what about duplicating slides?

[meandihagee]

Hello,

I want to do a show with multiple slide projectors. I don't want to "burn" my only copies of the shots.

So, is duplicating an option? I mean is there a lab that still makes them? Will there be losses in terms of image quality? Can I have negatives turned into slides...?

Looking forward to your advice

Thanks

[Rob-F]

Duplicating slides generally results in a build-up of contrast. To combat this, there is, or was, a special Kodak slide duplicating film. It came in 100 foot rolls. With a little bit of special gear, such as a copying stand, macro lens, and perhaps a special light source, it could be done DIY.

E-6 film such as Ektachrome has a four-hour projection life. You can do a lot of projecting before the life of a slide is over. If you project each slide for 10 seconds, that would be 6 slides per minute x 60 minutes x 4 hours, for 1,440 slide shows.

[Gumby]

Had you posted this question about 20 years ago there would be lots of answers and plenty of options. The info in the prior post is right-on. In terms of who does this anymore... I wouldn't know where to turn except to start calling the big labs and asking. Most labs have already dumped their E-6 so contrast build-up or not you don't have many options. I haven't done that kind of work for almost 25 years, but if I were to I would be thinking more toward scanning and projecting as a PowerPoint presentation.

[k__43]

I used to make slides for parties (taking "screen shots") and they were often in the projector for the whole night sometimes one slide was used multiple times .. I only had a few that melted because the lamp was too hot and the vent failed or/and they weren't properly mounted. I still have many of them.

If your original is precious you can try duplicating it or just scan and project digitally (so at least you know how precious it is to you .. if it's worth more than the rent for a digital projector).

[Gumby]

p.s. The last E-6 lab in my immediate areaq dumpted their E-6 processor specifically because they didn't have sufficient volume to maintain quality standards after Kodak discontinued duplicating film.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by k__43

I used to make slides for parties (taking "screen shots") and they were often in the projector for the whole night sometimes one slide was used multiple times .. I only had a few that melted because the lamp was too hot and the vent failed or/and they weren't properly mounted.

Rob was probably also including fading as a problem with long-term projection. For me that was always more of an issue than meltdowns.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Hmm... How are the services that produce slides from digital files? (for example, Google "digital to slide")

[sevo]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

Hmm... How are the services that produce slides from digital files? (for example, Google "digital to slide")

YMMV. The best film recorders are (or were, none seem to be in production any more) quite up to camera quality. The highest standard common was 4K - denoting the pixel resolution on the long side, with full colour pixels, so that the slides are upward of 20MP quality. Good enough to blend into projections with original slides, and good enough to rival even highest quality analogue duplicates, so a digital intermediate step is feasible, given a sufficiently high grade scanner and film recorder.

Lesser services use mid-grade (2K) film recorders - these are rather obviously soft.

[Gumby]

Don't film recorders use transparency film... the same transparency film that has mostly disappeared along with its processing? Or am I mistaken?

[rovnguy]

There is a lens assembly made by Calument that you slip your mounted transparency into and using a backlight, photograph the image on the slide. The one I have allows for up a 2.5X zoom as well. You can use any 35mm film you want and use the light metering system in your camera to set exposure. I think you can get these for around $100.00. If you do a lot of slide copying, it will save you lots of money.

[mdarnton]

Flashing is another way to deal with contrast. It would work with a duping attachment such as the Calumet one, above, and normal slide film. It's a little esoteric, but might be worth working out.

It looks like you could buy a used Bowens Illumitran for not too much $$$. Some of the models had a pre-flash light system built in, for one-step duping with normal film.

Or, if you're not excessively technical (which is probably a necessity for this) you could just pay the money. I googled slide duplication and found a number of places that claim to still do the work with real film.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Don't film recorders use transparency film... the same transparency film that has mostly disappeared along with its processing? Or am I mistaken?

Fuji still makes two or three Velvia versions plus Provia, and Kodak still sell Ektachrome motion picture stock. If all of that should get cancelled as well, and all frozen old stock runs out, it would still be possible to recalibrate the film recorders to expose (negative) cine print film, at least by writing a new driver (the original makers, like Polaroid, are gone, but there are Linux drivers around, so it would not mean reengineering from scratch) which outputs complimentary colours and brightness (which could be as easy as substituting a look-up table with roughly its inverse). But that might imply a loss in colour accuracy as the printers were designed for regular high contrast slide film and might be accordingly hardware constrained.

[meandihagee]

yep, sounds complicated enough to drop it maybe I'll bracket or sumthin...

[HHPhoto]

Hi,

Originally Posted by meandihagee

Hello,

I want to do a show with multiple slide projectors. I don't want to "burn" my only copies of the shots.

no need to be afraid of that: All modern quality slide projectors have very efficient cooling systems for the slides and bulbs.
The heat is so low that the slides can stand it without problems, even if the projecting time is very, very long.

And if you fear color fading, don't worry: The current E6 slide films can be projected for about 200 (!) hours before a slight color fading slowly begin to start.
In general a slide is shown for about 10 to 25 seconds in a slide show.
So you can make hundreds of shows without problems if you want.

If you want to be absolutely on the 'mega safe side': Just make two shots from your subject: One for the slide show, one for the archive and as a backup.
By the way: That is the most easy, cost effective way of duplicating. Much cheaper than a separate duplicating with duplicating film. And the one with by far the best picture quality, because you have two identical shots on your original, highest quality medium.

Originally Posted by meandihagee

So, is duplicating an option?

See above.

