1:1 Macrophotography or scanned slides?

have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van

van Dark wrote:
have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van

Scanner will give you higher resolution images than a digital camera
will and is a lot easier process too.

van Dark wrote:

have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?


A slide scanner gives up to 4000 dpi resolution (about 21 megapixels
for a scan of a 35mm slide), a significantly greater dynamic range,
completely even illumination across the slide and records red, green
and blue content at every pixel position.

Using a DSLR with a slide copier attachment limits the resolution to
that of your DSLR, has a more restricted dynamic range, resulting in
blowing out the highlights, filling in the shadows, or both, suffers
from uneven illumination, and records only one of red, green or blue
at each pixel position, which are then synthesised in firmware or
software to create an interpolated full colour image.

The choice is yours!

Personally, I chose the scanner, and I cannot imagine why anyone would
choose the slide copier - unless they had little or no interest in the
quality of the results.

On Nov 20, 4:46 am, van Dark wrote:
have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van


I have tried to copy slides using my D200 on a pro slide duplicating
unit. While it worked well the jpegs were uneless and you had to shoot
RAW for the best results. BTW you only need a 1:2 mag for slides to a
digital sensor. There was a lot of post processing.
Both my scanners, a Nikon LS2000 and an Epson V700 gave better
results, the V700 being the best because of a greater dynamic range.
Again this wasn't a cheap slide duplicator but one with a special
Schneider Componon lens and a very rigid bellows, tungsten or flash
exposure.

Tom

van Dark wrote:
have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?

You'll get better quality and automatic dust & scratches removal with
a transparency scanner. However, a DSLR is much faster per slide once
you've got everything set up.

Andrew.

van Dark wrote:

have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van

A scanner will give you better image quality. Most of the scanners have
higher resolution than a dslr and many include dust & scratch removal
protocols. An automated scanner will save you time and effort as well. But
with either option a lot of post processing will be needed.
--
gautam

There is an illusion that some people "think" they would like to
recapture the past by transferring
their "thousands color and B/W slides".
In order to meet your expectations these images would need to be
professionally scanned and probably out of the cost range for most
individuals. If you invested in a quality scanner and were
a disciplined, dedicated individual impervious to sheer boredom you
probably would not actally spend the week after week of scanning and
sorting.
To be practical and deal with reality, select that small number of
images that you treasure, and
pay to have those limited numbers scanned professionally.
To those who "believe" that their thousands of images are all
treasures then illusion changes to delusion,




"van Dark" wrote in message
...
have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van

Gautam Majumdar wrote:

van Dark wrote:

have got thousands color and B/W slides. And I would like to archive
these images. What is better: make a scan for these slides or use a
camera with 1:1 macrophotography?
This is a question.
Van

A scanner will give you better image quality. Most of the scanners have
higher resolution than a dslr and many include dust & scratch removal
protocols. An automated scanner will save you time and effort as well. But
with either option a lot of post processing will be needed.


You're right about the post-processing, but you don't actually need to
do any of it until you need to use the images.

If all you are doing is scanning slides with the intention of creating
a digital archive, you need not spend a lot of time on
post-processing.

Tony Polson wrote:

If all you are doing is scanning slides with the intention of creating
a digital archive, you need not spend a lot of time on
post-processing.


Yea, I'll be doing the same thing soon because I am going to scan a
bunch of slides that my Dad took back in the sixties and put them on
photo cd's for my family members. Only post processing I intend to do is
batch resizing. They are meant as keepsakes and not photographic art.

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
Frank Arthur wrote:
There is an illusion that some people "think" they would like to
recapture the past by transferring
their "thousands color and B/W slides".
In order to meet your expectations these images would need to be
professionally scanned and probably out of the cost range for most
individuals. If you invested in a quality scanner and were
a disciplined, dedicated individual impervious to sheer boredom you
probably would not actally spend the week after week of scanning
and sorting.
To be practical and deal with reality, select that small number of
images that you treasure, and
pay to have those limited numbers scanned professionally.
To those who "believe" that their thousands of images are all
treasures then illusion changes to delusion,

Oh I don't know, I scanned about 2,000 slides, just had it running
while I did other stuff. I did not scan many at full resolution
which made things go faster. I did find it kind of fun seeing all
the old photos that I had not seen in many years, and I am very glad
to have the scans now that I am done.

Congratulations on being one of the rare individuals who actually
persisted in the task.
Obviously you didn't load 2,000 images in the scanner. How many were
you able to load
at a time and about how long did you have to wait before changing to
the next batch?


What I have not scanned are all my negatives, they seem to take a
lot more work to scan.

Scott