed printed onto optical paper though. I don't think you'll find anywhere that does truly optical minilab printing anymore.
It seems a shame really, but things change I guess. I think maybe digital tech introduces subtle differences into the process; nothing seems to quite match 60s Kodachrome prints. Thanks for watching!
Hello, can you still buy last mashine these days?
Hi there, slide copiers are available secondhand very cheaply - lots for sale on ebay. Thanks for watching.
Excellent Tips as ever .. thanks for sharing ;-)
And thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
Bonjour,
Le Sony fait-il l'inversion de couleur ? Nikon D850 le fait maintenant. Mais j'utilise pour les négatifs un Pentax k-01 qui fait l'inversion de couleur comme tout les Pentax. Avec un objectif 50mm FA 2.8 macro. L'ensemble est peu couteux.
....
....
Hello,
Does Sony do color inversion ? Nikon D850 does it now. But I use a Pentax k-01 for negatives which does the color inversion like all Pentax. With a 50mm FA 2.8 macro lens. The set is inexpensive.
Non, je ne pense pas que le sony fait l'inversion - malhereusement!
Can this be done with 110 film?
Yes, but you have to make a 110 frame
and mount it into a 35 mm slide frame.
You might use a 3 slide frame with glass.
Quite the long process...and making sure I have even light is essential for the photo method but that being said I enjoy it most of the time, other times it feels a little like work when I am archiving my old family photos.
You could speed it up by using a macro lens setup: lightbox, tripod and slide carrier taped down. Move the film strip along and shoot using a remote cable or timer to avoid shake. If you have a Canon EOS, get an old film-era 50mm FD lens and glassless FD to EF adapter (which will only work as a macro but will give great results).
Hi, there is another way: with a diaprojector and kamera. Very fast and cheap. And may be automatic 36 slides.
I'll investigate that method, thanks!
ISO800? Processing? You have NR processing on or something? Why?
@@calebkunene I know... makes literally no sense, does it?
Where can I find this slide copier?
R. Jova Robles R. Ebay
I use a Canon 9000f II, takes 35, 120 and slides, gives very good results.
I bought a used Canon 9000F as well and it works fine for my needs. I used a light table, a tripod and digital camera before which gave me the same results but it was a nightmare to install all the setup. The problem with this method is to take a photograph of a 6x6 image...you have to crop the image so you lose megapixels.
Mine is the original 9000f. I am pleased with the results.
Excellent
The optics of the traditional slide duplicator are poor at best. The three methods discussed represent the worst methods of getting a quality digital image film 35mm film. I suppose the argument for them is low cost. However, a variety of film scanners from the 1990s,usually with a resolution of 3,000 for less. can be found on ebay and elsewhere for $50 - $100. Add Vuescan to match old XP-generation technology with the latest computer operating systems, and you are miles ahead of these ideas, and probably for less money.
Thanks for the tip! As you rightly say, these methods are simple, low cost solutions, and I've found the slide copier method in particular can give very good results.
Hmm, definitely the single lens in a $30 traditional slide duplicator cannot be matched with the complex lens system of a $300 macro. But, as Zeno pointed out, this single lens element gives very good results. I have an option to buy an inexpensive slide copier here from a local guy for $25, honestly, what can I loose to give it a try? I have the camera, the only thing I'd need is an M42 - NEX or T mount NEX adapter ring.
@@miklosnemeth8566
A 300 dollar macro vs zoom duplicator lens, does adding more glass and coatings between a slide and sensor achieve measurably better results?
My reflecta RPS 10M is a good scanner
There has been a resurgence in film since this video was made
Indeed there has - long may it continue!
Not true, using a Micro Four Thirds camera you certainly don't only get the centre of the frame. If you use an M43 macro lens you get the full frame in excellent quality, that you couldn't tell was not shot with a full frame camera. I have done thousands of them.
I'm sure you can copy negs just fine with the equipment you describe, but a slide duplicator designed for 35mm mounted on a micro four thirds body would, I think, only see the central portion of the image.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO SOME ASMR!!
No, just using my natural voice!