Dilemma regarding Epson Perfection V700 Photo Scanner for digitalising 35mm colour slides....

[Chimbu]

This particular scanner's allegedly quite decent for the primary intended purpose of digitalising a couple of hundred of my old 35mm colour slides - with the bonus thereafter of being a good quality (but infrequently used) flatbed scanner for documents, photos etc. Alternatively, a local photo printing outlet will scan them at the rate of $1 per slide - thereafter, any visual 'faults' would have be processed via my PhotoShop SC4 as opposed to the software supplied with the scanner. The related uncertainty lies with whether it's worthwhile outlaying a considerable sum of money for the Epsom scanner in the hope that it produces a noticeably higher quality digital image than that scanned by the mentioned printing outlet. Accordingly, I'd love to hear from anyone who has had pleasing results with digitalising 35mm colour slides using either the scanner or a printing outlet of sorts. In hindsight, I could also trial the latter with a dozen or so slides and critically view the end result.

[junqbox]

For $1 per scan, I wouldn't count on the image being of a reasonable size/quality (probably around postcard size at lo-res. Professional scans I've had done in the past are usually around the $30 mark. One option to look at is the Nikon CoolScan (great reputation for hardware and it's associated software) and then re-sell after you've completed the job.
Another alternative I've seen good results with, is setting up a lightbox and your camera on a tripod and doing it that way.

[Chimbu]

Junqbox, apparently the local photo printing outlet scans each 35mm slide at 300 dpi - hence why it's only $1 per slide. Note, how decent a quality would that be for either viewing on my Apple 27" iMac or for printing up to A4 size ? A brief web search indicates that Nikon CoolScans (like the V LS-50 ED) are discontinued. Bearing in mind that I've currently only got a Canon PowerShot G10, could you please elaborate what you mean by "setting up a lightbox and your camera on a tripod and doing it that way".

[KeeFy]

http://www.feelingnegative.com/digitaldarkside/a-collection-of-diy-film-scanners


You do get pretty good quality photos as well!

[junqbox]

Basically you use a lightbox, as in what is used to view slides and transparencies, to backlight your slide. Create a cardboard cutout 'template', so your slides will be in the same position each time on the lightbox [also good to 'black' out the rest of the lightbox, so no light leakage (thereby affecting your exposure settings). Then set-up your camera on a tripod and zoom in (optical only) and focus on the image within the slide frame and use your remote/or timer to photograph the slide. Further reference here- http://www.pbase.com/lowthian/digitizing_old_slides
As for the CoolScan, they often pop-up second hand, usually by people in the same position as yourself, ie- needed to scan x amount of slides, then pass onto the next person.

[Chimbu]

Keefy and Junqbox, thanks heaps for the related links - I love the notion of alternatively improvising with things so I'm keen to tinker around with some of the suggested ideas. I've never used my G10 in RAW / manual focus / macro modes before so I'm keen to inexpensively & creatively experiment with 'digital shooting' some old 35mm slides - hopefully it will be a worthwhile and cost saving experience. Cheers.

[ameerat42]

Chimbu, whatever you do, don't get them scanned at 300 dpi. That's 450 x 300

[Chimbu]

Ameerat42, what a waste it would have been if my cherished slides were scanned at 300 dpi - thanks for clarifying the matter. I've been busy out in my workshop modifying an old wooden bird box into a semi-enclosed lightbox - rather than using white paper to diffuse the light I'm going to trial some translucent plastic or glass. Similarily, I might incorporate an enclosed light source (with a dimmer switch to readily vary the light intensity) rather than using one of my old slide projectors. With a bit of luck I might have it operational tomorrow.

[arthurking83]

I was in the same boat about this time last year, and had planned to get a v700 myself for the same reason(plus the bonus of a high quality general scanner, which I'd use once in two years :p).

In the end I went for the photographic option, so I purchased a slide copy scanner instead, which doubles up as a great macro device.

If you use Photoshop, I believe this software has the option to invert colours whilst in the raw format so you won't come unstuck as I have with my preferred software not doing the colour inversion at the raw stage.
The ability to shoot in raw mode is probably quite important to begin with so that you have the best possible format for accurate colour balance.

My current issue is that I have to work in reverse, where to warm up the 'print' I need to cool down the negative and so on .. darken to brighten and so forth as I need to get the file set as a tif or jpg as best as I can, where I then import the final negative into Paint.net where I can do the colour inversion and get an image that looks like a photo.

