#Digitizing 35mm slides iso#
#Digitizing 35mm slides professional#

But if you regularly scan multiple negs that are likely to need dust and scratch removal, then the 8200i SE could be a real time-saver and worth the premium. The downside? In some places, the 8200i SE can cost around 40% more than the 8100, making it rather less of a bargain. Combined with the iSRD feature in the bundled SilverFast scanning software, any dust and scratches on your negs are automatically detected and then removed from the digital scan - clever stuff. There's really only one key feature that separates the 8200i SE from the 8100, and that's its dedicated infra-red scanning channel. It's almost identical on this inside too, but that's no bad thing, as that means you're assured top-notch scanning quality, providing you're prepared to wait a while when using max 7200dpi scanning resolution. As I have no macro lens, I used normal (slightly tele) prime with macro rings.Apart from its black rather than blue finish, the OpticFilm 8200i SE could be mistaken for its baby 8100 sibling. Macro lens is probably ther best solution for this. I used the back side of film facing camera (with emulsion side forward), so the picture in camera viewfinder was everytime correctly oriented. Postprocessing takes much more time then 1.5 - 2 hours of shooting some 300 pictures.īecause of PP you can use any side of film facing camera.

#Digitizing 35mm slides iso#

ISO 100, aperture 8, maximum resolution, RAW, AE integral, auto focus, flash onto white wall and hurry up. And after googling a while you'll find out that flatbed scanners are not suited for quality archiving purposes - don't forget the digital image will then be your only source.įor film stripes I used film holder from that Canon scanner and for framed slides I made for myself a small holder from black plastic part of CD cover. Although I have dedicated film scanner Canon, I wouldn't recommend using such one. With or without flash you can make about 4 exposures in a minute while scanning lasts about 3-4 four minutes per frame. I think it's the best way, much faster and more comfortable than any scanner. Last year I have digitized nearly all my 35 mm slides, color and B&W negatives since 1964 using my Sony A-65 DSLR (actually SLT). So far at Christmas time, I copy a bunch of USB flash drives and give them to Nieces and Nephews.Ī long project and if I can give you any more support, please ask.Īlso have a look at an example picture taken with this setup also at pBase All the copies are arranged on my hard drive by original year taken, family etc. What I have been doing, is after the copy and a trip thru PP, I give them a descriptive file name like 'Aunt Lucy at Port Bay, 1952 etc.

#Digitizing 35mm slides professional#

Professional friends have told me this is due to the development chemicals used.Īs I mentioned before, I have copied lots of slides and now am at 1972 or so, so I have a ways to go and I have not even attempted the negatives or the many boxes of prints. Also some of the slides from different film manufactures have not aged the same. Not all the slides due to their mount lay in the same focus plane. Now one of the things I have found doing this copy is the need for flexibility to focus. I did not use one of my DSLR's, rather a P&S in Macro mode. Have a look at the picture on my pBase gallery at So I made a home made copy stand from a old junk 'Blondie' lunch box. Some of the glass mounted tape bound had deteriorated over the years. I originally started to scan them with my Canoscan 4400F but soon gave up as I had a mix of slides mounted in various type mounts, cardboard, glass, metal etc. Others are from the 2-1/4 sq, type from the twin reflex cameras. 127 etc.( these share the 2 x 2 inch slide mount).

These date back to the late 1940's and the very early ones were B/W. I have been doing a copy of my many slides from the film era.