Digital camera scanning: bellows with negative holder or copy stand?

[fdonadio]

Hello, fellows!


I have looked around, also ran some Google searches, but didn't find any solid answer.

Mostly, I want to scan black and white 35mm negatives. Medium format (6x6) is desirable, but not my priority. Large format can be done with a good flatbed scanner. I don't need the quality of a drum scanner, just enough to evaluate my shots on screen, to decide which ones to print. Having a "digital index" of all my negatives and even having small copies (4x6", 10x15cm) printed are also interesting ideas.

But I would still like to get the best quality I can, because my time isn't free. The time spent looking at a computer screen could be better used for other stuff, if you know what I'm sayin'.

I will be using my Nikon Z6 II. I understand I have several options in terms of gear. Whether I use a 55mm or 105mm Micro-Nikkor, I will need to use an extension tube or bellows. Nikon bellows can use a slide/film holder attachment, which looks very nice, but is only useful for 35mm film.

From my research, the 105mm would be the best option for doing both 6x6 and 35mm.

So, on to my questions:

1. Is there any advantage in using bellows (in comparison with extension tubes)?

2. Besides being able to use several different sizes of originals, is there any advantage in using a copy stand?

3. Is parallelism (between the original and image sensor) easier to achieve with the slide/film attachment and the bellows, or will it be as easy with a copy stand?

I guess this is it. After that, I have a reason to feed my GAS.


Cheers,
Flavia

 

[loccdor]

1. Is there any advantage in using bellows (in comparison with extension tubes)?

2. Besides being able to use several different sizes of originals, is there any advantage in using a copy stand?

3. Is parallelism (between the original and image sensor) easier to achieve with the slide/film attachment and the bellows, or will it be as easy with a copy stand?

I guess this is it. After that, I have a reason to feed my GAS.


Cheers,
Flavia

I use a Pentax Copy Stand from the 70s for this.

1. Not really if you're using a macro lens that has a good focal range already. The bellows can add dust and aren't necessary if the lens is pretty close to being in focus. My 50mm Pentax SMC D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro lens can do 1:1 which is fine up to 35mm. For half-frame, I add a 20mm extension tube. I recommend you use a lens optimized near 1:1 and designed for that purpose for best results.

2. Alignment, uniformity, predictability. Being able to more easily shift the frame if you want to do image stitching for ultra-high-resolution work.

3. A bubble level on the film holder, and a bubble level on the camera back, were enough for me to achieve parallelism. I use a cheap tiny level that isn't even accurate, but as long as I get the same (shifted) reading in both locations, it still works.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use a bellows and slide duplicator, I use a Pentax brand M42 with adapter for Minolta Sony A mount. The only advantage of a bellows is to get a really close up crop. The slide duplicator I get really good diffuse lighting. Downside is that you will need to use a tripod, I usually use my set outdoors late in the day with a white wall as a backdrop. I think the ultimate in using old analog gear would be a dedicated Pentax (In the U.S) Honeywell slide duplicated stand, has a built in flash, bellows. Should work with a mirror less digital and adapter. I think it made in both M42 and K mount.

 

[runswithsizzers]

3. Is parallelism (between the original and image sensor) easier to achieve with the slide/film attachment and the bellows, or will it be as easy with a copy stand?

If the slide/film attachment are well made (as I would expect from Nikon gear) then alignment should be built in, and easy. Getting everything lined up and parallel can be somewhat fussy and time consuming when using a copy stand.

 

[250swb]

@fdonadio definitely a copy stand with a light pad which opens up all the options of film formats. People spend too much on specialist copy outfits that will only do 35mm when something far simpler and cheaper is just as good or better. That said I did buy a really good Kaiser copy stand which makes setting up and height adjustments easier than my previous 'basic' stand. If you are using a Nikon Z I recommend the 105mm, not only for it's exceptional performance stopped down but also auto focusing. If not that then the 60mm D, you won't get AF but it doesn't cost too much and is nearly as good as the 105mm. For aligning everything get a free bubble level app that will give you a surface level and put your phone flat onto the LCD screen to adjust the camera angle.

 

[mwdake]

I use a home made copy stand, sturdy purpose built ones seemed too expensive.
I have a super clamp with stud mounted to it and a micro focusing rail which gives enough travel to cover 35mm to MF 6x7. I tried a tripod head as well but that seemed more than was needed.
I use a Nikon 55mm macro with M2 tube and use a mirror on the baseboard to align it.

 

[fdonadio]

Thanks to everyone that chimed in.