Seeing as you're using a 'point and shoot' (albeit a high quality) model in the G12, I wouldn't be tempted to overdo the level of optical zoom. Find a focal length that works best in terms of sharpness and distortion and use that.
I believe that these cameras have a macro setting, so you may need to enter into this mode to eliminate as much periphery as you can. Macro mode is usually enabled via the 'universal flower icon'.

What junqbox described is basically how the bellows unit I purchased works too. An opaque windows through which you backlight the slide and keep external lighting out as well as stabilise the film.

So far what I've noted with my attempts. Use a cold temp light source for back lighting. Brighter is better for the sake of exposure/shutter speed etc.
If the G12 has IS in camera enabled, switch it off making sure that no ISO boost as part of a hybrid IS is also enabled and use a tripod .. more for the framing than anything else.

I used a halogen light source which turned out way too warm on the negs, hence way too cool on the prints.

If my preferred software had colour inversion, I'd have already scanned my negatives and started on my parent old slide too by now.

[KeeFy]

Ameerat42, what a waste it would have been if my cherished slides were scanned at 300 dpi - thanks for clarifying the matter. I've been busy out in my workshop modifying an old wooden bird box into a semi-enclosed lightbox - rather than using white paper to diffuse the light I'm going to trial some translucent plastic or glass. Similarily, I might incorporate an enclosed light source (with a dimmer switch to readily vary the light intensity) rather than using one of my old slide projectors. With a bit of luck I might have it operational tomorrow.

Remember that the slide bit for the negatives to go in needs to be smooth and padded with velvet or the lining of flim canisters (where the film comes out of) so that it does not scratch your flim. Should you need some used flim canisters i can post some to you for free as i have a few lying around. Just pm me your address and i can send them out tomorrow or friday.

Have fun!

[Chimbu]

Arthurking83, it's interesting that the related reference links have contrasting focal lengths - namely, "the focus distance from the front of the lens body to the slide is just over 8 inches" Vs "with a macro lens, the closer you can get to the film, the more resolution you’ll get from it". I'm in favour of the latter. As also suggested by Dick, I'll initially trial shooting with the aperture priority at f/8 and the ISO at 200. The amount of external lighting currently concerns me - specifically, on the slide / camera side of the lightbox as this will vary depending on where and when the apparatus is set up. Also, rather than using one of my old fan cooled slide projectors as a back light source I'll seek the advice of a local photographer friend regarding the notion of alternatively using a less cumbersome cold temp light source. Note, I have the older G10, not the current G12.

Keefy, I'm going to use the 35mm colour slides in tact so a simple slot (eg. cut into a suitable piece of black coloured wood or plastic etc) will securely hold the slide by its cardboard or plastic mounting frame - hence the film itself won't be damaged. Thanks all the same for offering me some old film canisters - their padded lining certainly would be ideal if I was shooting film strips rather than slides.

[Chimbu]

Some further related thoughts - a friend suggested setting the G10's tone to White Balance rather than AWB / Auto in addition to using a cool white LED light source rather than a warm halogen globe (as found in my old Slide projector). Also, to essentially eliminate any external light interference I'm also considering the construction of a 'sealed' lighbox - (namely, with a peep hole just big enough for the lens to slip inside (using Macro & manual focus), and a hinged lid to allow direct access to the slide holder). However, whereas the Epsom V700 allegedly has excellent Digital Ice software (for processing possible blemishes like scratches etc) I'm unaware if PhotoShop SC4's capable of such processing - once the slides have been digitalised ???? If not, then the notion of constructing a 'lightbox' would be a waste of time and money. Note, I've had minimal experience using PhotoShop; currently somewhat restricted to cropping, and the following sequence - Image / Adjustments / Curves. Any related advice would be most appreciated.

[ameerat42]

Re the "digital ice" s/w, it is useful only to the extent that the slides are particularly dirty. Pshop has clone and heal tools, and any such action affects the originality of the image, anyway. I don't know how good your lens is, but do look out for edge quality drop-off when using it under extreme conditions.
Your lightbox sounds interesting and when it's a reality I'd like to see a pic of it.
Am.

