Negative duping question

After too many years of photography, I’m committed to digital. Problem is…all those color negs neatly (mostly) filed
away. I have a need to reprint some of them and would like to do it digitally… (Lordy, you have no idea how I swore
that this would never happen)…and really don’t want to invest kilobucks in a slide scanner,

I do have a Nikon PB-4 bellows with the PB-6 slide-copying adapter. Have never used the adapter…only the bellows for
extreme close-up work some years ago.

Seems to me I can simply "photograph" those old negs and achieve essentially "camera resolution" of the original negs.
Of course, the optical resolution limits will be there but I wonder if they won’t be less than a pre-packed (so to
speak) scanner.

Any ideas?

Thanks

— DaveinFLL
===========================
"It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity."
===========================
(Think the humidity’s bad? You should watch us vote!)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:45:11 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

Take them to a photofinisher and have them scanned and put onto a cdrom for you.

But note that not all "photofinishers" are created equal. You get what you pay for.

wrote in message

After too many years of photography, I’m committed to digital. Problem

is…all those color negs neatly (mostly) filed

away. I have a need to reprint some of them and would like to do it

digitally… (Lordy, you have no idea how I swore

that this would never happen)…and really don’t want to invest kilobucks

in a slide scanner,

I do have a Nikon PB-4 bellows with the PB-6 slide-copying adapter. Have

never used the adapter…only the bellows for

extreme close-up work some years ago.

Seems to me I can simply "photograph" those old negs and achieve

essentially "camera resolution" of the original negs.

Of course, the optical resolution limits will be there but I wonder if

they won’t be less than a pre-packed (so to

speak) scanner.

Any ideas?

It’s simple: If you don’t use a dedicated film scanner your output will be of lower quality than what you are used to get from your lab. Like the guy at my lab said when I noted the quality of his scan compared to mine (and I am using a pretty good desktop film scanner): Your scanner costs about $1500, mine about $10.000, that might explain the difference. Also, don’t forget than when it comes to scanners the DPI is not the only variable, the dynamic range is very important and only a proper film scanner will allow you to reproduce your negs without too much loss.

Things changed so fast in the past years, now digital cameras compare to film cameras in output quality and ease of use.Film scanners will be obsolete very soon so my recommendation is to have your negs printed the old way or have them scanned and buy a digital camera instead I ‘ll go there too as soon as Nikon decides to finally come up with a full size sensor, I don’t like the 1.5 multiplication factor.

Stephan

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:49:01 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

It’s simple: If you don’t use a dedicated film scanner your output will be of lower quality than what you are used to get from your lab. Like the guy at my lab said when I noted the quality of his scan compared to mine (and I am using a pretty good desktop film scanner): Your scanner costs about $1500, mine about $10.000, that might explain the difference. Also, don’t forget than when it comes to scanners the DPI is not the only variable, the dynamic range is very important and only a proper film scanner will allow you to reproduce your negs without too much loss.
Things changed so fast in the past years, now digital cameras compare to film cameras in output quality and ease of use.Film scanners will be obsolete very soon so my recommendation is to have your negs printed the old way or have them scanned and buy a digital camera instead I ‘ll go there too as soon as Nikon decides to finally come up with a full size sensor, I don’t like the 1.5 multiplication factor.
Stephan

You can always buy a Canon EOS 1 Ds – that’s full frame 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:49:01 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

It’s simple: If you don’t use a dedicated film scanner your output will

be

of lower quality than what you are used to get from your lab. Like the guy at my lab said when I noted the quality of his scan compared

to

mine (and I am using a pretty good desktop film scanner): Your scanner

costs

about $1500, mine about $10.000, that might explain the difference. Also, don’t forget than when it comes to scanners the DPI is not the only variable, the dynamic range is very important and only a proper film

scanner

will allow you to reproduce your negs without too much loss.
Things changed so fast in the past years, now digital cameras compare to film cameras in output quality and ease of use.Film scanners will be obsolete very soon so my recommendation is to have your negs printed the

old

way or have them scanned and buy a digital camera instead I ‘ll go there too as soon as Nikon decides to finally come up with a

full

size sensor, I don’t like the 1.5 multiplication factor.
Stephan

You can always buy a Canon EOS 1 Ds – that’s full frame 😉

I wish I could, but I have pretty expensive Nikon lenses, like 300mm 2.8, and because of that I am stuck with Nikon.

