Header banner

MF3D-group Conversations Photos Files All groups About
<< Previous Thread Duplication Next Thread >>

Subject: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-15 21:05:30
From: amuderick
This has been asked before with no reply. Has anyone used an outside firm to duplicate their MF3D slides? Has anyone had scans done, performed digital cleanup and then output back to E-6 film?

If I was going to put my images in a semi-public installation, I would be terrified to use the originals. Thoughts?
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-16 08:27:42
From: studio3_d
I've used slides.com to output 2k scans ($5 each) and they looked pretty good. Gammatech.com does 4k for $10 each, but I've not tried them yet.

ron labbe
studio 3D

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "amuderick" wrote:
>
> This has been asked before with no reply. Has anyone used an outside firm to duplicate their MF3D slides? Has anyone had scans done, performed digital cleanup and then output back to E-6 film?
>
> If I was going to put my images in a semi-public installation, I would be terrified to use the originals. Thoughts?
>
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-16 10:38:21
From: Boris Starosta
"Cindy Newton did my dupes at BWC and they were always excellent.  Indeed I have been unable to find a better place, although unfortunately for my nudes I was forced to find another shop to do my duping  (BWC balked at doing my erotic images.  The joke is they do all the chrome processing for Playboy, which still shoots film.).

"Cindy learned to do my dupes in a fully mounted slide - in a foldover mount, but NOT folded over.  So go ahead and precision mount your slides, but keep the mount as thin as possible; ideally done by simply not folding the mount over.  What I handed her then was a six by seven inch unfolded MF3d mount, with the images precision mounted in two of the apertures.  She "contact prints" /dupes BOTH of those apertures onto a single piece of 4x5 sheet film.  The results are excellent, practically indistinguishable from the original, plus then the dupe is essentially already precision mounted.  Great if you do multiple dupes.

"I think the cost was $40 for the first dupe, and then $25 or something for any additional dupes of that same original done at the same time.  But it has been nearly two years now since I used them, so the pricing may have changed.


(I wrote this email to another MF3d shooter back sometime in 2007.  The other shop I've used to dupe was in NYC, but the quality was not very good, so I don't care to recommend them.  Haven't done dupes again since that time, so now I take care to shoot dupes in-camera whenever possible.  To reproduce/dupe a slide using scanning and film recorder output would naturally degrade your image quality in resolution and tonal range, which are the main advantages of MF3d.  The highest cost of that process - assuming you were going for best possible quality - would be the scan.  Scanning services for MF are expensive and cumbersome.  I don't know of any home/desktop scanner that can do an MF3d image justice, though I'm not very up to date on that and I'd be glad to find out about one!  Has anyone here shot/digitized their MF3d slides with a good planar macro lens on a digital camera?  That might be a cost effective solution, as some reasonably inexpensive DSLRs have incredible resolution now.)


good luck!

Boris

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM, studio3_d <ron@studio3d.com> wrote:
 

I've used slides.com to output 2k scans ($5 each) and they looked pretty good. Gammatech.com does 4k for $10 each, but I've not tried them yet.

ron labbe
studio 3D



--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "amuderick" wrote:
>
> This has been asked before with no reply. Has anyone used an outside firm to duplicate their MF3D slides? Has anyone had scans done, performed digital cleanup and then output back to E-6 film?
>
> If I was going to put my images in a semi-public installation, I would be terrified to use the originals. Thoughts?
>




--
The important thing is not to stop questioning.   - Albert Einstein


Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-16 12:00:51
From: Brian Reynolds
Boris wrote:
>
[duping service description deleted]
>
> (I wrote this email to another MF3d shooter back sometime in 2007.
> The other shop I've used to dupe was in NYC, but the quality was not
> very good, so I don't care to recommend them. Haven't done dupes
> again since that time, so now I take care to shoot dupes in-camera
> whenever possible. To reproduce/dupe a slide using scanning and
> film recorder output would naturally degrade your image quality in
> resolution and tonal range, which are the main advantages of MF3d.
> The highest cost of that process - assuming you were going for best
> possible quality - would be the scan. Scanning services for MF are
> expensive and cumbersome. I don't know of any home/desktop scanner
> that can do an MF3d image justice, though I'm not very up to date on
> that and I'd be glad to find out about one! Has anyone here
> shot/digitized their MF3d slides with a good planar macro lens on a
> digital camera? That might be a cost effective solution, as some
> reasonably inexpensive DSLRs have incredible resolution now.)