[KeeFy]

*doh* slides. Not strips. I swear i need to start comprehending properly these days! No worries tho. I too would love to see your setup once you're done! I have a cheapish scanner that i purchased that is not very good admittedly and i do all the PP in photoshop cs5. Blemishes and dust are all just a simple content aware fill, heal, clone, etc. Look up some videos on how to do skin touchup and that should give you some idea of how use the function.

Can it shoot in RAW? If so shoot in raw and set your white balance to anything other than auto so you can do a quick batch process on the white balance for all the photos. Also set 100 ISO to ensure low/no noise.

[Chimbu]

KeeFy, the G10 can shoot in RAW (a first for me, so bearing in mind that it's allegedly got an appetite for memory I went out and bought a FujiFilm SDHC 16GB Class 10 card). Regarding the ISO setting, to hopefully further minimise any noise I'll initially use 80 rather than a 100. As for the choice of back light source, I'll first trial a Philips Tornado Extra Bright / Warm White 20W (100W) energy saver globe mounted in a disused bed head lamp (the end of the metal shade sits snugly inside a piece of PVC pipe, which passes through the internal wooden dividing wall, thus directly beaming the light onto my light diffuser - a piece of off-cut laminated glass ,with a translucent piece of plastic sandwiched between the sheets, sourced and cut for free by my local glazier) so basically all I need to do now is paint my improvised lightbox, set it up and then post some pics of it. Touch wood it works ok !

[Cage]

I can't wait to see if it all works out OK.

I have a squillion negatives I'd like to digitise.

[arthurking83]

I wouldn't use a 'warm white' energy saver/CFL type light globe. Try to find a higher 5000+K(temp) globe. Lots of people hate them for general purpose use, but for photography(eg in your study where your main photography PC may reside, they're a much better colour balance. Higher K value is better.
Warm white CFLs have a weird green cast to them, and even tho you're working in raw format and whitebalance is easily accounted for, I think it's just easier to get it right to begin with.

[KeeFy]

I wouldn't use a 'warm white' energy saver/CFL type light globe. Try to find a higher 5000+K(temp) globe. Lots of people hate them for general purpose use, but for photography(eg in your study where your main photography PC may reside, they're a much better colour balance. Higher K value is better.
Warm white CFLs have a weird green cast to them, and even tho you're working in raw format and whitebalance is easily accounted for, I think it's just easier to get it right to begin with.

The green cast will not be a problem if shooting below 1/50th of a second and all cfls suffer from them not just the white or warm white ones. If i'm not wrong (theoretically thinking so i may be wrong as well) as the light is contained like in a softbox, the colour cast should not be a problem at all. The newer electronic ballasts will help to control the flicker vs the old traditional magnetic ballasts. I absolutely and totally agree about getting it right the first time, will save you heaps of time.

Maybe you can consider using a led light panel to be the backlight?

Pictures please! :D

[Chimbu]

Trublubiker, I've predominantly constructed my improvised lightbox from melamined particle board which will require a couple of coats of rather slow drying enamel flat black paint so I'm impatiently waiting in the process !

Arthurking83 and Keefy, the shaded light assembly will allow me to readily trial a number of different screw in globes (eg. a Cromptom 5000K/Cool White, R80 Fluorescent, 15 watt/75w, 583 lumen output, soft start & flicker free, protected from electrical surge, 80% Energy Saving, 6000 hours) - hence why I've adapted such a relatively simple and versatile back light source system. As per the above, I'm hanging out to do some investigative digitalising of my old cherished 35mm colour slides.

[Chimbu]

The translucent plastic sandwiched between the laminated glass sheets unfortunately doesn't effectively diffuse the light - namely, the circular outline of the beam's clearly visible on the slide. Accordingly, I'll sound out a couple of local lighting retailers tomorrow on the off chance that they have a 'damaged' plastic textured household light diffuser. Also, I originally thought of mounting the slides in a slotted readily removable wooden block but soon discovered that it's somewhat finicky - eg. taking into account the precise re-positioning each time in relation to the camera lens plus the slightly different portrait & landscape slide mounting heights. So, I'm currently in the process of setting up two separate but fixed vertical slide mounts (using pieces of grooved aluminium) which, while focusing using the LED screen in MACRO mode, will simply mean minutely moving the camera forward or aft instead. I certainly hope that it ultimately works ok.......!

[arthurking83]

That's a bummer!

