Slide scanning w/digital camera

[AlwaysOnAuto]

A few months back I scanned some old family slides using this setup:



I used my D7000 and Micro 55mm lens. I know the setup looks crude but it was done on very tight budget and got some pretty good results IMO.



I was happy being able to get digital copies of the slides since they weren't accessible as slides per se.

My question to the collective here is, should I try to rescan them using my NEX 7 using the same lens/setup?
Would there be any advantage to it other than a larger file size when done? ie, does the 24meg Sony sensor offer an advantage over the 16meg Nikon?

Thanks for any comments.

[IzzieK]

I wish I can have an answer for you as I have not done this kind of process before, but my response here will bump this message up the pecking order if that is any comfort to you...so others can read and respond appropriately.

[Geoff F]

This is how I do it.



And using a scanner.

[jcuknz]

If you divide the actual number of pixels you are using in making the copy of a 36mm wide slide you get an idea of the PPI you have achieved, ie taking off the number occupied with the frame or holder. I have used originally a 5Mp camera and latest a 10Mp to copy 5"x4" negatives and found the results as good as I needed and compared well with other ways of copying I believe.
Using the 3:2 format of the 5Mp camera one has 2560/1.5 = 1706pixels per inch of the subject slide which seemed quite good to me though the fly in the ointment of that calculation is how large a print you make from the file. 200PPI gives us an 8.5" print.
So when you get more pixels with the camera and want to make bigger prints that suggests to me a re-shoot is called for

I have no idea as to if this approach is a valid way to think

The flash you can see reflected by the window was not how the slide was copied. I used ambient light diffused by the tissue in this rather primitive set-up and earlier with film I simply taped the slide to a window ... AWB of digital seems to handle colour temperature considerations which were more tricky and hazardous with film. Though shooting colour negative meant the lab sorted out that for me

[IzzieK]

John....The view from your kitchen looks really good I reckon...

[jcuknz]

No Izzie it is my upstairs workroom, view spoilt by those phone lines and a thick communication control cable below them ... ... most people would use it as a lounge but not me ... over the 25 years since I built the place it has been a temptation to get back into yachting ...I fell once and wasted the price of several FF cameras/lens
"A yacht is a hole in the water to pour money into" ... especially if you go to sea.


Alan that set up avoids the trap of reflections of the camera which upset a copy set-up I made without the tunnel/trunk ... very neat idea I didn't have a lap-top back then either.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

John, I tend to save everything, at least according to my wife, and that's a piece of black PVC sewer pipe I had left over from something else. It was the perfect size as a slide fit neatly inside the ID, and so did the lens. Kept all the light out except for that coming up thru the slide, and around it of course. Once I instituted using it the slides really came 'alive' so to speak. The white mylar film on the laptop screen diffuses the light some and hides the matrix of the screen which can be seen when looking thru the slide. All in all I was pretty pleased with the setup and how the lens worked out as it was new to me back then. Now I'm wondering if I should set it up all again using my Nex-7 instead. Guess I've nothing to loose by trying it. Maybe I'll surprise myself and get something out of it.
As far as using the laptop goes, I couldn't come up with any other 'bright' light source that was laying flat. Just using MS Paint to make a white surface didn't really work. It didn't 'shine' like a light. To make it 'shine' I thought, why not just take a picture of a light. The LED flashlight was close at hand so I tried it and it worked.