Using digital camera to scan pictures questions

[garygriggs]

BillDrew wrote:

garygriggs wrote:

But would you retain your sanity after a week-end sitting next to a $19 shop vac?

No problem, ever heard of a muffler!! Wrap the shop vac with an oversized piece of foam. A friend at work has done that and says you can hardly hear it.
GG

[ac.smith]

One other item. Your S5 is a 1/2.5 sensor camera. Because of defraction your peak resolution will be in the f/4-f/4.5 range. Zooming to about 50mm equiv. in macro mode will move the camera back for ease of lighting and reduce barrel distortion.

[Bynx]

My mother recently gave me all the old family pics. I scanned a lot of them before I got my digital camera. Now I just use the camera exclusively. Use the white balance feature for the lighting you are using. When finished drop in photoshop and one click of auto levels and you have great natural color. Another click of unsharp mask and its finished. Its a LOT quicker than using a scanner.

[garygriggs]

Gac.smith wrote:

One other item. Your S5 is a 1/2.5 sensor camera. Because of defraction your peak resolution will be in the f/4-f/4.5 range. Zooming to about 50mm equiv. in macro mode will move the camera back for ease of lighting and reduce barrel distortion.

Good advice, thanks.
I setup with macro at about 1' 6" and used f/4 - f/4.5, the detail is much better.
Now if I can just get the lighting close and correct it with a custom white balance!
Gary

[Gene9]

For copies of color slides and pictures, I believe a scanner is junk. Color reproduction is always bad and it takes a lot of time and storage capacity. A camera is 10's of times faster and I would say a 10s of times smarter in terms of software. You do need a simple copy stand to keep things square, and of course a back-light for color slides. Modern macro modes will get 35mm full frame. You do not need a DSLR. Do not overheat, but a quartz light provides perhaps the best quality light. You can even get small 10 watt reflector units. (12Volt)

AND a word of caution. Do not even think of trying to reproduce color negative material as a positive by any means, except have a traditional color print made and copy the positive. The deep orange mask used in the color negative is too much to mess with. Gene Smith

[VTphotog]

Gene9 wrote:

AND a word of caution. Do not even think of trying to reproduce color negative material as a positive by any means, except have a traditional color print made and copy the positive. The deep orange mask used in the color negative is too much to mess with. Gene Smith

I have not had any problems with color conversions using 35mm negatives, except with some 30+ year old color negs which have exhibited grain growth. It came as quite a surprise to me, as I had always thought that once developed, negatives remained stable.

brian