Eos 10D as a MF neg scanner?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Warren Jones, Aug 17, 2003.

  1. Warren Jones

    Warren Jones Guest

    I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in alternate
    processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of the
    old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the light
    source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    produced very flat results.
    External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    Any thoughts?
     
    Warren Jones, Aug 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Warren Jones

    dslr Guest

    Warren Jones wrote:
    >
    > I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in alternate
    > processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    > I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of the
    > old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the light
    > source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    > Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    > produced very flat results.
    > External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    > Any thoughts?


    Worth a try - it won't exactly cost much to find out.
    I've had reasonable success simply photographing 35mm slides on a
    lightbox, but haven't tried negs at all, either B&W or colour.
    I'd suggest mounting the negs in a fairly large (card?) frame to
    completely block any light hitting the camera from the flash other than
    that passing through the neg.

    --
    regards,
    dslr
     
    dslr, Aug 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Warren Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:3f3ff1dc$...
    > I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in alternate
    > processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    > I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of the
    > old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the

    light
    > source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    > Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    > produced very flat results.
    > External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    > Any thoughts?


    Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Aug 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Warren Jones

    snaps! Guest

    Why buy a $500 scanner when you already have a digital camera capable of the
    same thing?
    I used a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on my 10D to do just that. Photograph B&W
    negatives from 6 x 9 cm camera. The only thing I needed to do was alter the
    tone curve afterwards in PhotoShop to get rid of the overly contrasty shots.
    Otherwise the exercise is brilliant, cheap and well worth the effort. I
    imagine one of the cheap slide copiers could be converted to this task and
    get reliable focus if you are doing a lot of them. The prime ingredialt (fo
    me) was a macro lens. If I'd been doing a lot I'd have used a 50mm macro but
    I already had the 100.

    Doug
    --------------------------
    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:6DS%a.51039$...
    >
    > "Warren Jones" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f3ff1dc$...
    > > I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in

    alternate
    > > processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    > > I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of

    the
    > > old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the

    > light
    > > source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    > > Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    > > produced very flat results.
    > > External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    > > Any thoughts?

    >
    > Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >
    >
     
    snaps!, Aug 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Warren Jones

    Alan F Cross Guest

    One advantage of a 'proper' scanner is that you will get near-perfect
    rectilinearity, even illumination and known scale.

    A camera solution will be subject to image curvature
    (barrel/pincushion), possibly some corner drop-off, and unknown dpi
    until you measure the result. May or may be important in your
    application.

    I have used a copy stand and colour corrected light box with good
    results, subject to the caveats above.


    In message <qST%a.40310$>, snaps!
    <> writes
    >Why buy a $500 scanner when you already have a digital camera capable of the
    >same thing?
    >I used a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on my 10D to do just that. Photograph B&W
    >negatives from 6 x 9 cm camera. The only thing I needed to do was alter the
    >tone curve afterwards in PhotoShop to get rid of the overly contrasty shots.
    >Otherwise the exercise is brilliant, cheap and well worth the effort. I
    >imagine one of the cheap slide copiers could be converted to this task and
    >get reliable focus if you are doing a lot of them. The prime ingredialt (fo
    >me) was a macro lens. If I'd been doing a lot I'd have used a 50mm macro but
    >I already had the 100.
    >
    >Doug
    >--------------------------
    >"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    >news:6DS%a.51039$...
    >>
    >> "Warren Jones" <> wrote in message
    >> news:3f3ff1dc$...
    >> > I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in

    >alternate
    >> > processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    >> > I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of

    >the
    >> > old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the

    >> light
    >> > source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    >> > Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    >> > produced very flat results.
    >> > External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    >> > Any thoughts?

    >>
    >> Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.
    >>
    >> Gary Eickmeier
    >>
    >>

    >
    >


    --
    Alan F Cross
     
    Alan F Cross, Aug 18, 2003
    #5
  6. "snaps!" <> wrote:

    > Why buy a $500 scanner when you already have a digital camera capable of

    the
    > same thing?


    The 3200 is a 28 lp/mm scanner. Call it 25 lp/mm. The film in question is "6
    x 12" cm, about 56 x 110 mm actually. 1400 x 2750 line pairs, or 4600 x 8250
    pixels (downsampling to 3 pixels per line pair). That's a 37MP image. Shoot
    with the 10D, and you'll get 3000 x 1500 pixels, or 4.5 MP. (Note that
    comparing at 3 pixels per line pair is the right thing, because the 10D
    requires almost exactly 3 pixels to resolve a line pair at its limiting
    resolution.)

    > I used a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on my 10D to do just that. Photograph B&W
    > negatives from 6 x 9 cm camera.


    From 6x9 (56x82mm) the difference isn't so gross: since the aspect ratios
    match, you get a 6MP image from the 10D, and 4600 x 6900 pixels (31 MP) from
    the scanner. A factor of 5 difference.

