Okay, thanks that explains why there is not so much information on it as
it was a silly idea :-) .
has anyone else found a big difference when scanning kodachrome 64 and
200 my canon 2700F just cannot handle 200. I cannot however justify
another scanner to my wife (hence the digital body approach), who wants
to learn to do prints from slides anyway (which suits me) so we want to
set up a darkroom. It is just a hobby so quality rather than throughput
is the driver.
I did some BW developing years ago, but other activities got in the way
and I haven't done any for a while. I have never done any colour
developing as I was frightened away from it, Is it really that difficult
to make prints from slides and any recommendations on which enlarger etc
to buy. Or can you point me to some decent online tutorials or reading
fodder.
thanks
Ianw
Moose wrote:
> Do you use a framing hammer and cold chisel to tighten nuts and a
> spanner to drive nails? Both can be done, but the results are generally
> less than desireable.
>
> An E-1 has 2560x1920 resolution. If you copy the full width of a 35mm
> frame, that is 2560/36mm = 71 ppmm = 1800 ppi. In theory, that is good
> enough for the web and 4x6 prints. In practice, the results will be
> almost certainly be at least somewhat worse than an 1800 dpi scanner,
> especially if you don't use a true macro lens.
>
> You can easily get an excellent 2700dpi scanner for much less than the
> cost of the 80/4 Oly recommends for best results with the slide copier.
>
> One simple technical issue. The bellows won't mount directly on most
> DSLRs. Even the E-1, which doesn't have a pop-up flash above the prism
> housing, has a forward bulge there that interferes with the bellows. It
> can be mounted with an extension tube. That changes the minimum
> extension of the bellows by the length of the tube needed to clear the
> body. Probably won't affect the slide copier with an 80mm lens. I'm not
> sure about with a 50mm, but it's fairly easy to check once you determine
> how long a tube is needed for the camera body you are considering..
>
> Moose
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>
>
>>No direct experience ... a former list member tried to get digital copies of
>>slides using a digital camera and slide copier. Dust is still a major issue.
>>The relatively low res copies I saw over the internet weren't as good as the
>>pictures he took of real scenes using the same digital camera. He was
>>wanting to get a film scanner but I don't know if he did. You won't save any
>>time with post processing vs. a film scanner.
>>-jeff
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "swisspace" <swisspace@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: [OM] Scanner or copy using digital body
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>My current line of thought is having just bought a bellows and slide
>>>copier from that auction place is to not buy a scanner but spend a
>>>little extra on a digital body and adapter and copy the slides that way.
>>>
>>>I think this may be much faster as it will require less post processing,
>>>once you have the camera set up correctly. I then also have a digital
>>>body to use.
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|