I don’t see the point of this.
It is incredibly easy to do something equal or better than this with a piece of opal Perspex/ plexiglass and a few pieces of wood.
If you really want to get flat, use lighter fluid and a piece of glass on top of your film.
The trick is to get even illumination of your diffuser. But that is not dealt with in this product will probably
The trick is to get even illumination of your diffuser. But that is not dealt with this product.
I've used negative carriers on my LED light box to do the same thing.
But negative carriers are not good or convenient.
They are only a necessary evil in some scanners.
But negative carriers are not good or convenient.
They are only a necessary evil in some scanners.
Use tape, glass or just something suitable to weigh the celluloid, if it’s flat.
After quite a bit of experimentation, I use an LED light table + glassless negative carrier + copy-stand + DSLR + macro lens to digitise my 6x6 and 6x7 negs. In my experience the negative carrier works much better (and faster) than using glass. True, the glass holds the film perfectly flat, but normal glass gives terrible Newton rings. ANR glass doesn't always prevent all Newton rings either (I know, I tried it with very high quality ANR glass plates), and furthermore causes a very noticeable softening of the captured image. Any tiny amount of non-planarity in the film when in the negative carrier is easily compensated by stopping down the macro lens to f8-f11.
It is also much easier to minimise the amount of dust with the above setup, as you only have two surfaces to deal with (front and back of film) rather than 5 or more.
Yes. The carriers are from my Beseler 45MXT.I'm guessing, but I think Mainecoonmaniac may be talking about the type of negative carriers that some of us use in the darkroom in enlargers.
I do just about the same setup but with macrotubes instead of a lens. I also shoot 6x6 twice and stitch in post. Never had an issue with flatness. And I shoot slightly past f/8 works like a charm.
I've considered trying the multiple shot & stitch approach, but honestly the amount of detail I get out of even one cropped frame on my D810 is huge, so the former would just be overkill and extra hassle. Obviously digitising large format in this way would make much more sense.
Here's one of mine. It's a resized version of the full res file (which is almost 4x this resolution) from a single D810 frame. Despite the resizing it gives an idea of the detail achievable using this procedure. Originally shot with a Pentax 6x7 MLU and 55mm f4 lens on Acros, developed in Pyrocat-HD.
How much did you crop off the original shot? Or does 6x7 not need any cropping?
About 20% cropped off for a 6x7 frame. I have the DSLR set to a height on the copy stand so that when focused on the film it almost fills the frame vertically (with a very small border to allow for tiny adjustments to straightening etc). This leaves some blank space at the horizontal edges of the 2:3 frame.
When using glass for flatness use lighter fluid in between. Same as scanning fluid, only slightly more flammable, so don’t be stupid.
If you insist on dry glass scanning, it’s possible to shift the Newton patterns by applying pressure to different places, thereby allowing you to delta them out or push them out completely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?