«

Well it's not a huge disappointment, it's just one of those things that
irritates someone picky like myself. I'm talking about scanning 35mm slides,
with an Epson Perfection V500 scanner I recently purchased. I was on a
mission to archive and preserve several hundred slides, taken by my
grandfather in the 1960's. After scanning over 500 slides, I began to have
my doubts as to whether or not the scanner was capturing all the detail. So
I dug out one of the most detailed slides, displayed it as large as
possible, and compared it with the scanned image on the computer. The flaws
of the scanner were obvious - distant advertising signs in the image were
clearly readable on the projector, but barely readable if at all on the
scanned image. I don't think it's a fault with the projector - it reproduces
colors beautifully, and it's scans of slides produce top-notch 4x6" prints.
8x10 enlargements, however, make it apparent that "perfection" is not quite
being achieved.
Obviously, I'm not going to rescan 500+ slides - many are not worth
enlarging and some are out-of-focus to begin with. But there are a few
dozen - particularly of landscapes and social gatherings, that I would like
to have scanned at the highest resolution possible, so that quality
enlargements can be printed if so desired. At this point I suspect the only
option is to have it done by a professional, as the equipment needed would
be far beyond my financial capability. Or is there another, consumer-priced
unit that do a truly professional job? I considered the Epson V700, but it
claims the same optical resolution as the V500. I honestly don't think the
V500 scans at anywhere near it's claimed 4800x9600dpi.
Thanks for any advice.

>
> I just bought a Bowens Illumitran duper on eBay for £70 with 2 Minolta
> camera bodies and a Nikkor 2.8 enlarging lens, bargain of the century. I
> thought about buying the V700 until I heard it takes 2 minutes to do a
> high
> quality scan, sod that. I attached the 5D MK2 and just took a picture of
> the
> original which took 2 seconds. You can copy a box of 60 slides in the same
> time that it takes to scan one picture with a scanner and these are high
> quality RAW files, it took less than 5 minutes to set up and I'm delighted
> with it. You still see these on eBay and other places so my advice is to
> buy
> one before somebody else has the same idea and the prices triple.
>
One idea that I thought of was to tip my Epson scanner sideways, and
project the slide onto the entire glass, and try scanning it that way. I
might give it a try and see how it works.

In article <4b886365$0$26973$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Chris F." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Well it's not a huge disappointment, it's just one of those things that
>irritates someone picky like myself. I'm talking about scanning 35mm slides,
>with an Epson Perfection V500 scanner I recently purchased. I was on a
>mission to archive and preserve several hundred slides, taken by my
>grandfather in the 1960's. After scanning over 500 slides, I began to have
>my doubts as to whether or not the scanner was capturing all the detail. So
>I dug out one of the most detailed slides, displayed it as large as
>possible, and compared it with the scanned image on the computer. The flaws
>of the scanner were obvious - distant advertising signs in the image were
>clearly readable on the projector, but barely readable if at all on the
>scanned image. I don't think it's a fault with the projector - it reproduces
>colors beautifully, and it's scans of slides produce top-notch 4x6" prints.
>8x10 enlargements, however, make it apparent that "perfection" is not quite
>being achieved.
> Obviously, I'm not going to rescan 500+ slides - many are not worth
>enlarging and some are out-of-focus to begin with. But there are a few
>dozen - particularly of landscapes and social gatherings, that I would like
>to have scanned at the highest resolution possible, so that quality
>enlargements can be printed if so desired. At this point I suspect the only
>option is to have it done by a professional, as the equipment needed would
>be far beyond my financial capability. Or is there another, consumer-priced
>unit that do a truly professional job? I considered the Epson V700, but it
>claims the same optical resolution as the V500. I honestly don't think the
>V500 scans at anywhere near it's claimed 4800x9600dpi.
> Thanks for any advice.
>
>
Flatbed home scanners are never going to do justice to slides.


A dedicated scanner , like a Nikon Coolscan III or IV with Digital ICE (Defect
removal) does the trick!!! If the pictures mean anything at all, then it is
worth the $400 or so to get one off of ebay.

