Old Slides
Posted 15/02/2012 - 09:08
Link
tyronet2000 wrote:
..............Another question which way up should the slide be for best results?
With my scanner it is emulsion side down (glossy side up).
..............Another question which way up should the slide be for best results?
Hyram
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Posted 15/02/2012 - 10:52
Link
If you want to send me a slide (say the one of the cable car) I will happily run it through my scanner to show the difference it can make.
Although I use Silverfast to get the initial file I tend to find it easier to use it on fairly standard settings then run it through Photoshop to get the results I want. Not saying it's a better way, but I find it suits me better.
Although I use Silverfast to get the initial file I tend to find it easier to use it on fairly standard settings then run it through Photoshop to get the results I want. Not saying it's a better way, but I find it suits me better.
Posted 15/02/2012 - 11:29
Link
greynolds999 wrote:
If you want to send me a slide (say the one of the cable car) I will happily run it through my scanner to show the difference it can make.
Although I use Silverfast to get the initial file I tend to find it easier to use it on fairly standard settings then run it through Photoshop to get the results I want. Not saying it's a better way, but I find it suits me better.
Thanks for the offer Gareth. Can I put it on hold till I find one I really like?If you want to send me a slide (say the one of the cable car) I will happily run it through my scanner to show the difference it can make.
Although I use Silverfast to get the initial file I tend to find it easier to use it on fairly standard settings then run it through Photoshop to get the results I want. Not saying it's a better way, but I find it suits me better.
I've tried scanning a couple and twiddled with them in Lightroom 3 and those particular ones look a bit better (sows ear to sackcloth and ashes )
Posted 15/02/2012 - 18:40
Link
Interesting that there's such a difference in scanners, it will be interesting to see what difference the different scanner makes. I am reasonably happy with the quality of my cheap one, but then I'm not sure of the quality of the originals, a lot of the slides I'm scanning are sourced from car boots and so on, to say nothing of my terrible eyesight.
Stan, Gareth, will you post "before and after" scans please when you've exchanged a slide?
Stan, Gareth, will you post "before and after" scans please when you've exchanged a slide?
Real name: Mike Edwards. My homage to seventies Vauxhalls: www.firenza.net
Camera - Pentax Kx, 18-55 kit lens, 18-200 Sigma, 50-500 Sigma, 500mm Tamron mirror
Camera - Pentax Kx, 18-55 kit lens, 18-200 Sigma, 50-500 Sigma, 500mm Tamron mirror
Posted 15/02/2012 - 20:21
Link
droopsnoot wrote:
Interesting that there's such a difference in scanners, it will be interesting to see what difference the different scanner makes. I am reasonably happy with the quality of my cheap one, but then I'm not sure of the quality of the originals, a lot of the slides I'm scanning are sourced from car boots and so on, to say nothing of my terrible eyesight.
Stan, Gareth, will you post "before and after" scans please when you've exchanged a slide?
I think the main problems with mine are: the quality of the original photo coupled with the age, they are all around the early 1990's I think I have some "commercial" slides to try, bought in Toronto but even they will be dated about 1998 and no idea how old they were before I bought them.
Interesting that there's such a difference in scanners, it will be interesting to see what difference the different scanner makes. I am reasonably happy with the quality of my cheap one, but then I'm not sure of the quality of the originals, a lot of the slides I'm scanning are sourced from car boots and so on, to say nothing of my terrible eyesight.
Stan, Gareth, will you post "before and after" scans please when you've exchanged a slide?
Posted 15/02/2012 - 21:54
Link
I have slides dating back to 1963 (taken by my Father) and they are still much the same as when they were taken. However commercially purchased slides of the same era and later have all turned various shades of magenta
Hyram
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Posted 16/02/2012 - 11:06 - Helpful Comment
Link
Here's the method I used to use for getting prints from a slide, way back.
Its a simple metal frame that sits in the filter mount that holds a slide away from the lens. The lens is spaced from thr body with (in this case 20mm) extension tube. It used to sit between the lens and extension tube (M42 clearance) but I cut the hole bigger this morning to 52mm where it is held in with a 52mm filter ring (sans glass).
Camera is mounted on a tripod and looks out into the sky for light (cloudy bright today). Slide is glossy side to the lens
[IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff444/Frogherder/IMGP0160.jpg[/IMG]
Heres the 1st shot from a slide that must be early 80's (my filing is not too good)
[IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff444/Frogherder/IMGP8519.jpg[/IMG]
It needs some work (also to the jpg, but it's not the best -I know) and IF I every plan on using the frame in anger I would rebuild it accordlingly to enable a closer view (get rid of the border)
regards
Bernard
Its a simple metal frame that sits in the filter mount that holds a slide away from the lens. The lens is spaced from thr body with (in this case 20mm) extension tube. It used to sit between the lens and extension tube (M42 clearance) but I cut the hole bigger this morning to 52mm where it is held in with a 52mm filter ring (sans glass).
Camera is mounted on a tripod and looks out into the sky for light (cloudy bright today). Slide is glossy side to the lens
[IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff444/Frogherder/IMGP0160.jpg[/IMG]
Heres the 1st shot from a slide that must be early 80's (my filing is not too good)
[IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff444/Frogherder/IMGP8519.jpg[/IMG]
It needs some work (also to the jpg, but it's not the best -I know) and IF I every plan on using the frame in anger I would rebuild it accordlingly to enable a closer view (get rid of the border)
regards
Bernard
Posted 17/02/2012 - 10:08
Link
I had something similar to that, an old Jessops Slide Duplicator, but I didn't find the results to be all that good so I got rid of it. Basically the idea was the same - it had a Series VII mount and screwed onto the filter ring with a suitable adapter, I think the only difference between what you have and the Jessops product is that the Jessops one was enclosed between the end of the lens and the slide mount, perhaps to reduce stray reflections on the front of the slide. Though from your results it doesn't look as if that's a problem for you.
Real name: Mike Edwards. My homage to seventies Vauxhalls: www.firenza.net
Camera - Pentax Kx, 18-55 kit lens, 18-200 Sigma, 50-500 Sigma, 500mm Tamron mirror
Camera - Pentax Kx, 18-55 kit lens, 18-200 Sigma, 50-500 Sigma, 500mm Tamron mirror
Posted 17/02/2012 - 12:25
Link
This isn't really the place for a discussion, but your slide set up is OK but needs to be closed in on all sides to increase contrast. As it is you'll get light reflected from the slide.
Also, the lens does not have a flat field, so at that distance you'll lose edge definition if you focus on the centre. A macro lens would be best, or even an enlarger lens.
Also, the lens does not have a flat field, so at that distance you'll lose edge definition if you focus on the centre. A macro lens would be best, or even an enlarger lens.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/02/2012 - 12:30
Link
Just wondering what you mean by "This isn't really the place for a discussion"? Could you clarfy? Do you mean that it is too big a subject or that it doesn't belong on the forum?
(PS, not trying to start an argument. Hope it doesn't come across wrong.)
(PS, not trying to start an argument. Hope it doesn't come across wrong.)
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
4862 posts
15 years
Northumberland
I am in the process of scanning some slides taken at "ground level" from the Englischer Garten, Munich and will see what the colour cast is on them, a bit "greener" I hope
Another question which way up should the slide be for best results?
SCANNER
---------- where the "scanner" is
---------- slide (face up or down ?)
---------- light source
Stan
PPG