Copying analogue images with digital camera.

Is there any reason why a shot of a clour slide taken by a digital camera with macro lens and extension tube illuminated by a lightbox (assuming RAW capture so colour temp. can be altered) should be inferior to a scan given that a scanner is basically a digital imaging device?
Is it worth investing the time and giving giving it a shot? Would certainly be a lot cheaper than buying a scanner!
Cheers
Jeff

chorleyjeff said:

Is there any reason why a shot of a clour slide taken by a digital camera with macro lens and extension tube illuminated by a lightbox (assuming RAW capture so colour temp. can be altered) should be inferior to a scan given that a scanner is basically a digital imaging device?
Is it worth investing the time and giving giving it a shot? Would certainly be a lot cheaper than buying a scanner!
Cheers
Jeff

Click to expand...

Did practical test.
Don't know why but photos not nearly as good as a scan.
Cheers
Jeff

Like anything, a lot depends on technique (i.e., alignment and rigidity, eveness of lighting, flatness of the original, reduction of vibration, optimal f:stop, etc.) and the capabilities of the equipment. A camera will likely render the image with less contrast than a scanner, but you can adjust it in Photoshop. I used to do this with a copy stand, a 3.3 Mpix Coolpix 990, and a 5000K lightbox, for formats I couldn't scan. I tried to keep the lens in the middle of the zoom range, and focused and set exposure manually. It was good enough for the web and for modest sized 4-color offset printing (like a run of postcards for a gallery show or reproduction in a magazine). I still use that camera on a copy stand with two strobes for archiving documents--it's much faster than a scanner, and is good enough to do OCR on a print document at a later date, if I need to.

After all, we've done copy work with cameras and lenses for years, and high-end art repro work is done with cameras, lenses, and high-resolution digital backs.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Like anything, a lot depends on technique (i.e., alignment and rigidity, eveness of lighting, flatness of the original, reduction of vibration, optimal f:stop, etc.) and the capabilities of the equipment. A camera will likely render the image with less contrast than a scanner, but you can adjust it in Photoshop. I used to do this with a copy stand, a 3.3 Mpix Coolpix 990, and a 5000K lightbox, for formats I couldn't scan. I tried to keep the lens in the middle of the zoom range, and focused and set exposure manually. It was good enough for the web and for modest sized 4-color offset printing (like a run of postcards for a gallery show or reproduction in a magazine). I still use that camera on a copy stand with two strobes for archiving documents--it's much faster than a scanner, and is good enough to do OCR on a print document at a later date, if I need to.

After all, we've done copy work with cameras and lenses for years, and high-end art repro work is done with cameras, lenses, and high-resolution digital backs.

Click to expand...

I used a Sony Alpha 100 with Sigma 105mm macro lens mounted on a copy arm attached to the column of a Meopta enlarger. The slides and negatives were laid on a lightbox. The negatives were held flat by a piece of glass used in the enlarger head for the same purpose. I focused manually and checked the exposure with the camera histogram. I used f32 to try to have at least some depth of field for the slides. Perhaps I should have used, say f11, to reduce potential for degredation of image due to difraction.
I'll have another go at f11.
Also would the fact that the slide was mounted onto a translucent piece of plastic have any impact on the definition of the image?
Also I printed out half a 35mm neg on A4 to simulate printing full frame on A3 which is my normal print size.
Cheers
Jeff
ps thanks for the reply.

Try f:8 or 11 and see how it goes. A wider aperture and shorter exposure should also reduce the potential for noise, as well as diffraction. If the plastic is not in the image path, it doesn't seem like it should be a problem.

Also, remember that any tonal adjustments you would normally make in the scanner interface will have to be made in your image editing software, so be sure to adjust the scan before deciding whether this technique is good enough for your needs.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Try f:8 or 11 and see how it goes. A wider aperture and shorter exposure should also reduce the potential for noise, as well as diffraction. If the plastic is not in the image path, it doesn't seem like it should be a problem.

Also, remember that any tonal adjustments you would normally make in the scanner interface will have to be made in your image editing software, so be sure to adjust the scan before deciding whether this technique is good enough for your needs.

Click to expand...

Repeated with 645 XP2 and Delto 100 using f8 and B/W option on the camera menu. Edited in greyscale in PS.
Much better.Would be OK at A3 from full frame. Used Epson R1800 with Ilford Smooth Pearl and the appropriate Ilford profile with ICM switched out. Surprisingly the image colour was pretty well neutral.
I think I have a way forward to make some progress.
Thanks for advice.
Cheers
Jeff

Jeff

A client of mine was doing this with a phase capture and lightbox.She used original colour negs and transparancies on a light box.
I think a colour head enlarger would work well to adjust the incoming light rather than totally relying on PS to correct density, contrast and colour.

If everything is flat with good optics I cannot see why this would not work well.
We have a scanner on site so we have not followed through with this idea* I think it is a good one, I would suggest once you have obtained results that you find acceptable, send your image out to a good scanning lab and compare your results side by side at large print and on glossy stock.

Simple answer. - Apples and oranges.

You can't ever hope to get a photo of a slide with a digital camera that is as good as a decent scanner.

A scan can give you almost the equivalent of 100s of megapixels. Well above anything you will find on any digital camera.

While I agree they are both digital devices, they are very very different.

Apples and oranges can be compared. They are both fruit, just as scanners and cameras are digitally acquiring images.