Originally Posted by meandihagee

I mean is there a lab that still makes them?

There are some labs in Germany still doing it. They have stored lots of duplicating film in the freezer to serve customers for the next years.

Originally Posted by meandihagee

Will there be losses in terms of image quality?

With duplicating film: yes. Quality is a little bit lower (slight color differences) compared to the original.
Again: Best method quality wise, and furthermore the cheapest is simply making two shots of the subject.

Originally Posted by meandihagee

Can I have negatives turned into slides...?

Yes, via scanning and then exposing on slide film with a 4k Lambda. Some labs in Germany are offering this service.
Certainly there are such labs in other countries, too.

Cheers, Jan

[meandihagee]

Originally Posted by HHPhoto

Hi,



no need to be afraid of that: All modern quality slide projectors have very efficient cooling systems for the slides and bulbs.
The heat is so low that the slides can stand it without problems, even if the projecting time is very, very long.

And if you fear color fading, don't worry: The current E6 slide films can be projected for about 200 (!) hours before a slight color fading slowly begin to start.
In general a slide is shown for about 10 to 25 seconds in a slide show.
So you can make hundreds of shows without problems if you want.

If you want to be absolutely on the 'mega safe side': Just make two shots from your subject: One for the slide show, one for the archive and as a backup.
By the way: That is the most easy, cost effective way of duplicating. Much cheaper than a separate duplicating with duplicating film. And the one with by far the best picture quality, because you have two identical shots on your original, highest quality medium.



See above.



There are some labs in Germany still doing it. They have stored lots of duplicating film in the freezer to serve customers for the next years.



With duplicating film: yes. Quality is a little bit lower (slight color differences) compared to the original.
Again: Best method quality wise, and furthermore the cheapest is simply making two shots of the subject.



Yes, via scanning and then exposing on slide film with a 4k Lambda. Some labs in Germany are offering this service.
Certainly there are such labs in other countries, too.

Cheers, Jan

thanks, Jan

[ColSebastianMoran]

Responding to "Is there a quality difference with duplicating film?"

Originally Posted by HHPhoto

With duplicating film: yes. Quality is a little bit lower (slight color differences) compared to the original.

Strictly FWIW, in the old days with Kodak's special slide duplicating film, I was able to make copies of slides which were good enough I could not tell the copy from the original.

[charjohncarter]

If you have a Pentax camera, I bought a Pentax slide duplicator (M42 and circa 1970) which worked with E-6 but it did take a lot of tweaking to cool the contrast. Later I used it with a DSLR to copy slides. One thing I did find: you have to use a Macro lens. This is a copied slide:

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

Responding to "Is there a quality difference with duplicating film?"



Strictly FWIW, in the old days with Kodak's special slide duplicating film, I was able to make copies of slides which were good enough I could not tell the copy from the original.

... but even with copies made by the finest Hollywood labs there always was some contrast gain.

[HHPhoto]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

Responding to "Is there a quality difference with duplicating film?"



Strictly FWIW, in the old days with Kodak's special slide duplicating film, I was able to make copies of slides which were good enough I could not tell the copy from the original.

Congratulation to you. I've never got such results. I always have been able to see (a little) difference (colours and contrast).

But as I've said before, the best way to have duplicates is just make two or three identical shots when you are out shooting.
Then you have the best:
- completely identical shots
- the original colours
- it is by far the cheapest option; one or two more shots cost only a tiny fraction of a duplicated slide with duplicating film (and done by a professional lab)
- it is the fastest option; no further time needed for the duplication process.

Cheers, Jan

[Ronald M]

Backlight the slide and use a digital slr. Display on your high def TV.

I have done this a proof of concept for a neighbor. There is no contrast build up, but a macro lens with flat field is best.

I suspended a cardboard with cut out for image over a light, camera on copy stand, but there are lots of ways to do this but this was easiest for a test.

[mdarnton]

In that vein, I'm using this system for duping B&W negs. With my Nikon D300, a transparency is right at the boundary of it's dynamic range, but a more modern camera would give me a couple of more stops of range, and I think it would work fine. I do so much of this, I'm thinking of getting a Sony NEX-7 to plug into this setup:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/

Of course, that's film to digital, which isn't going to get you another slide.

I used to produce educational slide shows and film strips, and did my own slide dupes using Kodak's E4 duping film of the time. They didn't look like the originals (the problem wasn't contrast. . . it was more like a saturation issue, if I remember right), but honestly, the intended audience wasn't going to know the difference.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by PKR

I think Dupe film is long gone.

In my location (Los Angeles) so are the majority of slide duplication services.

[kraj8995]

camera setup usually consists of a unit having a camerabody and lens, bellows extension, light source, acopyboard, filter holders, and the necessary controls andswitches. When slides are copied with a slideduplicating camera, the slide is transilluminated. This isthe most common method of copying slides.corporate gifting ideas

[Photo_Smith]

I used to make dupes, normally with this dupe film:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/..._II/index.html

We used to use a DeVere Dichrocopy which was a kind of upside down enlarger with a camera mount.

I can honestly say that reproduction dupes were pretty much identical to the originals so much so that even with a schnieder lupe 99% of people couldn't tell the difference.

It was common practice for photographers especially those using large format to send out dupes to stock houses rather than originals.

I also owned an Agfa film writer in the early-mid 1990's we could make copies from digital artwork on slide film or colour negatives, you didn't need dupe film for these machines we used Ektachrome 64 and Ektar 25 (neg) in other words ordinary daylight film.