    Quibbles: 25 lp/mm might still be a tad optimisitic for the film+scanner
    combination. Assuming 20 lp/mm would bring the film+scanner combination down
    to 23 MP for 6x12 and 19 MP for 6x9. Still a lot better than the 10D...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 18, 2003
    #6
  7. dslr wrote in message <>...
    [...]
    >Worth a try - it won't exactly cost much to find out.
    >I've had reasonable success simply photographing 35mm slides on a
    >lightbox, but haven't tried negs at all, either B&W or colour.
    >I'd suggest mounting the negs in a fairly large (card?) frame to
    >completely block any light hitting the camera from the flash other than
    >that passing through the neg.


    Good advice. Equally important is the quality of illumination. Hard,
    directional light will usually give hard, low quality results. Use soft
    indirect light.

    Regards,
    Carsten J. Arnholm, Oslo, Norway.
    http://carnholm.home.online.no
     
    Carsten J. Arnholm, Aug 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Warren Jones

    Tom Monego Guest

    I don't think you would get as good a copy as with a scanner, certainly no the
    file size. Have you tried a ProPhoto CD, about $12 at www.imagers.com. If you
    want to use a copier, why not just use the existing strobe, or the
    illumination bulb, one of the beauties of digital is testing costs nothing.
    I'm not sure the auto strobe would work as a transmissive light source, they
    generally require reflected light to work. The Bessler slide duper had a more
    intense viewing light than the illumitrans. If you have an Illumitrans and the
    camera fits, it will work fine. Have used both for film.

    Tom


    In article <3f3ff1dc$>, says...
    >
    >I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in alternate
    >processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    >I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of the
    >old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the light
    >source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    >Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    >produced very flat results.
    >External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    >Any thoughts?
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tom Monego, Aug 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Warren Jones

    Tom Monego Guest

    A good macrolens, or a copying lens as were sold with the slide copiers are
    very flat field lenses with generally over coverage for 35mm, so for a small
    sensor there should be no fall off. Use a standard lens, prime or zoom
    (especially zoom) and you are correct.

    Tom

    In article <4fcRggWQABQ$>,
    says...
    >
    >One advantage of a 'proper' scanner is that you will get near-perfect
    >rectilinearity, even illumination and known scale.
    >
    >A camera solution will be subject to image curvature
    >(barrel/pincushion), possibly some corner drop-off, and unknown dpi
    >until you measure the result. May or may be important in your
    >application.
    >
    >I have used a copy stand and colour corrected light box with good
    >results, subject to the caveats above.
    >
    >
    >In message <qST%a.40310$>, snaps!
    ><> writes
    >>Why buy a $500 scanner when you already have a digital camera capable of the
    >>same thing?
    >>I used a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on my 10D to do just that. Photograph B&W
    >>negatives from 6 x 9 cm camera. The only thing I needed to do was alter the
    >>tone curve afterwards in PhotoShop to get rid of the overly contrasty shots.
    >>Otherwise the exercise is brilliant, cheap and well worth the effort. I
    >>imagine one of the cheap slide copiers could be converted to this task and
    >>get reliable focus if you are doing a lot of them. The prime ingredialt (fo
    >>me) was a macro lens. If I'd been doing a lot I'd have used a 50mm macro but
    >>I already had the 100.
    >>
    >>Doug
    >>--------------------------
    >>"Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    >>news:6DS%a.51039$...
    >>>
    >>> "Warren Jones" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:3f3ff1dc$...
    >>> > I've got a bunch of 6x12cm (120) B/w negs that I want to use in

    >>alternate
    >>> > processes. ie make into enlarged Digital Contact Negatives, on OHP's.
    >>> > I have a 10D, and wonder if it's worth constructing the equivalent of

    >>the
    >>> > old Illumatrans slide copier, using the 550EX flash off camera as the
    >>> light
    >>> > source of the 10D,in conjunction with a copy stand.
    >>> > Simply making digital copies off an XRay lightbox
    >>> > produced very flat results.
    >>> > External scanning at this size is too EXPENSIVE!
    >>> > Any thoughts?
    >>>
    >>> Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.
    >>>
    >>> Gary Eickmeier
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >--
    >Alan F Cross
     
    Tom Monego, Aug 18, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ArtKramr

    Color neg to CD to printer...or?

    ArtKramr, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    346
    ArtKramr
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. Trevor Aiston

    35mm Slide/Neg Scanner UK?

    Trevor Aiston, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    614
    Ptarmigan
    Sep 21, 2003
  3. Sam Carleton

    fast neg scanner

    Sam Carleton, Oct 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    350
    PiZzazA
    Oct 13, 2003
  4. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,651
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  5. Dave Man

    Neg Scanner vs Digi cam

    Dave Man, Jun 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    591
    Bob Flint
    Jun 8, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page