I'd like to copy 35mm negatives digitally in the easiest way possible

Dear Board,

I still shoot film, not a lot of it, but enough that it is rather expensive to get it both printed and scanned. And when that is done there are often many pictures that aren't worth a second look. Then there are the 1000's of negatives I have stored that I'd like to sort through and keep the better ones as digital images.

With those thoughts in mind, and considering that I know absolutely NOTHING about macro photography I have been encouraged by posts I have seen on the internet where people have used DSLR's, macro lenses, a slide copier, and either the camera's onboard flash or a shoe mounted to aim against a wall and fire away.

I realize that a set-up like that will not beat the better dedicated scanners, but I don't want to be bothered with a $ 400.00 plus scanner that is slow as molasses and requires it's own dedicated software for processing.

I would like to copy what I want to copy and move on. As I shoot new film I'll keep what I want to keep and disregard the rest paying only for a contact sheet and the returned negatives.

I own a Canon 40D, an Canon EOS 1DMK3, and a Nikon D300. If anyone cares to offer any suggestions as to which camera, slide copier, and which $ 300.00 used macro lens I should buy it would be greatly appreciated.

Likewise, I will entertain recommendations of a $ 300.00 scanner set-up, and by that I mean a flatbed scanner and a good negative carrier, that doesn't require a programming degree from MIT to operate at a reasonable speed. By that I mean 24 to 36 frames viewed and the keepers scanned in an hour.

Any suggestions?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA

what you have is a situation in which you will be trying to duplicate a 24mm x 36mm image area onto a sensor of 14.8mm x 22.2mm (40D) or a 15.8 x 23.6mm camera (D300) or an 18.7mm x 28.1mm sensor (1DIII)
...IOW a macro shot of 0.62X or 0.66X or 0.78X

So you will need to find means of positioning a neg onto a lightbox with your camera and lens positioned appropriately, and then copy the entire 24mm x 36mm image onto the chosen digital camera sensor
IBoth the 1DIII viewfinder and the D300 viewfinder sees 100% of the image area, so the above task is most readily accomplished with either camera.

Light table, a sturdy tripod, and the 100mm macro. make a jig allowing you to place the negatives on the light table and click away. Or get yourself a 58mm filer ring, a cardboard tube, some duct tape, and an old slide holder from a garage sale slide projector. Put them together, screw it on the 100mm, load up a slide and point it at the sun.

Buy a good flatbed scanner with a fixture for scanning negatives and slides.

I've got a bunch of negatives and slides from college and Korea. I bought a Canon Canoscan 5600F to digitize them. It was the easiest solution I could find.

So far, I've been happy with the results.

A couple of images from my Vivitar 35mm SLR, circa 1977-78, scanned from negatives. These were my first attempts. I could probably do better now that I've got Elements 15.

Last week I searched the internet for a photo and negative scanner and saw the Canon SC9000, it seems to be a good one not too expensive.
A website with a lot of info is www.filmscanner.info.

"Scanning" black and white negatives is pretty easy with just about any digital camera and light source. The word scanning is in quotes because it is not really scanning but copying. Anyway, you can use any macro lens. Place the neg on a lightbox or on a window or whatever, and shoot away.

In the olden days some of us used to use devices like the Bowens Illumitran. They are occasionally for sale used. You might have to do some fiddling to get one to adapt to a modern camera. Once you accomplish that, copying should be easy. But check beforehand to make sure you can shoot at less than 1:1.

For copying color negatives, there are additional challenges because it can be hard to get truthful colors. This is because color negs fade, and the three color layers fade at different rates. You also have to watch your illumination source, because some (like fluorescent and LED) are not great for getting true colors. Electronic flash would be a great light source provided it is even.

https://www.amazon.com …tic-Diopter/dp/B000EQ24Z4

It has been a long time since I regularly used a film scanner or flatbed scanner, but I use to do it ALL THE TIME, professionally as part of my job kind of thing. I still own a working Nikon SuperCoolScan 9000 or 8000 or something like that.

That said, I have recently bought some macro tubes and will be setting up a slide copy station with my 6D. In fact I hope to do it this weekend.

IMO, flatbed scanners are a pain in the neck for film scanning.

Dedicated is the way to go. But my hope is that I can get as good or better results in camera with way less fuss and in way less time.

Converting color negs is not as easy as it might seem. Did you mention what you were scanning? I might have missed it.

Dear Wilt,

I understand what you are saying when you speak of reducing 24mm x 36mm to a smaller sensor. I'm pretty good at math so I understand the ratios you provided.

