Using EOS-M to copy slides/negatives

Never tried with a camera, but copying negatives on a scanner requires a special LED light to backlight the negative (almost like a projector I suppose). I would doubt that front-lighting the negative would not work at all, but I might be wrong.

Colin

I just get my scanned by a proper lab. i tried with cameras and a crap cheap scanner but not good lol. some have done alright though.

A macro lens will do it, but you're much better off with a film scanner.  As mentioned above, the slide/negative must be backlit.  Some flat bed scanners will do this with a film strip adapter but a dedicated film scanner produces much better results.

I use a Plustek Film Scanner I bought from B&H Photo years ago.  Works a treat.

JD

If these are 35mm film images then a dedicated film scanner will be easier. I paid $274 on sale for a Plustek 8200i SE scanner. Has made getting the 35mm films scanned quite nice. You'll spend more to get a lens and adapter set-up and the dust issue will have you in post for hours. If you must then I have also tested a lens combo when a similar thread came up here. That thread is here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59707274

Film scanner would be my recommendation.

I recommend a dedicated film scanner - been using a $410.00 Epson for about 7 years now.  Gets the job done.  The reason I went with this model(4990 - no longer made), I had medium format negs & chromes to scan as well.

I just created an account just to thank you because looking at that photo result convinced me that this is the way to go for me. The scans from the lab are ok, but they are low res jpeg files that I think are even scanned a bit out of focus or with some softness applied.

So I'm going to buy this lens for my Canon M50 and build a scan setup. Thanks!

adam8190 wrote:

Yes, I've copied 35mm negatives with the EF-M 28mm and my M5. The original M would work well too.

.

.

.

Dear Adam

Thanks for the information.

Recently, I've been reserching for digitalisation of negatives with camera. I have one question;

Your example photo seems little grainy to me. Since I don't have o experiace I wonder. Is it normal for process, or is it lighting isssue? What do you think?

nahueljo wrote:

The scans from the lab are ok, but they are low res jpeg files that I think are even scanned a bit out of focus or with some softness applied.

Dedicated scanners typically have a very deep depth of field. The softness comes from the “dust-removal” software that they get run through afterwards.

Do a test run at a number of labs to see which suits you best.

So I'm going to buy this lens for my Canon M50 and build a scan setup. Thanks!

A DIY setup can be as simple or complex as you want. Do avoid the (numerous) pitfalls. And be prepared to spend copious amounts of time in post, even with good software (such as Silverfast).

Biggest tip: Get your negs/slides as DUST-FREE as possible!  Avoid scratching!

Best of luck!

R2

aeren wrote:

adam8190 wrote:

Yes, I've copied 35mm negatives with the EF-M 28mm and my M5. The original M would work well too.

.

.

.

Dear Adam

Thanks for the information.

Recently, I've been reserching for digitalisation of negatives with camera. I have one question;

Your example photo seems little grainy to me. Since I don't have o experiace I wonder. Is it normal for process, or is it lighting isssue? What do you think?

It appears to be the original film grain.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

nahueljo wrote:

The scans from the lab are ok, but they are low res jpeg files that I think are even scanned a bit out of focus or with some softness applied.

Dedicated scanners typically have a very deep depth of field. The softness comes from the “dust-removal” software that they get run through afterwards.

Do a test run at a number of labs to see which suits you best.

So I'm going to buy this lens for my Canon M50 and build a scan setup. Thanks!

A DIY setup can be as simple or complex as you want. Do avoid the (numerous) pitfalls. And be prepared to spend copious amounts of time in post, even with good software (such as Silverfast).

Biggest tip: Get your negs/slides as DUST-FREE as possible! Avoid scratching!

Best of luck!

R2

Thanks!

I got my lens today and did some test scans to compare with the scans from the lab. So far, I'm very happy! here's a test comparison, with some zoom:

Hopefully you're able to tell which one is which lol

Left is mine, right is the lab. In mine I see the grain is a lot "finer" and subtle, plus a lot better tonal range I think?

I scanned a few color ones and the result is not as good as the lab. Color needs a lot more post-processing and my DYI setup is lacking something to hold the negative flat on the light bed. Right not I have a cheap (but very bright) LED panel with cardboard cutout to block the light outside the frame of the image (poorly...) and my canon m50 on a tripod.

And yes, dust is your works enemy 🤣

nahueljo wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nahueljo wrote:

The scans from the lab are ok, but they are low res jpeg files that I think are even scanned a bit out of focus or with some softness applied.

Dedicated scanners typically have a very deep depth of field. The softness comes from the “dust-removal” software that they get run through afterwards.

Do a test run at a number of labs to see which suits you best.

So I'm going to buy this lens for my Canon M50 and build a scan setup. Thanks!

A DIY setup can be as simple or complex as you want. Do avoid the (numerous) pitfalls. And be prepared to spend copious amounts of time in post, even with good software (such as Silverfast).

Biggest tip: Get your negs/slides as DUST-FREE as possible! Avoid scratching!

Best of luck!

R2

Thanks!

I got my lens today and did some test scans to compare with the scans from the lab. So far, I'm very happy! here's a test comparison, with some zoom:

Hopefully you're able to tell which one is which lol

Left is mine, right is the lab. In mine I see the grain is a lot "finer" and subtle, plus a lot better tonal range I think?

I scanned a few color ones and the result is not as good as the lab. Color needs a lot more post-processing and my DYI setup is lacking something to hold the negative flat on the light bed. Right not I have a cheap (but very bright) LED panel with cardboard cutout to block the light outside the frame of the image (poorly...) and my canon m50 on a tripod.

And yes, dust is your works enemy 🤣

Very interesting! Good result.

I have a lot of my Dad's old Kodachrome slides. I transferred about 10 boxes of slides so far. I used the M6 mark ii and Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM with an extension tube, in a dark room the slides about 3-4 feet away from the lens, behind the slides was a piece of white paper lit by 2 3000k LED work lights.

This worked very well for me --- as I could use my standard workflow using DxO Photolab to process the results quickly. DxO excels at white balancing, adjusting colors and tones, contrast --- but it's best attribute is its ability to sharpen and de-noise. I was able to bring the grain to the level where you just see a hint of it.

I have tried quite a few film scanners and like you found them FAR too slow to make doing more than just a handful of slides or negatives very painful.

I just got the EF-M 28mm macro a month ago --- based on your results I am going to try that next! I think I will try putting a bunch of empty filter rings, and then some 'step-up' rings (I have a full set stepping up from 49mm to 82mm with many rings) to see if 35mm slides will 'fit' in one of the rings.... I'll try to make a make-shift slide adapter at the right distance to fill the frame with a slide.

I'll report back how it goes.

Here's a sample from my 55-250 work... a slide of me holding a kitten at the age of 8! The film was badly faded but I was able to get some color out of it.  It might not have even been done with DxO.... at any rate my post-processing skills are far better now and I'm sure I could do much better with the latest DxO PL!