How large is your piece of opaque plastic?

Reason I ask is that the Nikon PB-4's slide copy adapter uses a plain jane piece of opaque plastic as the light source diffuser .. no texturing.
The size of the diffuser is approx the size of a 35mm frame give or take an unmeasurable mil or so .. so maybe the size is important? :confused013

I had the halogen light source(20W) quite close to the diffuser itself, and while I know they can produce a fair bit of heat, it never became an issue in terms of causing the film or slide adapter to get over hot in any way.

In terms of exposure, and considering my quick and inexperienced setup method, the images I received back on the camera were all close to perfect.
My only issue is the inability to invert the negs easily in software.

[Chimbu]

Arthurking83, my light diffuser hole's currently 8cm in diameter (loosely based on Dick's 3" x 3" hole dimensions, refer; http://www.pbase.com/lowthian/digitizing_old_slides). I could quite easily trial a range of 'superimposed' cardboard cut outs (with the option of also including a 'sandwiched' piece of white paper) and if that's unsuccessful then I'll similarly experiment using a plastic textured light diffuser. Thankfully I love tinkering with all manner of things in my workshop so hopefully I'll soon get it right with a bit of fine tuning.....

[Chimbu]

I unsuccessfully tried further diffusing the back light by using a 1.5cm x 1cm hole cut into a piece of black plastic and then superimposed over the mentioned translucent glass. In turn, a local light retailer has referred me to a another glazier who apparently also cuts textured perspex light diffusers to size.....I'll check him out first thing on Monday.

[Chimbu]

I've since tinkered with various light diffuser combinations - the initial translucent laminated sheet, a piece of textured perspex, a cut out piece of black plastic and white paper - as per the following pics, taken with my daughter's hand held Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX68. I've adapted part of an old tripod to a microphone stand's weighted base - super stable and readily positions the lens in line with the lightbox's peep hole. Note, I still haven't been able to take a decent pic of a slide yet - so many setting options compared to my old comparatively simple 35mm Minolta SLR. I'll just keep on experimenting....

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000758.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000755.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000761.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000762.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000759.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/P1000765.jpg

[arthurking83]

First of all, I have to highlight my complete noobness and lack of experience when it comes to photographing slides and so forth, and my only experience is limited to using the Nikon PB-4 bellows.
But the design differences between it and your box differ in one important way. That is the distance from the light source and the slide.

Going by the design of the bellows plus film attachment, I'd be inclined to place the opaque plastic sheet right up against the film .. or as close to it as possible.
The opaque sheet is in effect the light source even tho the lamp itself provides the actual photons, it seems the proximity of the diffuser is probably more important.

I've tried various distances of the light source to the diffuser on the bellows and it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference other than actual exposure.
But because of the proximity of the diffuser to the slide, I think is why I there is none of this circular outline of the beam of light.

The way I'd have set up this box(based on the workings of the slide attachment) is to have the rear of the box fully open for the lamp to peer into, and have that rear wall of the box right up against the back of the slide, including the small window cutout that appears to be present.
If you could imagine that as the design, you get an idea of how the bellows+film holder look like.

If you want some images of them for reference .... see HERE (http://www.mir.com.my/michaeliu/cameras/shared/ff2macro/ff2bellow.htm). Scroll half way down and look for the device marked PS-4(or 5 or 6.. they're basically the same). Note that there is a bellows between lens and film holder. If you look at the image of both the film holder attached to the bellows the very far end of the device in front of the lens is where the film is held.. ie. right up front and against the diffuser.
Ambient light is sufficient to capture an image at a half reasonable exposure value, but faster shutter speeds are better. Hence more light of a consistent nature is used.

[Chimbu]

Arthurking83, sincere thanks regarding your insightful thought of locating the slide closer to the light diffuser - I actually trialled a variation yesterday by mounting the slide in the slotted movable wooden block and positioning it up against the light diffuser at the light end of the box. However, the resulting distance between the lens and the slide was then out of macro focussing range (which allegedly reduces resolution). So I simply reversed the procedure, namely, I positioned the light diffuser directly behind the fixed slide mounting system (at the camera end of the lightbox) thus enabling me to readily use macro focus with the added bonus of completely eliminating the annoying bright light beam which occurred when the slide was similarly mounted but with the light diffuser positioned nearest the light end of the box. I'll tinker some more today with the related light diffuser materials and camera settings - the joys of hands-on investigative learning.