Stephan

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:05:41 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

You can always buy a Canon EOS 1 Ds – that’s full frame 😉

I wish I could, but I have pretty expensive Nikon lenses, like 300mm 2.8, and because of that I am stuck with Nikon.

Stephan

Yeah, understand. When I had to make a decision which system to buy into (I originally had a Pentax – lenses are OK but I needed a wider based system) I had to choose either Canon or Nikon. My partner made my mind up for me by buying me a Canon, and I’ve been very pleased with them. Especially when, about 4 years ago Sigma started doing Canon AF lenses in their EX range which were about two thirds to half the price of Canon lenses and just as good at worst. (In fact, I have a Sigma 105mm Macro and I’ve seen three comparison tests and in all of them it beat the marque lenses).

I would like a manual camera whoever, and the only choice for that is really the Nikon FM2 or FM3. I just want something I can carry around which doesn;’t depend on battery power, with one, maybe two lenses (like a 35mm f1.4 or something like that) and maybe a short telephoto.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:05:41 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

You can always buy a Canon EOS 1 Ds – that’s full frame 😉

I wish I could, but I have pretty expensive Nikon lenses, like 300mm 2.8, and because of that I am stuck with Nikon.

Stephan

Yeah, understand. When I had to make a decision which system to buy into (I originally had a Pentax – lenses are OK but I needed a wider based system) I had to choose either Canon or Nikon. My partner made my mind up for me by buying me a Canon, and I’ve been very pleased with them. Especially when, about 4 years ago Sigma started doing Canon AF lenses in their EX range which were about two thirds to half the price of Canon lenses and just as good at worst. (In fact, I have a Sigma 105mm Macro and I’ve seen three comparison tests and in all of them it beat the marque lenses).

I would like a manual camera whoever, and the only choice for that is really the Nikon FM2 or FM3. I just want something I can carry around which doesn;’t depend on battery power, with one, maybe two lenses (like a 35mm f1.4 or something like that) and maybe a short telephoto.

Try to find an Nikon FA then, the center metering is so precise you don’t need to carry a hand cell around.
I have a broken one on a shelve behind me sitting pretty on it’s repair manual bought on eBay, one of these 10 year projects I guess 😉

Stephan

"Stephan" …

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:49:01 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

It’s simple: If you don’t use a dedicated film scanner your output will

be

of lower quality than what you are used to get from your lab. Like the guy at my lab said when I noted the quality of his scan compared

to

mine (and I am using a pretty good desktop film scanner): Your scanner

costs

about $1500, mine about $10.000, that might explain the difference. Also, don’t forget than when it comes to scanners the DPI is not the only variable, the dynamic range is very important and only a proper film

scanner

will allow you to reproduce your negs without too much loss.
Things changed so fast in the past years, now digital cameras compare to film cameras in output quality and ease of use.Film scanners will be obsolete very soon so my recommendation is to have your negs printed the

old

way or have them scanned and buy a digital camera instead I ‘ll go there too as soon as Nikon decides to finally come up with a

full

size sensor, I don’t like the 1.5 multiplication factor.
Stephan

You can always buy a Canon EOS 1 Ds – that’s full frame 😉

I wish I could, but I have pretty expensive Nikon lenses, like 300mm 2.8, and because of that I am stuck with Nikon.

Stephan

Kodak 14n?
Coming down in price and going up in quality all the time. And if I can say so without opening a can of worms, better looking than the Canon.

Here worms, come back worms. Nice worms.
GET BACK IN YER CAN…WORMS.

Brian
(the other one)

Kodak 14n?
Coming down in price and going up in quality all the time. And if I can say so without opening a can of worms, better looking than

the Canon.

It’s not a camera it’s a building block with a pop-up flash! I’ll get it when they put wheels on it or when a slimmer version is available on an F5 or at least F90.

Stephan

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:12:50 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

I would like a manual camera whoever, and the only choice for that is really the Nikon FM2 or FM3. I just want something I can carry around which doesn;’t depend on battery power, with one, maybe two lenses (like a 35mm f1.4 or something like that) and maybe a short telephoto.

Try to find an Nikon FA then, the center metering is so precise you don’t need to carry a hand cell around.
I have a broken one on a shelve behind me sitting pretty on it’s repair manual bought on eBay, one of these 10 year projects I guess 😉

Nice, idea, but I didn’t mean *that* basic 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui