Slide and Negative copying - Nikon ES-2

Messages
13,029
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
I've started (again) taking images of my old slides and negatives using the Nikon ES-2

I'm using my D850 - I started taking RAW images - which of course was producing big 40+ MB files - I then changed and took Jpegs, fine - 20+ MB files - so then I tried ordinary JPEG which produced 8MB files

realistically what size files should I use to produce images from 35mm film - RAW or JPEG
 
Always shoot raw, because JPG creates artifacts.

I would just shoot full res images. A lower res might also be fine depending on the original, but there is no simple answer to this IMO. I shoot so I can make out the grain. A higher res will give a truer copy but there are diminishing returns. Do you need resolution to capture the shape of each grain? Consider the end-use of the images and then make the best judgement.
 
I've always used JPEG, which seems to work well enough for me but your mileage may vary. This is from part of an OM1 negative...

Dartmoor pony OM1 1992 99-21.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've always used JPEG, which seems to work well enough for me but your mileage may vary. This is from part of an OM1 negative...

View attachment 422561
First-generation JPGs always look great, 2nd too usually. But JPGs are lossy, so you lose a bit each time the file is re-saved. If you have no storage space or don't/can't edit raws, do JPGs. Else raw is better.
 
a couple, (digital photos with Nikon D850), jpegs, images from 1979/80, taken with a Canon A1 - scans came out at 11MB files

they get better as I go along - better grade film, (there were a lot of "free film" offers back in the day from places like Bonus Print!! - should have resisted!!) - better camera/lens helps - slides seem (a lot) better than negatives

hitting a focus point when originally the shot is not great focus-wise is a challenge

These are 200k, file size reduced for posting - the images are full images, no cropping - processed in LR

TP_3_Boys_1980.jpg


TP_men_at_work_NL_A1.jpg


and a coloured one - "summer houses" in Bergamo - owned by past generations

TP_Bruno_Italy_Street.jpg
 
Last edited:
First-generation JPGs always look great, 2nd too usually. But JPGs are lossy, so you lose a bit each time the file is re-saved. If you have no storage space or don't/can't edit raws, do JPGs. Else raw is better.
Indeed.

The fix is only to edit a JPG once, so I always work on a copy of the parent file, which I never edit. If the changes don't suit, I make another copy and start again. This is an example of there being several ways to remove the integument from a feline.
 
Indeed.

The fix is only to edit a JPG once, so I always work on a copy of the parent file, which I never edit. If the changes don't suit, I make another copy and start again. This is an example of there being several ways to remove the integument from a feline.

The Edits in LR are non-destructive aren't they - so you never "edit" the original?
 
The Edits in LR are non-destructive aren't they - so you never "edit" the original?
I'm not a Lightroom user and I seldom use anything other than the built in "Preview" application on OS-X. If Lightroom works that way, it's a good feature.
 
The Edits in LR are non-destructive aren't they - so you never "edit" the original?
LR is basically a raw converter. Usually you start with a raw file and then edit it. Those raw files are made in the camera and are never changed by LR, or by anyone else AFAIK. LR can also edit JPGs and other photo formats, and as far as I know never alters those either - except it might add metadata to them.
 
Back
Top