DSLR as a scanner

[clay]

I have done a little 'scanning with a camera' to capture some old family photos on Kodachrome slides. It is far faster to sit at a light table with a DSLR and snap away than to load a scanner. The quality is plenty good enough for a decent 8x10ish sized print if you get your exposure and f-stop worked out properly to take into account the curved film. Here is a recent article by Peter Krogh that he has posted on the web outlining some of the advantages to this approach:

http://thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

 

[pellicle]

Clay

a very interesting read, thanks for the link. I share his issues with C-41 negative (which represents much of what I have and expose) but disagree with his costs if applied to 35mm (you don't need to spend 5000).

I see he identifies film transport as an issue in digitization by camera, this is underplayed and represents a significant problem in bulk digitizations using camera. It makes me wonder if his objectivity is more inclined towards using the DSLR.

Still ... if I had a 5dII and didn't have a LS-4000 and an Epson I'd perhaps go that way ...

 

[df cardwell]

Peter Krogh has summarized the problem and solutions quite nicely.

Using a manual focus lens with most DSLRs introduces focus error to the system, but with a newer camera with LiveView that shouldn't be a problem.

For my own needs, a Canon 30D with an EF 60 macro lens proofs and digitizes all my 4x5 and 8x10 film very well.