In article <C7AF5D2F.1B196%(E-Mail Removed)>, The Royal Spam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Albert Ross27/2/10 19:51
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:02:55 +0000, The Royal Spam
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I just bought a Bowens Illumitran duper on eBay for £70 with 2 Minolta
>>> camera bodies and a Nikkor 2.8 enlarging lens, bargain of the century. I
>>> thought about buying the V700 until I heard it takes 2 minutes to do a high
>>> quality scan, sod that. I attached the 5D MK2 and just took a picture of the
>>> original which took 2 seconds. You can copy a box of 60 slides in the same
>>> time that it takes to scan one picture with a scanner and these are high
>>> quality RAW files, it took less than 5 minutes to set up and I'm delighted
>>> with it. You still see these on eBay and other places so my advice is to buy
>>> one before somebody else has the same idea and the prices triple.
>>
>> Hmmm, interesting idea! What sort of light source does this use?
>
>
>Electronic flash
>
Slide scanning and slide copying are two different things!

In article <C7B09131.1B1F5%(E-Mail Removed)>, The Royal Spam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>GMAN28/2/10 20:01
>
>> In article <C7AF5D2F.1B196%(E-Mail Removed)>, The Royal Spam
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Albert Ross27/2/10 19:51
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:02:55 +0000, The Royal Spam
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just bought a Bowens Illumitran duper on eBay for £70 with 2 Minolta
>>>>> camera bodies and a Nikkor 2.8 enlarging lens, bargain of the century. I
>>>>> thought about buying the V700 until I heard it takes 2 minutes to do a
> high
>>>>> quality scan, sod that. I attached the 5D MK2 and just took a picture of
>>>>> the
>>>>> original which took 2 seconds. You can copy a box of 60 slides in the same
>>>>> time that it takes to scan one picture with a scanner and these are high
>>>>> quality RAW files, it took less than 5 minutes to set up and I'm delighted
>>>>> with it. You still see these on eBay and other places so my advice is to
>>>>> buy
>>>>> one before somebody else has the same idea and the prices triple.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, interesting idea! What sort of light source does this use?
>>>
>>>
>>> Electronic flash
>>>
>> Slide scanning and slide copying are two different things!
>
>Really? How?
>
>
By slide copying i thought you meant taking a film camera, and taking a
photograph thru some device of the slide and then making another slide. I
guess you meant something different.

Lost in translation LOL!!!

On 2/27/2010 6:50 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

> Did you try alternate scanning s/w such as VueScan?
>
> For the sharper slides, can you borrow or access one of the following
> scanners (via a photo club, friend, used).
> Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, 9000
> Minolta 5400

I definitely love my Konica-Minolta 5400 film scanner. It's
now an "orphan", but provides a detailed scan down to
a sharp image of each and every grain in the film.

Not the greatest to scan large quantities of slides
though. Doesn't have an automated feeder that'll take
a stack of slides (takes four at a time).

Anoni Moose wrote,on my timestamp of 8/03/2010 11:55 AM:

>
> I definitely love my Konica-Minolta 5400 film scanner. It's
> now an "orphan", but provides a detailed scan down to
> a sharp image of each and every grain in the film.

Really? That would be a very large grained film indeed...

The Royal Spam wrote:
> Alan Browne27/2/10
>> The Royal Spam wrote:
>>
>>> This was from a Bowens Illumitran, film was Agfa 100, camera used to copy
>>> was a 5d mk2 http://www.picture-elements.f2s.com/Bowens/Alex.jpg
>>
>> Show it at full res. As shown, it would print to about 3" wide which is
>> pretty meaningless. The color and contrast look good (not to mention
>> the lovely lady), but the real proof in scanning is a print at 12" or more.
>
> As requested http://www.picture-elements.f2s.com/Bowens/alexlrg.jpg

That's great. The Bowens Illumitran device seems mostly to help with
consistent illumination/color/metering, which isn't as much of an issue
for digital... I'm guessing you used a top notch enlarger lens?