Just move the camera back a little farther away, that'll all.
I don't want to pick nits, just make sure I (and the OP) understand your advice.
Backing away means you're not at a 1:1 ratio.
CurtisN Master Flasher 19,129 posts Likes: 11 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Northern Illinois, US More info | PacAce wrote: Just move the camera back a little farther away, that'll all. I don't want to pick nits, just make sure I (and the OP) understand your advice. "If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DocFrankenstein Cream of the Crop 12,324 posts Likes: 13 Joined Apr 2004 Location: where the buffalo roam More info | Curtis N wrote: I don't want to pick nits, just make sure I (and the OP) understand your advice. Backing away means you're not at a 1:1 ratio. Is there a point? National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PacAce Cream of the Crop 26,900 posts Likes: 40 Joined Feb 2003 Location: Keystone State, USA More info | Curtis N wrote: I don't want to pick nits, just make sure I (and the OP) understand your advice. Backing away means you're not at a 1:1 ratio. I don't think I said anywhere about shooting at 1:1 ratio. What I did say, however, was to make sure to get a lens that gives you a 1:1 magnification (you know, as they put it in the lens specification) so that he'll be able to shot the negative and get the whole negative frame in his camera frame and have it in focus. ...Leo
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Roach711 Senior Member 717 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2004 Location: Farmington Hills, MI USA More info | Could you have your local photo processor make up some good-old-fashioned contact sheets? Surely this would be cheaper than buying a quality scanner. You could then pick your keepers and have those few scanned. I've never had any of this done myself so I could be totally out to sea on the cost. ---------------
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jon Cream of the Crop 69,628 posts Likes: 227 Joined Jun 2004 Location: Bethesda, MD USA More info | Curtis N wrote: Help me with the math here. The OP said he wants to use a 300D. How can you shoot a 35mm negative at 1:1 magnification with a 1.6 crop factor camera and get the whole negative in the image? You don't need to shoot it at 1:1; you need to shoot at 1:1.6, which is closer than 1:2, so you'll need a lens which can reach 1:1 - anything (currently on the market) doing less won't work. Jon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bob_A Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 25, 2005 18:08 | #21 Has anyone here archived negatives using a light table and a macro lens? I'm really curious to know what kind of quality can really be expected using that approach. I know drum scanning would work very well, but I've never heard of anyone copying negs using a camera. Bob
LOG IN TO REPLY |
zakabog Senior Member 329 posts Joined Mar 2003 More info | Sep 25, 2005 19:17 | #22 Ok just as a test, I took a negative, held it against the monitor (looking at a white part of this page) and captured the picture with my 50mm macro lens on my digital rebel. I handheld the camera, it was a 13 second exposure, I moved the lens back till it was in focus and took the picture. Then I went into photoshop, inverted the image and adjusted the contrast and brightness. The image here is very close to the actual picture after it was developed, and I think it'd be good for a test. Now this is shooting using my monitor as a light source, I think a cheap flatbed scanner would work perfectly fine. Remember, he's only trying to preview the pictures and have the good ones developed.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Barb42 Senior Member 775 posts Joined May 2003 Location: Minnesota More info | Sep 25, 2005 21:24 | #23 Everyone is re-inventing the wheel. Use a scanner, go goodness sake. You can do numerous negs at the same time. If you can't afford it, wait until you can. http://www.barbsmithphotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bob_A Cream of the Crop More info | zakabog wrote: I think a cheap flatbed scanner would work perfectly fine. Remember, he's only trying to preview the pictures and have the good ones developed. You are absolutely correct. The only problem with doing it yourself is that it will take forever. Using my Canon 8400F it takes me about 10 minutes to load the negatives, ensure they are dust free and scan each set of 10-12 35mm negs, preview them to make sure the scan wasn't botched and save them to the right folder. For 120 format negatives it takes a similar amount of time, yet the carrier only is good for 4 frames. The actual scan doesn't take any time, it's the setup, previewing and saving that is a pain. Bob
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LesterWareham Moderator More info | Sep 26, 2005 04:44 | #25 fair_play_boy wrote: Hi, I have inherited about 10,000 black and white 35mm negatives of photos taken in the 1930s and 1940s. I want to develop them but can not afford to. Recently I bought a Canon 300d digital camera. Is there a lens or a combination of lenses that I can buy to photograph the negatives, so that I can at least see them on screen before selecting some to print? I have read the thread describing the use of flatbed and negative scanners, but I want to try this route first, if possible. Thank you. Dave in Cork, Ireland. Get a film scanner, the quality will be much better and a lot less trouble to use. Scanners are slow however. They are not too expensive now. Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
HuckabackPhoto Senior Member 683 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: South Wales. u.k. More info | Sep 26, 2005 05:05 | #26 Dave Old photographers never die. They just go out of focus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
HuckabackPhoto Senior Member 683 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: South Wales. u.k. More info | Sep 26, 2005 05:20 | #27 One other point Old photographers never die. They just go out of focus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1114 guests, 123 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||