# Idea: Use enlarger and DSLR in lieu of scanner



## Actor (Oct 15, 2009)

Borrow wife's DSLR.
Take lens off DSLR.
Place DSLR on base of enlarger.
Use enlarger lens to focus image of negative on camera sensor.
Take shot of negative.
Use software to invert image.
Result: conversion of negative to digital w/o buying a scanner.
Problem:  The negative size is 24 x 36mm and I believe the sensor size of the camera is 16 x 24, meaning you need a magnification of 2/3.  The enlarger's lens's focal length is 50mm.  If my math is correct this means the negative to lens distance needs to be 125mm and the lens to sensor distance needs to be 83mm.  The maximum negative to lens distance of my enlarger is 90mm.

Solution:  Take the lamp, condenser lens, negative holder and lens out of the enlarger.  Mount all of them plus the camera on an optical bench.

This should give a high quality image of the negative in JPEG format.  A company in Texas has successfully marketed a telecine machine that uses a similar scheme to convert motion picture film to HD video.


----------



## Jeepin59 (Oct 15, 2009)

1. Wife kills you for "borrowing" her camera.
2. Wife really kills you for keeping  lens off for long periods and getting dust in her camera.
3. Wife gets wood chipper (so they can't find the body) for burning out her sensor.
4. Wife collects insurance policy, buys "uber" nice scanner and eats bonn bonns.....

In all honesty I would never had thought of all that....sounds interesting , but as mentioned above I would be too chicken to do that with my camera....


----------



## compur (Oct 15, 2009)

Back in the day there were simple, inexpensive devices that attached to a 
camera body for duplicating slides and negatives.  Camera at one end, 
neg/slide at the other.  All you had to do is point it at a light source and
take the picture.  Kodak made slide duplicating film just for this purpose
but, of course a digital SLR can now be used instead. 

Some macro bellows also had an attachment for doing this.

Today the older, simpler units sell on eBay for about $10-$20 and there are
more modern versions specifically targeted at digital SLR owners that sell
for about $50 or so.

Or, if you have a light table and can lay the slide/neg down flat on it, you
can then shoot it with with a macro lens on a digital camera as well.


----------



## usayit (Oct 15, 2009)

why not just use a slide duplicator?  Same concept.. or am I missing something?  (I personally never used one)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 15, 2009)

This might be an interesting way of doing things except that you saying nothing about the results. How are they?

Are they better than scanning? If not, what's the point.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2009)

1) Tape piece of typing paper on OUTSIDE of double paned window
2) Using masking tape, tape negative to window glass inside house
3) Using macro lens, snap photo of negative
4) Invert image of negative in Photoshop, creating positive image
5) Crack open beer to celebrate successful Rube Golderg project

or option 2
1) go to large photo store
2) purchase used Minolta Scan Dual scanner for $35
3) Install software and in minutes, produce high quality scan
4) Crack open beer to celebrate successful scanning project

or option 3
1) crack open beer
2) drink  beer
3) crack open second beer and drink
4) crack open third beer and drink
5) rack open third, no, fourth, FOURTH! beer. durink-it
6) grack ob-pen fifth 24 o--oounce can of Fo-ster's and dri.......................


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 15, 2009)

Derrel said:


> 1) Tape piece of typing paper on OUTSIDE of double paned window
> 2) Using masking tape, tape negative to window glass inside house
> 3) Using macro lens, snap photo of negative
> 4) Invert image of negative in Photoshop, creating positive image
> ...



:lmao:


----------



## usayit (Oct 15, 2009)

<<THUMP>>.... ZZZzzzzz  

(Took option 3 a few too many times...)

lol


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2009)

Or you can pay Novoflex for a holder:
Novoflex - CASTEL-COP-DIGI

or you can make something yourself or get a cheapy of ebay for far far far less


----------



## Actor (Oct 15, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> This might be an interesting way of doing things except that you saying nothing about the results. How are they?
> 
> Are they better than scanning? If not, what's the point.



Two points: 1. To be able to scan my negatives at zero or negligible cost by using stuff I already have on hand.  2. The challenge of doing it.  As for results, I have not been able to pull this off yet so I don&#8217;t know.  But I see no reason why the results should not be good.




Jeepin59 said:


> 1. Wife kills you for "borrowing" her camera.


I bought her the camera in the first place.


Jeepin59 said:


> 2. Wife really kills you for keeping lens off for long periods and getting dust in her camera.


A valid concern (the dust, that is, not the homicide).  My original plan was to work quickly and minimize the time the innards are exposed.  However, I think I have a better solution.  I happen to have a junk lens (iris is jammed).  If I  disassemble it, remove the glass, then reassemble it and put a UV filter on it I&#8217;d have something to keep the dust out.


Jeepin59 said:


> 3. Wife gets wood chipper (so they can't find the body) for burning out her sensor.


The sensor should not be at risk since focusing, aperture adjustment (at the enlarger) and shutter speed will be done TTL.  The sensor will be behind the shutter and the mirror except during exposure.  I doubt taking a shot of a 75 watt bulb would hurt the sensor. 


Jeepin59 said:


> 4. Wife collects insurance policy, buys "uber" nice scanner and eats bonn bonns.....


I cashed in the insurance policy when I retired, and she knows it.  That's where I got the money to buy her the camera. 

Part of the idea here is to minimize the amount of glass between the negative and the sensor.  I think it is better to use the enlarger lens rather than the camera lens since I know it has only two elements and should be a flat field lens (although for an image only 30mm diagonal that's probably not a concern).  Including the UV filter the light will cross an air/glass boundary only 6 times.

I've had another thought since my first post.  Rather than try to set this whole thing up on a optical bench I could get an extender between the enlarger and the lens.  Having a machine shop make an extender would probably cost more than simply buying a scanner, but I think I can gen something up with a toilet paper core and some duck tape.


----------



## Dwig (Oct 16, 2009)

Jeepin59 said:


> ...
> 3. Wife gets wood chipper (so they can't find the body) for burning out her sensor. ...



Someone's been watching "Fargo" again...

Actor:
There are several problems with your idea. The first is that enlargers are well named; they are designed to enlarge. Your setup requires that it reduce instead. This will usually require some additional extension and, for the best image quality, reversing the lens. Years ago, I used such a setup but was working with a 35mm film body so I only needed to reach 1:1. Still, it required some additional extension with the enlarger I was using.

Second, unless you have an enlarger that will swing for wall projection or have a body with an articulated LCD and live view, you're in for some challenges seeing through the VF for framing and exposure adjustment.

Third, the inverting idea works well for B&W but with color it has its challenges. A simple inversion leave a massively off color image due to the film's orange mask. If you aren't skilled with color correction in PS this will be a big issue.

Fourth, camera sensors have no where near the needed dynamic range to do high quality captures. You will find that there is noticeable clipping in the highlights and shadows. Using a newer camera (read: newer sensor technology) than I had several years ago for the right hand image (below) and shooting RAW (not an option with the camera I used) will allow somewhat better results, but still a good scanner will do noticeably better.


----------



## Actor (Oct 16, 2009)

Derrel said:


> or option 3
> 1) crack open beer
> 2) drink  beer
> 3) crack open second beer and drink
> ...




Does beer taste better at 68 deg F?
Does beer keep better in accordion bottles?
Can you process film in beer?
If yes to above, what a waste of beer!
If no then why do they put it in amber bottles?
Why is this film in my fridge?  It's taking up space that could be used for beer!
Photo Flo foams.  Can it be used as a substitute for beer?
Does digital beer taste as good as analog beer?


----------