[Chimbu]

I finally worked out the 'best' light diffuser (the original piece of laminated glass, with a W5cm x H4.5cm 'window' cut out of a piece of black plastic) and it's position relative to the back light source (a 5000K / Cool white 15W Fluorescent screw in globe) and the colour slide (readily mounted for MACRO focussing), refer;

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/IMG_2875.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/IMG_2877.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/IMG_2876.jpg

[Cage]

Very impressive bit of innovation. :th3:

I've just seen your post with the finished product so came back for another look here. :wd:

[Chimbu]

Thanks Trublubiker, I firmly believe in sharing relevant knowledge / skills etc for the benefit of all. Accordingly, if anyone wants to use any of my lightbox ideas then they're absolutely welcome - as per any construction inquiries etc.
Cheers, Ross.

[arthurking83]

Bewdy! :th3:

looks just like the real thing! :D

FWIW, the opaque glass has a look very similar to the opaque plastic windows on the Nikon slide attachment.
it probably has an effect on the colour of the light coming through to the film, but that is easily managed on a raw file with a WB adjustment.

Happy copying!

[KeeFy]

With your final product looking really good, i have one little suggestion that may make it better. The inside bit of the box before the glass becoming white instead of black. White will allow the light to bounce around everywhere and give you a more even and efficient lighting rather than a spotlight feel now.

But awesome awesome job mate!

[Chimbu]

Keefy, namely, paint all the inside of the 'lightbox' white (flat, satin or glossy) rather than the flat black enamel paint - so as to reflect more of the light from the back light source ??
Cheers, Ross.

[KeeFy]

Keefy, namely, paint all the inside of the 'lightbox' white (flat, satin or glossy) rather than the flat black enamel paint - so as to reflect more of the light from the back light source ??
Cheers, Ross.

Flat white. Glossy will cause hot spots. Maybe before doing so you can try experimenting by covering the insides with 2 layers of A4 paper to see if it helps. The idea is to reflect more light and also give a more even glow. Imagine the idea of a light tent, why they make it white is to allow light to bounce around and give a more even spread.

If you were to imagine currently the only light source is coming from the bulb, all other light is being absorbed by the black paint but if it was white it will be a very diffused light. Just throwing some thoughts around. I'm thinking of making a portable one soon as well. :)

[Chimbu]

KeeFy, the notion of painting the inside of the lightbox flat white rather than black should result in the light being more effectively dispersed. I similarly also considered the idea of lining the lightbox with white paper as an experimental test trial. Accordingly, I randomly chose the following slide of a War Cemetery back home in Port Moresby, PNG - the first being with the white paper lining, and the second as normal with the flat black paint.

Note, the only PS processing involved the conversion from RAW to JPEG, and then their image size saved at W1024 x H768. I'm not sure about your eyes but I observe little discernible difference between the two slides. Depending on your preference, you could consider the following construction materials for your lightbox - CRAFT wood painted with flat black or white, or white melamine MDF or particleboard. Any related queries are welcome.
Cheers, Ross.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/IMG_3113.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/chimbu54/IMG_3114.jpg

[arthurking83]

I would have expected a slight vignetting effect with the black walled internals.
That would be due to the distance between the light source and the film itself .. reducing this distance would produce more even lighting on the frame.

If you have access to tin foil to line the insides of the box, I'd be inclined to try that too .. and leave a crinkle finish on it so as to disperse the light around even more.

Of course I don't have a box such as this to test with, just the bellows. The light source is out in open air, but as I only have a quatz halogen lamp to test with, I need to keep it at a distance from the film so as to not overheat the film itself, and yet I need to keep it close so that I also don't get slight vignetting on the frame.

I also remember you had access to a diffused pattern sheet. Have you tried a piece of this over the light source too.
As you are using a CFL type globe, you could easily get closer to the film for a more even light distribution too. They don't produce the same level of heat as halogen or incandescent globes do.

So far, some of my (actually! .... only two :() images have come up ok .. although I have been slack and not really got into as much as I thought I was going too ... but at the moment I'm still in more of a testing phase.
I've been trying to work out how to transfer my curves graph onto the camera to make it easier overall, so that the neg turns out to be positive at the camera at the time of exposure.
I think it can't be done as I want it too, even tho I'm this >< close :D
The other thing I need is a paddle pop stick to help with evening out exposure of the film .. for a bit of burning .... if that makes sense.

