Scanning Slides: Flatbed or Duplicator

[afx]

Hi,
sold my slide scanner a while ago and now I need to digitize 300 slides from 1999.
I do have an Epson V550 flatbed scanner that can scan slides (4 in one go) and I have Vuescan.
Sold my Sensia IT8 target with the slide scanner ;-(
A friend recommended using a slide duplicator instead with my 60 AFS micro and the D750.
That would eliminate the typical scanner color issues.
But what about resolution?

Has anyone here used both methods and can comment on the relative merits?

If going the duplicator route, I don't want to spend much money on it, so pointers to reasonably priced solutions are appreciated.

thx
afx

[Hugh_3170]

Your D750 FX/135 format camera and the 60mm AFS micro are a killer combination in conjunction with either a Nikon PB-4 or PB-6 bellows and matching slider duplicator, OR, maybe a dedicated Nikon Slide duplicator (cheaper, but much less versatile).  All come up on Ebay and all seem to hold their value.

I use a PB4 and 55mm Ai-S Micro-Nikkor and an FX format body.  I have found that a Nikon Speedlight (SB-800) with a TTL extension cable solves a lot of lighting and WB issues.  You will almost certainly need to stop down a bit if the slide is curved.

[David H. Hartman]

Dust on the originals will be your main issue. If the flat bed scanner offers ICE that might be something to consider.

I'd probably use the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with an attachment that threads on the lens. I think Nikon makes one. The only way I've done it is with a Nikon PB-4 bellows and the dedicated Nikon film duplicating attachment for the PB-4 bellows.

A dedicated slide scanner with ICE would be the best solution for 300 slides if one can be borrowed.

Dave Hartman

[beryllium10]

Hugh and David beat me to the post ... An FX camera like the D750 should work extremely well.  In the US Nikon still sells the ES-1 duplicator (outrageously overpriced at $59.95).  Bellows and slide duplicating attachments come up regularly on e-bay; after you're finished you can sell on and likely recover your money, or take up an interest in microphotography.  Like Hugh I also use a PB-4 and 55mm f/3.5 Nikkor bought very cheaply, which has found a lot of extra work as a favourite 'science' lens.  Your 60 mm micro should work perfectly.  I use an SB-600 for illumination, triggered with my camera's on-board flash in 'Commander' mode.  Any flash you can trigger remotely will work.  You need to use a high-Kelvin white balance setting to get the colours close to correct.  I get better results from Ektachrome than Kodachrome or Agfa slides (a colour target would probably help with those).  I find this approach quick and efficient.  I can't compare results to a professional-quality flatbed slide scanner, but I've been very pleased with the quality I get.

Cheers, and good luck  -  John

**Before the PB-4 I used an ES-1 on a DX camera. For others who might be contemplating this, be warned - it doesn't work well.  You need to extend the ES-1 (I knocked the glass out of a stack of old discarded filters bought cheap at the local camera store) and you still don't get the full image.  Either you have to make do with cropped versions of the originals, or stitch two overlapping frames for each slide ...  In the old, old days of duplicating onto film, I remember using a styrofoam cup with a slot cut near the base for the slide, held over the front of the lens and pointed at the sun.  I guess I was less critical about sharpness in those days.

[afx]

In the US Nikon still sells the ES-1 duplicator (outrageously overpriced at $59.95). 

Well, here it is 90€ ;-)

Bellows... Hmm.. I wanted to avoid that. Was hoping I could use the ES-1 or similar directly on the lens.
EDIT: Just found this Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_fMcAsAYdc
Looks like I only need a step down adapter (BR-5) and I am set.

I can use a radio controlled SB800 or LED Panels that have about the same color temperature as the flash.
I would think that shooting a custom WB image first should alleviate all color issues.

thx
afx

[charlie]

I'd recommend using flash over a continuous light source. The short flash duration has a way of making things look a bit sharper and will reduce the chance for motion blur of any kind. Also shooting tethered is a good idea so you can more accurately make any exposure adjustments from slide to slide.

I've had success placing slides on a sheet of white acrylic and putting a flash under the acrylic and the camera above (think flash powered light table). I made sure to shoot in a dark room, block any light from reflecting off the top of the slide, and made a mask for the slide on the light table so the lens did not flare. All done with things I had laying around. Works well, quicker than scanning for large sets of slides, and not much need for color correcting, particularly if you're shooting tethered.

[afx]

The short flash duration has a way of making things look a bit sharper

Why?

will reduce the chance for motion blur of any kind.

Yes, but I aim to have it all locked down.
I have to check color first. The LED spectrum is pretty good (used it for quite a few projects), but I will do some tests first before I start the series.

Also shooting tethered is a good idea so you can more accurately make any exposure adjustments from slide to slide.

I'll probably tether via qDSLRdashboard.
But me thinks that a constant exposure should be easier to handle.
Just expose to the right on an empty slide

cheers
afx

[pluton]

Using the ES-1 with the 60/2.8 should give excellent results.  I've used a similar setup, except with a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5.  Doing 300 slides will be fiddly and annoying and time-consuming, but the low equipment cost is highly attractive.
Notes:
Flash is full spectrum, LEDs are not.  YMMV.
I found that I needed to add an additional layer of white translucent acrylic sheet(Perspex, Plexiglas) behind the built-in diffuser of the ES-1 in order to eliminate uneven illumination or hot spot effect.  YMMV.
Focus may have to be checked for every slide, with the ES-1 and other rigs.
In theory, you can lock down everything:  The camera, the lens focus, the nesting tubes on the ES-1, etc, but...the exact position of the film in the slides, the position of the slide in the simple holder tabs of the ES-1, and the thickness of the slides themselves can/may/will vary.  YMMV.
Hopefully, your constant source LEDs will produce acceptable color.