Nikon makes the CoolScan 9000-ED, which is supposed to be very nice,
and is very expensive. Their competition was Minolta and Polaroid,
but both those companies are now gone. Also gone are all the large
format (4x5) film scanners.

I haven't tried using a slide copier or setting up my K20D with a
macro lens over a light box. In the latter case I'd be worried about
flare and excess light causing contrast problems.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-17 02:15:58
From: Bob Aldridge
I have a Polaroin SS120 which scans up to MF at 4000 DPI. The quality is good, but scans are huge and take a lot of processing power.
 
I also have a DSLR mounted on a Bowens Illumitran which is good for digitising where the resolution of the Polaroid isn't needed. I use it with an EL Nikkor enlarging lens.
 
Recording digital scans back to film has it's own set of issues, of course. So it all comes down to the expectations of the viewer.
 
For viewing images from my Fujifilm camera at the ISU Congress in Gmunden, I made a few 35mm slides. These were well received. However, since the Congress, I've been using a "Cyclopital" viewer for digital files. This is pretty low resolution at only 800 x 480 pixels per eye, and I can see every one of them! But, when I handed it to my partner to view, she was very impressed and instantly told me to buy it :) Now, after viewing hundreds of images, I'm seeing the pixels less and less... Go figure :)
 
Bob Aldridge

From: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Reynolds
Sent: 16 September 2009 19:00
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MF3D-group] Re: Duplication

 

Boris wrote:

>
[duping service description deleted]
>
>
(I wrote this email to another MF3d shooter back sometime in 2007.
> The
other shop I've used to dupe was in NYC, but the quality was not
> very
good, so I don't care to recommend them. Haven't done dupes
> again since
that time, so now I take care to shoot dupes in-camera
> whenever
possible. To reproduce/dupe a slide using scanning and
> film recorder
output would naturally degrade your image quality in
> resolution and
tonal range, which are the main advantages of MF3d.
> The highest cost of
that process - assuming you were going for best
> possible quality - would
be the scan. Scanning services for MF are
> expensive and cumbersome. I
don't know of any home/desktop scanner
> that can do an MF3d image
justice, though I'm not very up to date on
> that and I'd be glad to find
out about one! Has anyone here
> shot/digitized their MF3d slides with a
good planar macro lens on a
> digital camera? That might be a cost
effective solution, as some
> reasonably inexpensive DSLRs have incredible
resolution now.)

Nikon makes the CoolScan 9000-ED, which is supposed to be very nice,
and is very expensive. Their competition was Minolta and Polaroid,
but both those companies are now gone. Also gone are all the large
format (4x5) film scanners.

I haven't tried using a slide copier or setting up my K20D with a
macro lens over a light box. In the latter case I'd be worried about
flare and excess light causing contrast problems.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix. com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix. com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-17 10:49:37
From: blackiceuk
Hi

So whats the best process? Optical slide duplication or scanned and run out?

I'm UK based and will need to get several sets done.

Not too keen on the idea of mailing the masters stateside. At least with scans I can control that end here even if the run out is done elsewhere in the world.

M
Subject: Re: Duplication
Date: 2009-09-17 13:25:22
From: Boris Starosta
The best process for quality is optical duping, if a good service can be found.
The best process for YOU depends on your needs and requirements and budget.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:48 PM, blackiceuk <blackice@pavilion.co.uk> wrote:
 

Hi

So whats the best process? Optical slide duplication or scanned and run out?

I'm UK based and will need to get several sets done.

Not too keen on the idea of mailing the masters stateside. At least with scans I can control that end here even if the run out is done elsewhere in the world.

M




--
The important thing is not to stop questioning.   - Albert Einstein