Do I need a Macro Lens?

[morbius]

I’m in desperate need for help and hoping that anyone can point me in the right direction?

I have a vast collection of 6 x 4inch postcards, artwork and photos that I want to take both color and black and white 35mm film positives/reversal of. Other sizes include 7 x 5inches, 8 x 6inch and A4 size and some slightly larger.

Would I need a Macro Lens for this sort of photography – or just a standard Lens?

The slides created would have to be good enough for photo reproduction.

People are telling me that I should by a scanner, I have two of these already but want the images on 35mm positive/reversal slides, I just don’t trust digital back up and have had three bad experiences with this already over the years losing stuff – or it degrading being moved from device to device etc…

I’ve been told that Canon cameras are pretty OK - which is good, it’s what I had in mind in the first place with Nikon second. I have a budget of around $260 ($340 at a push) for both the camera base and the lens/ses. Any brand will be fine to be honest, as long as it will do the job I want.

I’m new to film photography and would appreciate any help in guiding me towards the right camera and lens for this project.

The camera will be used for close up photography only.

Any help will be hugely appreciated.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks

 

[The_Traveler]

Morbius,

You can get a film back and old macro lens for that money that will suffice because you can make a setup and refine your exposure settings to make an assembly line process.
However, using film means about 8-12 times the effort and many, many, the cost times the cost and you will end up with an inferior product that can't be backed up, managed or duplicated easily.

Your experience with digital images degrading or being lost is certainly not the norm.
The great libraries of every country are digitizing their image collections so that they will be accessible and manageable.

 

[SCraig]

Digital files will not and can not "Degrade" by moving them from device to device UNLESS you open the file and save it again. In that case they may be compressed more causing degradation. Just copying them or moving them absolutely will NOT change the contents of the file otherwise every program file, data file, or any other form of file in existence would constantly be in a state of flux.

 

[The_Traveler]

Digital files will not and can not "Degrade" by moving them from device to device UNLESS you open the file and save it again. In that case they may be compressed more causing degradation. Just copying them or moving them absolutely will NOT change the contents of the file otherwise every program file, data file, or any other form of file in existence would constantly be in a state of flux.

This is correct but just needs a bit of further explanation.

If the files are in jpeg file type, opening them to view and then resaving will cause degradation.
If the files are in jpeg file type, opening them to view and then exiting them will not cause degradation.
If the files are in any lossless file type, (Raw, DNG, PSD), opening them and then resaving will not cause degradation.

 

[SCraig]

This is correct but just needs a bit of further explanation.

If the files are in jpeg file type, opening them to view and then resaving will cause degradation.
If the files are in jpeg file type, opening them to view and then exiting them will not cause degradation.
If the files are in any lossless file type, (Raw, DNG, PSD), opening them and then resaving will not cause degradation.

Resaving JPEG doesn't always cause further degradation of the image, however, as I stated, it CAN cause further degradation. If a JPEG is opened in an editor and then saved with zero compression it will, in effect, be an identical copy of the original without further degradation in quality. If the compression is set to anything other than zero then I agree with your comment.

 

[WayneF]

I have a vast collection of 6 x 4inch postcards, artwork and photos that I want to take both color and black and white 35mm film positives/reversal of. Other sizes include 7 x 5inches, 8 x 6inch and A4 size and some slightly larger.

Would I need a Macro Lens for this sort of photography – or just a standard Lens?

If you truly need film/slides output, that rules out scanners (which of course sounds like the best plan for your flat media, and $260 would do the job, if you have the computer). And film rules out a digital camera (the budget does too). Making the film from the digital image will need a film recorder, and is probably a hired out job, and that alone would blow the budget. It is a really big complication to create film from digital.

But...

If you just need printed copies, digital does that fine, certainly the easiest way, and very good, but just not using film techniques.

If you need a slide show, computers with digital projectors are in all auditoriums now, certainly is the easiest way, and digital images do that fine. The auditorium won't have a slide projector any more.

So I can't imagine why film is needed. I thought it might be interesting to ask why film is needed? The new digital ways are in great favor because of the advantages they offer. But digital can be a new learning experience. Having some experience is a very good thing.


35 mm film is larger than a normal cropped sensor DSLR, so it will need greater magnification than digital. You would want a macro lens. An inexpensive 50mm regular lens would almost do it (not quite) for a cropped digital slr, but not for film. A macro lens would do it.

And of course, a scanner would do it.

We are not talking high quality, but you said $260, and I am sort of kidding, but a little simple compact cameras typically can do macro, at their widest zoom settings (at maybe 1/2 inch focus distance). I was able to copy 35mm slides on a little Canon compact. Of course it was a very simple camera, no control of a decent flash, and there were optical issues, but it can do it, in its way.

6x4 inch cards would be much easier to do. A macro lens on a DSLR runs circles around it, but $260 will not touch that.

I would vote for the scanner, with digital output.