• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • For slides I get better results shooting them with my camera than using an Epson V600 flatbed scanner. I don't know if that would be the case if using one of the better scanners. There are two main advantages. The first is speed. I can go lots faster putting the slide in the adapter, verifying focus, and tripping the shutter with a remote release than I can getting slides into the scanner and waiting for Vuescan to do its thing.

      The second advantage is dust. The scanner is a dust magnet. I have much less of an issue with dust using the camera. I wipe a box worth of slides down with a Pex Pad before shooting. I hit both sides of the slide with a rocket blower before inserting it into the adapter.

      Down side is focus. The cheap Canon lens changes focus when you breath on it because of the weight of the adapter. You also have to jump though a minor hoop to shoot at other than wide open. The DOF wide open with the extension tube is maybe 0.5mm! I shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 -- don't remember exactly which one. Manual exposure with the meter reading 1 stop over seems to give me the best results.

      Example: My brother on his way back from Baja in '73.

    • Local place wanted $7 a print to scan and print the large format negative! and they wonder why local places go out of business.  
      The majority of placers are only set up for 35mm.
      Buying a scanner and using it for the handful of negatives I have is actually cheaper and a huge waste all at the same time. Time invested should be calculated as well I suppose.
      Or I could make an adapter and try the on camera approach.
      What weird and wonderful negative size options they had back in the day.

    • Okay, I finally gave it a test run and I love it. These negatives are 20 years old. This is right off the scanner with no adjustments.

    • This is the one in the thread above where I worried about dynamic range. The sky was bright and on the prints this guy was totally silhouetted.

    • These latest image scans have a very pleasing tonal distribution and natural rendition.

      The last image does have some weirdness going on, mostly visible in the sky, with a normal sky on the left side, transitioning to rather mushy tones in the middle, and the right side is improved over the middle but not as good as the left side. Still, you are correct that it's a big improvement over the print version originally shown.

      Altogether, very promising results.

    • Thanks, Ziggy. I did some post processing on the second one and you're right, the sky is kinda funky.

      I went through the whole roll of film liking what I was seeing on the back of the camera but I was surprised to find out that the files were saved as JPEGs. Huh? After spending 30 minutes scanning them all (you're right that this is not a fast method), I didn't feel like going back again and figuring out what was wrong with my settings.