Another thing you can do if you need higher resolution occasionally than the camera gives is to stitch multiple images. This requires a lens of very low distortion at the magnification you are using. If you have a dedicated single-focal-length macro lens that should be fine, and a jig to keep everything lined up. Using a thin light pad for this, I just clamp a T-square on the baseboard of the copy stand so that I could move the whole light pad in a straight line. You could also move the camera laterally with a macro rail or move the neg or transparency on the light box.

I'm developing my website. Most of my images are ULF Pt/Pd prints. Even If I scanned and stitched Pt/Pd prints never seem to come out as well as others who photograph them. Of course I don't have a high end scanner. If I wanted to do copy work with a digital camera what would the recommendations be. I don't want to spend a lot of money on digital capture. I just want to load quality prints onto my website. I know some of the cheaper point and shoot digitals are up to 8mp-12mp. Can I produce decent copy work with say a Nikon coolpix P50 or P5100 point and shoot camera? Thanks, Robert

For digital capture I would recommend a dslr with a macro lens, e.g. get a Nikon d40 or d40x (inexpensive) and an old manual focus 105/2.8 "micro" and you're set. I don't think a p&s is up to the task; the sensor is small so the lens has to be a much shorter focal length to give you normal proportions and hence you have distortions creeping in, as well as small-sensor noise. A dslr system with a true macro lens will do much better.

For even illumination, you may want a ring flash, I have a very inexpensive old sb29 that works well (no need to spend megabucks). Anyway if you have an enlarger you could probably rig up a way to get high quality repro shots of large prints that way.

As an old film shooter I have no idea as to what the specs mean for digital capture. The new Nikon Coolpix P50 is only 150.00 it has 8 MP with some manual controls and a 28-105mm lens. The D40 is quite a jump in price and is no doubt a better camera. I was hoping to use the cheap P50 on a copy stand to photograph my 8x20 and 12x20 Pt/Pd prints to load onto my website. I was hoping that 8 mega pixels would provide enough resolution combined with the 28-102mm lens to achieve acceptable results. Do you think with a little post editing this is possible? Thanks

Robert, skip the p&s. You'd be better off picking up a d40 or used older dslr with a macro lens or just have the work done on a flatbed.

The mp count isn't important, actually, especially if you are duplicating for web. 8mp is overkill for that. A 6mp dslr will outperform an 8mp p&s camera every time, for this task and most others as well. Especially for the rather large prints you are describing... 20" is pretty big for macro, especially with a p&s you will see distortion for sure. You will want a proper ~105mm macro lens. And you will eventually want a ring flash.

You might also try having a print scanned by one of the newer copy machines. Actually, just about any flatbed will do a better job than a p&s... or a dslr macro setup unless it's really done right.

I think there is a relatively inexpensive flatbed copier with a sheet loader that may be able to do 12" by whatever length required. I'd look into that. Flatbeds really excel for this task and they are very inexpensive; check the epson refurbs.

The problem with scanning a Pt/Pd print is: Since the image is into the paper and not on a substratum, the scanner pics up the grain of the paper. That's why most Pt/Pd printers have recommended photographing the images instead of trying to scan. Thanks

To suppress paper grain and texture, I'd think that a ring flash would help immensely.

Since my old Duoscan got too streaky to use anymore about six months ago or so, and I didn't want to get involved in cleaning it, I decided to replace it with a Canon 40D and come back to my digicam scanning method, this time with a better camera and lenses.

So far it's working pretty well, and this evening I figured out how to do better with the 40D than with my dedicated 35mm film scanner--an old Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. Camera on copystand, 5000K lightbox, Canon FD 35mm/2.8 Macrophoto lens (a lens for high magnification like a Zeiss Luminar or Leitz Photar) at f:5.6, and a 9-panel stitch using Photomerge in CS2. I still have a little refinement to do on alignment and finding the optimal magnification, but I was able to get a 7334x4975 pixel file that's unquestionably sharper than the scanner can produce, and with 9 panels, there's enough overlap for Photomerge to do its thing without having to do any fiddling, and I found that the final image benefited from very little additional sharpening.

Here's the full image--



and here's a 100% crop from the center--



I tried 4 panels at first, and it wasn't enough for a good stitch. I also tried a single frame with a Tamron SP 90/2.5 and the corners weren't quite as sharp as the scan, though the camera produces a larger file than the scanner, so there's some room for sharpening.

The downsides are that stitching 9 images is fiddly compared to using a scanner, but I don't need to do it that often, so I'd rather reclaim the desk space and get rid of another scanner, and if I want 16-bit Photomerge, I guess I've got to upgrade from CS2. Computer timewise, I think a 4-pass scan with the Scan Dual in Vuescan is comparable to the time it takes to stitch nine 8-bit RGB TIFF files from the 40D.

Incidentally, I recently sold my 25mm/3.5 Zeiss Luminar for almost the full price of my second-hand 40D, because the more modern Canon FD 35mm Macrophoto is really a sharper lens and gives a little more working distance, but of course the Canon isn't as collectible, so you can usually find it for less than a Luminar. Both are RMS screw mount, but the Canon comes with an FD adapter, which I'm using with an FD-EOS macro adapter and FD extension tubes. You can find RMS-M42 adapters on eBay, and then adapt from M42 to most camera mounts.