p.1 #1 · Using DSLR to make copies of 15,000 35mm slides?
This is my first post here. I got out of the photography business back in the early nineties so I'm not up to date on digital at all.
Pardon the long post; I just want to be sure I am clear on what I am trying to do and how I want to do it.
I am faced with the huge task of making digital copies of about 15,000 35mm slides and I have no desire to do the job with a scanner (that would take approximately 3 minutes per slide, start to finish). That computes to nineteen weeks at 40 hours a week, and that doesn't allow any time for mistakes and other unknown factors that might creep in.
When digital photography was still just a dream, I duplicated slides using a slide duplicating attachment (like this one) that fit on the front of my 35mm camera. I would fit each slide onto the front of the duplicator's barrel and snap a picture of the slide. Average time per slide was about 20 seconds and using Kodaks SO366 film designed for this exact purpose, results were more than satisfactory.
I'm looking for advice from someone WHO HAS ALREADY DONE this VERY THING but with a digital SLR.
I have done an exhaustive search of the internet, via Google, and I've come to the conclusion that a duplicator of the type I used for analog cameras is not available for a DSLR.
I've begun to search for a DSLR Macro/Micro lens with a flat field of focus. For this, I will make my own attachable barrel with a slide mount at its end. But, I have already run into a problem there also. I have not yet seen such a lens for a DSLR available from any manufacturer.
Of course, I could use an analog lens for this purpose; it would give me full control to decrease the image size to compensate for the crop factor as well as increase the size for cropping. But, that would be a waste of money as after the job was finished, the lens, being analog and costing between $300 and $500, would be of no further use to me.
p.1 #3 · Using DSLR to make copies of 15,000 35mm slides?
Thanks for your post; but, all of the devices you list are ones I have dismissed already. All except the Kaiser introduce a diopter in front of an existing lens. None mount directly to the camera body.
Diopters mounted in front of a lens always degrades image quality somewhat; but the +10 diopter that these devices all use introduces a pronounced degradation visible as a soft-edge vignette, the presence of which cannot go unnoticed, even at a short glance.
In the absence of a digital equivalent of the old duplicator like this one, I will bite the bullet and get an analog macro (flat field of focus) lens and make my own tube and slide mount. Once assembled, I can copy slides at the rate of three or four a minute.
Speed isn't everything, though; but, I figure the image quality of the Fuji S2 will be about equal to a $400 slide scanner, and much, much faster.
p.1 #5 · Using DSLR to make copies of 15,000 35mm slides?
After examining the photographs of the Ohnar, I've decided I may have been wrong. It looks like it might mount directly to the camera body; but, the question now is whether it will do a 1:1 copy of a 35mm slide onto a digital SLR.
I have written the company for clarification on this and await their answer. I also haven't found a US dealer for the item, either.
Yes, the Novoflex does not use a diopter; but, it does require a macro lens. Before I spend $150 for that device which has the only function of allowing adjustments in distance, I will make my own fully-enclosed barrel to hold the slides. I need only a 1:1 copy on all slides so the barrel can be a fixed, non-adjustable length. The down side of the Novoflex is that it lets in extraneous light that might cause reflections on the lens's internal elements, not to mention reflections off the surface of the slide, itself. Since electronic flash is the intended light source, the wide open Novoflex holder presents more problems.
p.1 #6 · Using DSLR to make copies of 15,000 35mm slides?
Hello Alex.
I'm faced with the identical task as you. My father has about 15,000 slides he's shot over the years and they're wonderful. I'd love to get them all digitized so that he and the rest of the family can enjoy them more. Also, this would act as a backup of sorts for the amazing collection.
One thing I considered was a slide scanner with an automatic feeder. Nikon makes such a thing and from the little bit of reading I've done, the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED with auto feeder might be the way to go. But, I've read several reviews which state that the auto feeder has a tendency to jam and also that the software then locks up requiring a power cycle on the scanner and restarting of the software - a real pain, I'm sure.
An automatic feeder would be a real boon to me because I could load up a box of slides and then ideally, walk away from the thing. But if it is going to jam, then that may not be the case.
The review of it had two replies from users and one of them seems to have figured out a way to prevent the jamming by building up the thickness of part of the unit with some layers of tape. I wouldn't mind doing some modifications of the equipment if it meant that I could scan boxes of slides unattended.
Even if I paid $1500 for the scanner plus auto-feeder, that works out to being only 10 cents per slide to get them scanned. But that doesn't count any of my time into the equation.
I have an old slide copier to fit an FD/FL type Canon lens camera so it worked for us years ago on the old bodies. But I don't remember it as being a very precise device, and you have to manually insert and align each slide.
That scanner mentioned above supposedly does this all for you and autofocuses, etc. It also claims a scan time of 20 seconds per slide, but I'm sure it actually takes longer for the whole process and the auto feed, etc. But for me, the speed wouldn't be as much of an issue if it would truly do a roll of 36 slides unattended. I could load it up, start the program, and walk away. I figure we've got about 400 to 450 boxes of 36 exposures to go through.
I've got a good friend whose dad also has a slide collection that's even larger. He too would like to get them digitized. I figure I could split the cost of the system with him and we'd both get off fairly easy that way.
Well, I haven't played with one of these things, but I just thought I'd throw that out there as a possibility. There may well be other better options, but that's the one I've been considering most seriously.
Maybe someone will come up with some even better suggestions. I'm glad you started this thread.
