13th May 2004, 08:16 PM
Duplicating your precious Slide films using a SLR/DSLR
Saw this thread which spurs me on to have a go myself at duplicating a slide film using a Slide Duplicator (with Nikon T2 mount adapter), a little gadget which I have never put to practical use.
Under normal circumstances, I would have used a 35mm film SLR body to copy a slide but for illustrating purposes, I toyed with and realised the idea by using a 35mm digital SLR body to copy a slide...
Setup and equipment required:
1) SLR or DSLR body
2) Slide Duplicator at fixed f8 aperture (and with the correct T2 mount adapter for Nikon or Canon body)
3) Light Panel or box
4) A mounted slide film
Slot the mounted slide film into the slide holder of the Slide Duplicator and point it towards a suitable light source (daylight or a colour corrected light panel/box) as shown below:
Lastly, for a DSLR body, set your camera shutter speed to best effect (1 sec shutter speed was used for iso 200 at fixed f8 aperture) and for a SLR film body, rely on the camera metering (my Nikon FM3a gave the same shutter speed reading of 1 sec for the same iso).
Bracket your shot if necessary especially when you cannot preview your duplicated shots with a film SLR body.
I foresee there will be a problem with film SLR bodies like a Nikon F80, F75 etc which will disable metering when used with a Slide Duplicator. Anyway, it is simple to get around with this problem by adopting a trial & error method:
Use a slide/negative film, say at iso 100. With aperture fixed at f8, you can play around with the single variable, the shutter speed, assuming you also fixed the use of the light source. Bracket your shots, say plus minus 3 stops, from a good guess of the CORRECT shutter speed, me say at 1 sec. So, you exposed for 7 different exposures: 8sec, 4sec, 2sec, 1sec , 1/2sec, 1/4sec, 1/8sec. One of these 7 exposures is bound to be right!!! I bet my head on it
Use the above experimented & correct shutter speed for your future slide duplication. Remember to adjust your shutter speed accordingly to the iso speed value you used.
Duplicated slide sample and quality assessment:
The below pictures depict the duplicated slide sample and its duplicated quality was compared with the traditional slide scan using a Nikon LS 40 slide scanner:
Duplicated slide using the Slide Copier:
Scanned slide using the Slide Scanner:
Due to the used of a non full-framed DSLR body, the 1.5x cropping factor means the effective duplicated area will be discounted. But, if you have or are going to invest on a full-framed DSLR, you will retain 100% effective duplicating area!
Selective area (green box) from the duplicated slide using the Slide Copier:
Selective area (green box) from the scanned slide using the Slide Scanner:
Quality assessment of the selective cropped area (green box) at 100% from the duplicated slide using the Slide Copier:
Quality assessment of the selective cropped area (green box) at 100% from the scanned slide using the Slide Scanner:
It surprises me even until now, this minute, that the quality of the duplicated slide is on par with the scanned slide using a dedicated 35mm film scanner, both of which were unedited and no sharpening tool was applied.
Which method is marginally inferior or superior than the other is up to you to decide...
So, with a Slide Duplicator, you can duplicate colour slides, black and white or colour negatives from your original colour transparencies also known as slides.
Last note: A slide film, whether duplicated or scanned, is never better than or 100% of the original.
13th May 2004, 09:42 PM
Thanks for sharing. My limited experience with this (using Nikon ES-E28 slide copying adaptor and a Coolpix) was that it doesn't handle high contrast slides very well. A good slide scanner might be able to do that better.
Nevertheless, this is rather surprising results. I'd have thought the differences would be much greater than this.
13th May 2004, 11:13 PM
yeah, me too...
Originally Posted by ckiang
As shown, the scanned version edges the duplicate's in terms of quality/clarity. In comparison, the wordings on the stonework for the duplicated slide appears to be smudgging and less defined.
All said, I won't say the above results are conclusive. Now that I remember for the cemetry picture, my point of focus wasn't locked onto the stonework. In fact, this picture isn't all that sharp, front to back, back to front. So, the comparison above may not be very credible.
Once I got the time again, I will post another comparison result using a tack-sharp image.
14th May 2004, 12:03 AM
14th May 2004, 12:34 AM
14th May 2004, 02:44 AM
oh no!!! lol... my bad.... awfully sorry about that!!
********** JASPHOTOGRAPHY *********
15th May 2004, 07:34 PM
15th May 2004, 09:23 PM
15th May 2004, 09:56 PM
huh, why I didn't think of that?
Originally Posted by ckiang
Looks like I got more job ahead of me...
yeah, the quality is still pretty decent... I wonder how it stands if I were to print it to A4 ?!?! Anyway, I won't be too bothered to do just that, not until I got the full frame in.
Originally Posted by ckiang
A 105mm micro should be way better than my slide duplicator but there are few really good duplicators around to contend with. Main reason for using a duplicator is ease of use as compared to using a micro lens that involves tripod setup and ambient lighting control.
If a DSLR can be used instead of a SLR and yet gives good reproduction result with a duplicator and able to print it to A4/A3, it would be a bonus and less hassle than using a slide scanner which could take a couple of minutes, if not, more precious minutes to scan 1 slide.
With a full frame DSLR and a slide duplicator, all I need is 1 or 2 sec of exposure time!!! Cool ehhh... but of course, you won't have ICE dust/scratch removal function.