Anyone have good luck with slide scanning?

[Ombligo]

The dSLR scanning system may be the best way to handle large quantities.

I just used a Canonscan 9000f to scan around 50 slides with very good results. Took about two minutes each with scanning, importing and photoshop to each.

[DRR]

Uncle Wig wrote:
I bought a Nikon Coolscan V ED a few years ago when I learned Nikon was discontinuing their film scanners. I'm glad I did: now they go for as much as a grand on Ebay. It works great, but yes: it's time consuming.

There may be other decent film scanners on the market now (as opposed to flatbed scanners which won't do a good job on Kodachrome) but I haven't been following the market.

I think a good DSLR and a setup like Thermarest describes may well be the best way to go. It'll certainly be the fastest. Depending on the setup, I don't think you must have a macro lens, but it needs to be good and sharp, with little or no distortion.

An article about this, which deal with lens choice and resolution: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com...ilm-2.html

Here's an article about doing it with a macro lens: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-s...acro-lens/

Another article with a DIY setup and a flash: http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-s...th-a-dslr/

Another article dealing with light source: http://petapixel.com/2013/04/23/build-a-...ore-107258

You don't need a macro lens but you'll likely need extension tubes or a bellows or something.

The alternative would be to to have something opaque that holds the slide/neg farther away from the lens, because unless you have a macro lens, extension tubes/bellows, your lens won't be able to focus that close. Like a Pringles can or similar.

[PeterB]

For those of us who have a SnapScan scanner (I have both the 300M and a 1500M), there's also the possibility to use the scanner for this purpose. It's designed for paper rather than negatives, and I'm well aware that you might really need a dedicated slide scanner for this purpose, but I'm really tempted to try scanning some negatives to see what I'd get.

[h linamen]

ka jowct wrote:
I have a Plustek 8200 scanner. It scans pretty quickly, compared to my 10-year-old Polaroid Sprintscan. I'm scanning mostly at 3600 ppi, but I have gone to 7200 ppi on certain images. I can't see doing this much work to end up with low-resolution images.

It's hard to believe that the cheap ones can do a decent job at 4-5 seconds a slide. Can you post any samples?

I have yet to learn how to include pics in the forum. See the following Amazon link and read the first review by Bob Tobias which includes a video comparing three slides professionally scanned and then scanned by Wolverine with no enhancements. http://www.amazon.com/Wolverine-F2D14-Ne...xt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I'm not arguing that a more expensive scanner won't do a better job... just saying I am very satisfied with the scans I got from my Wolverine.

[ka jowct]

I have yet to learn how to include pics in the forum. See the following Amazon link and read the first review by Bob Tobias which includes a video comparing three slides professionally scanned and then scanned by Wolverine with no enhancements.

I looked, but saw only a tiny little movie clip that I didn't play. You really need to be able to see the images at full res to evaluate them.