What I don't understand is exactly how the focal length of the macro lens fits in to the equation? For example Nikon has 40mm, 55mm, 60mm AF compatible macro lenses and third party makers provide longer focal lengths. If you can tell me the formula I can probably figure out correct focal length, but if you want to do the math for me I certainly won't complain.

Likewise similar focal lengths are available in Canon EOS mount from Canon and third party makers. I'm leaning towards using the Nikon D300 but if you or anyone else feels the results would potentially be better using the 1DMK3 I'll consider using it.

I've considered a flatbed scanner like the Canon 9000 or the Epson V550 or V600 but they are pretty good sized pieces of equipment and I am worried about finding a place to keep it in my den where my computer is set up? I do know that for less than the cost of a decent used AF macro lens I can buy a new in the box flatbed scanner and a decent third party negative carrier so I am also weighing that option. I just don't want to spend 30 minutes per frame copying a negative on a flatbed scanner and anything more advanced in a scanner is beyond my budget considerations. I'd like to be operational for $ 300.00 - $ 400.00 regardless of the method I use.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions and I look forward to hearing any more suggestions that the forum can offer.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA

If we keep a constant with macro lenses of 1:1 reproduction size, then the difference with focal length is working distance.

And of course any related dof difference depending on aperture.

I am glad you just posted. I'm sitting here drinking a cold beer and thinking about all the stuff I have to do this weekend. I almost forgot about setting up a slide station and testing my new tubes. Sounds like an easy and satisfying thing to do tonight! Better than yardwork!!!

Dear Brisket,

Anything beats yard work dude! I'd rather shovel snow!

When you talk of 1:1 and working distance that I understand. I got the idea for using a DSLR from another board where the poster uses a D800 and a 60mm f2.8 AF-D to scan 35mm negatives using a Nikon slide copier, https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …QJ-Q&is=REG&m=Y&sku=37453, that screws onto the filter threads of the lens.

What I would like to know is what would happen if I used the same lens and copier on my D300?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA

Each lens has a range of magnifications using the standard focus mechanism within the lens...larger mag at MFD vs. lesser mag at Infinity. The addition of a specific length of extension tube then moves the optics away from the focal plane, creating a higher magnification range (again the larger mag is with lens itself focused at MFD vs. lesser mag with the lens itself focused at Infinity.

Extension Length / Focal Length = Magnifcation Ratio of combination, with lens at Infinty.

• If you put 12mm extension on 50mm lens, min Mag Ratio (focused at Infinity) = 12/50 = 1:4.2 (0.24X)
  
• If you put 20mm extension on 50mm lens, min Mag Ratio (focused at Infinity) = 20/50 = 1:2.5 (0.4X)
  
• If you put 32mm extension (12+20) on 50mm lens, min Mag Ratio (focused at Infinity) = 32/50 = 1:1.56 (0.64X)
  
• If you put 36mm extension on 50mm lens, min Mag Ratio (focused at Infinity) = 36/50 = 1:1.39 (0.72X)
  
• If you put 50mm extension on 50mm lens, min Mag Ratio (focused at Infinity) = 50/50 = 1:1 (1.0X)
  

• 50mm extension + 50mm FL = 1:1, at 200mm object to focal plane
  
• 55mm extension + 55mm FL = 1:1, at 220mm object to focal plane
  
• 60mm extension + 60mm FL = 1:1, at 240mm object to focal plane
  
• 100mm extension + 100mm FL = 1:1, at 400mm object to focal plane
  

As one who has scanned hundreds of negatives/slides with a flatbed (Epson V500) I gave up on the flatbed and went the DSLR route. The flatbed is just too dang slow. I can do better than 5 slides for each on a flatbed and negatived faster than that.

Tim,

If you are going to use a macro lens for this copying, you can use any 100mm-ish macro lens or Canon's 60mm macro. These will give you the magnification you need to fill the frame with the original. All you have to do is vary the focus of the lens until it is right. You can also use a 50mm macro lens, but some of these need a (usually-supplied) extension tube to get the right magnification range.

You could also use regular (non-macro) lenses, with extensions as Wilt showed. By 'non-macro' lenses I am including regular lenses that are marked 'macro' but aren't really macro and can't do 1:1 photography.

Most folks don't get good results using a flatbed scanner to scan 35mm negatives. YMMV.

I would shy away from non-macro lenses. Macro lenses are generally designed for close work and have very little barrel or pincushion distortion. Also they tend to be sharper across the whole frame. Using a 50mm lens and tubes to get to 1:1 is going to introduce a lot of distortion.