[Lowell]

afx,

I can't tell you what is the most cost effective for you in particular but I do have some feedback.

I do this professionally.  I have a Epson V800 flatbed and a Nikon Cool Scan V (no longer produced by Nikon).   I control the scanners with Silverfast Studio 8.  All of this "stuff" cost a lot of money, unfortunately.  After scanning thousands of slides, I have chosen to use the humble Cool Scan.  I choose to put the effort at the scanning part of the process because, in the long run, it saves time.  One slide at a time, where I can adjust the input curves and select how to use all of the capabilities of Silverfast.  The IR feature of Digital Ice, is the single most powerful tool in arsenal.  The Coolscan device also has a autofocus feature which is most useful since the file often is cupped.  I brush each slide before each one is scanned.  But even with that you simply cannot get all the dust off, not to mention other detritus and scratches.   The IR scan is simple a miracle!!!  Silverfast has all sorts of nice features, to adjust the exposure range, control the input curve, adjust for underexposed slides, adjust global color correction, etc.  I choose to do the work up front because that is less time consuming than doing it in post processing. 

Without a doubt, Digital ICE, when implemented properly, is the "Magic" which saves an incredible amount of  PP time.

Doesn't solve your problem, but hopefully useful to you.

Lowell

[charlie]

Why?

Because somewhere in the span of the camera's 1/200th second shutter opening the speed light pops a 1/1000s (or faster) burst of light which is the only light contributing to the exposure. Mirror induced vibration of any kind is effectively ruled out of the equation. Shooting at or near 1:1 magnification, every little bit helps.

That's why I use flash anyway, I'm sure you'd be fine using continuous with everything locked down if you prefer to go that route.

[charlie]

afx,

I can't tell you what is the most cost effective for you in particular but I do have some feedback.

I do this professionally.  I have a Epson V800 flatbed and a Nikon Cool Scan V (no longer produced by Nikon).   I control the scanners with Silverfast Studio 8.  All of this "stuff" cost a lot of money, unfortunately.  After scanning thousands of slides, I have chosen to use the humble Cool Scan.  I choose to put the effort at the scanning part of the process because, in the long run, it saves time.  One slide at a time, where I can adjust the input curves and select how to use all of the capabilities of Silverfast.  The IR feature of Digital Ice, is the single most powerful tool in arsenal.  The Coolscan device also has a autofocus feature which is most useful since the file often is cupped.  I brush each slide before each one is scanned.  But even with that you simply cannot get all the dust off, not to mention other detritus and scratches.   The IR scan is simple a miracle!!!  Silverfast has all sorts of nice features, to adjust the exposure range, control the input curve, adjust for underexposed slides, adjust global color correction, etc.  I choose to do the work up front because that is less time consuming than doing it in post processing. 

Without a doubt, Digital ICE, when implemented properly, is the "Magic" which saves an incredible amount of  PP time.

Doesn't solve your problem, but hopefully useful to you.

Lowell

Lowell, I see your wisdom in taking the scanning route. Using a Cool Scan V I would think the improvement in scan quality over an epson flatbed or DSLR would be worth it alone, no? I have a V700 and it leaves a little something to be desired when scanning slides, like it doesn't have the dynamic range to capture all the info on the film. Do you have the same experience with the V800?

I'm curious, have you used Vuescan and if so how would you compare it with Silverfast?
I have the Silverfast software that was bundled with the scanner but ended up going with Vuescan and I like it but it is not the most intuitive program. I find it sometimes difficult to dial in the proper exposure and color settings.

[Lowell]

Charlie,

For positive film scanning, I see no problem with the dynamic range of the V800 for color slide film which has such low latitude. Also for negative and positive film processing, flatbeds like the V700 or V800 have a fixed focal position somewhere above the glass surface and the depth of field of max resolution is small. 

To me the real issue is the IR scanning capability.  Also, capable hardware and scanning software shifts much of the time consuming effort from the post processing phase to the scanning phase and allows you to monitor the processing steps, balancing the negatives and positives of those procedures.

I have only minimal experience with Veuscan so I can't really comment.

Lowell

Lowell

[Akira]

Well, here it is 90€ ;-)

Ah, 3,200 JPY here.   

[David H. Hartman]

To me the real issue is the IR scanning capability.  Also, capable hardware and scanning software shifts much of the time consuming effort from the post processing phase to the scanning phase and allows you to monitor the processing steps, balancing the negatives and positives of those procedures.

Digital ICE: (Image Correction and Enhancement). I don't know what the enhancement part is about but the IR scanning and dust a scratch correction it provides for of 300 slides should not be under estimated. My flatbed doesn't do this and even a printed page such as a Nikkor Lens Sales Manual is a pain to clean up. B&W prints are even worse. ICE was available in film scanners at the time I bought my flatbed but I don't remember it in flatbeds of the time. Given the time involved in doing a cursory clean up of 300 slides I have to wonder if renting a dedicated film scanner would not be best.

Dave

[Lowell]

Dave,

To the best of my knowledge, IR scanning is only for film (negative and positive).