[Chimbu]

Arthurking83, "I would have expected a slight vignetting effect with the black walled internals. That would be due to the distance between the light source and the film itself .. reducing this distance would produce more even lighting on the frame". This possibly contributes to why the unprocessed digitalised slide images have curved edges, much like an old CRT TV. In relation to trialling the distance between the light source and the slide or film - I'm going to knock up another simplified 'lightbox' assembly by alternatively using a short length of white PVC plumbing pipe, with the light diffuser & slide fixed at one end and the 5000K Cool White 15W CFL low heat globe basically inserted inside the other end, at varying depths, until I achieve an even distribution of light. In the process I'll also re-trial the positioning of the textured perspex (eg. nearest the light source Vs against the laminated translucent glass). In turn, I can also very easily trial different coloured material inside the tubular 'lightbox' (eg. by simply rolling flat black or white cardboard, or an aluminium foil sheet etc). However, I'll also incorporate some sort of protruding collar into which the camera lens is inserted - so as to eliminate external stray light, when MACRO focussing on the slide.

[fillum]

Nice job Chimbu. Some of the softboxes made for speedlights (a directional light source) have 2 layers of diffusion material several inches apart - the idea being that any hotspot occurs on the inside layer where it becomes diffused enough so that the light is more even as it comes through the outer layer. So I wonder if an additional piece of diffusion material part way along the box might result in a more even spread of light at the slide end? The trade-off would be some loss of intensity.

My guess is that the curved edges are a camera issue due to the close shooting distance rather than an issue with the light source.


[Note that I haven't read the whole thread in great detail so hope this makes sense].



Cheers.

[Chimbu]

Phil, it's possible that the curved edges are a result of slight lens distortion as the slides are shot in MACRO mode with the front element only about 1cm from the slide - no doubt a dedicated macro lens on a DSLR would be more appropriate compared to my Canon G10's 28-140mm lens. I hope to verify this likely fault by further tinkering with the range of associated variables - eg. the internal colour & length of the PVC pipe 'lightbox', the relative positions of the 2 different types of light diffusers, and the distance between the light source & the diffusers. Once I figure out the most effective system I'll post my findings so that others creatively can set about digitalising their old cherished 35mm slides and film.
Cheers, Ross.

[arthurking83]

Definitely what Swifty said about proximity and curved field.
If you are shooting as such close range and the lens is fully retracted as it appears to be, then the focal length is surely 28mm, which will give you the maximum amount of barrel distortion possible.

That and coupled to the fact that you are shooting raw may have a lot to do with the barrel distortion.

Try a few test shots in jpg mode just to see if there is any difference in the curvature.

Many compacts have the ability to provide in camera tweaks to the image, based on the lens setting used.
(to do this with a DSLR, is much harder due to the almost infinite possible lenses available for fitment, whereas a P&S/Compact has only 1 lens. This makes it easier to set the image production electronics to produce the image with an easier to determine set of corrections to apply.

Shooting in raw, should only provide the image(data) with only raw data. Open that raw file with software such as LR3 or CS5 and and you won't see the auto image tweaks and corrections as the non manufacturer software can't see or understand that set of instructions.
Canon's own software may tho .. but I dunno?

[KeeFy]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7182/6801607306_c1b06e085a_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7182/6801607846_11f8d8ba23_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7045/6801611258_9a77c4f3b4_z.jpg


So i was lazy to scan and decided to try something new. :D Not too bad eh?

[arthurking83]

I temporarily tried a few 'interesting' methods myself too ... stuck the filnm strip to a window, and so on.

Nothing beats the bellows + film attachment for ease and speed, and focusing accuracy and so on.

My only dilemma is that I don't have the 'correct lens' (or alternatively, the correct camera!) for my setup(using the Nikon PB-4 + PS-4 slide copy attachment).

It seems to be optimised for using a 50mm lens on a full format camera, but I only have the Dx format D300. The only lens I have at my disposal is the Tamron 28-75mm lens, as the best focal length to use on the bellows setup is a 75mm focal length, due to the technical workings of the bellows.

So I'm trying to source a ~75mm lens to get back into copying my film into a digital format.