I ended up getting the bellows first, as I am focusing (no pun intended) on digitising my 35mm negatives and slides for now. I've got a very good PB-6 (supple and pinhole-free) with a PS-6, an El-Nikkor 50mm 2.8 (1:1 repro!) and an adaptor for the screw mount lens for a total of 187€ (shipping included). The PB-6 feels very sturdy, was probably a good choice.

After using the bellows and experimenting a little, I feel my questions #1 and #2 are really dumb. I have no doubt I would go for bellows now, instead of extension tubes. And the results are really close from what I could get with my Epson V700 Pro, but with a lot less hassle.

In the future, I'm getting a longer lens, a copy stand and a light pad to digitise medium format (between 1:0.33 and 1:0.5 repro).

 

[Chan Tran]

I wonder if anyone makes a bellow for the Z mount?

 

[fdonadio]

I wonder if anyone makes a bellow for the Z mount?

Are today's photographers into macrophotography?

I got the Z6 II with the FTZ II adapter, as I have a lot of Nikon glass. But then I figured out I would need to replace my lenses with AF-S versions, if I want to use auto-focus.

 

[runswithsizzers]

And the results are really close from what I could get with my Epson V700 Pro, but with a lot less hassle.

I am suprised you are not reporting your results from the digital camera are noticeably better than your flatbed scans of 35mm film. By "better" I mean more fine-detail and sharper. I wonder if you are achieving the full potential of your camera-scan setup, or perhaps there are still some potential refinements to be made in your technique?

 

[Chan Tran]

Are today's photographers into macrophotography?

I got the Z6 II with the FTZ II adapter, as I have a lot of Nikon glass. But then I figured out I would need to replace my lenses with AF-S versions, if I want to use auto-focus.

Photographers today are very much into macrophotography. There are still a lot of macro lenses for all flatforms. Just that people don't use bellow anymore even in the early stage of digital. All the bellows are made in the film era. The PB-6 was the latest but I had it quite sometime ago.

 

[fdonadio]

I am suprised you are not reporting your results from the digital camera are noticeably better than your flatbed scans of 35mm film. By "better" I mean more fine-detail and sharper. I wonder if you are achieving the full potential of your camera-scan setup, or perhaps there are still some potential refinements to be made in your technique?

Please, don't take my post literally. I just ran a quick and dirty test. I still haven't compared the results side by side, I will do this later on.

But you are most probably right that I can get better results from the camera setup.

 

[fdonadio]

Photographers today are very much into macrophotography. There are still a lot of macro lenses for all flatforms.

My remark was a joke, but I don't really know what photographers are into these days.

What should we consider as indicators of popularity of photographic styles these days? Instagram turned into TikTok. It used to be a place where people shared photos, even some friends that shoot film. Should I consider Photrio as a good indicator?

And I must say that, except for a handful of old friends (who are all into skateboarding or urban/street photography), the only photographers I talk to are the people here. And even then, I try not to talk too much about photography. If I do it, I will end up talking more than shooting.

So, to conclude: I have no idea what photographers are up to these days and I don't even know where to get reliable information about this!

(Edit: typo)

 

[Chan Tran]

My remark was a joke, but I don't really know what photographers are into these days.

What should we consider as indicators of popularity of photographic styles these days? Instagram turned into TikTok. It used to be a place where people shared photos, even some friends that shoot film. Should I consider Photrio as a good indicator?

And I must say that, except for a handful of old friends (who are all into skateboarding or urban/street photography), the only photographers I talk to are the people here. And even then, I try not to talk too much about photography. If I do it, I will end up taking more than shooting.

So, to conclude: I have no idea what photographers are up to these days and I don't even know where to get reliable information about this!

Actually there are bellows for current cameras like this one here but it's quite expensive.

Auto Macro Bellows for Nikon Z-Mount

Experience Novoflex auto macro bellows for nikon Z-Mount for macro and micro-photography with automatic control and communication between camera and lens.

novoflexus.com

 

[xkaes]

Bellows designed for digital cameras and lenses exist but what's the point?

The few, new bellows are prohibitively expensive due in part to the electrical requirements -- and auto-focus is a waste of time in macro & micro work.

On top of that, digital cameras are easy to adapt to older bellows that you can buy for next to nothing -- as well as older manual-focusing macro and micro lenses.

 

[fdonadio]

+1 to what @xkaes said.

 

[Petrochemist]

Bellows designed for digital cameras and lenses exist but what's the point?

The few, new bellows are prohibitively expensive due in part to the electrical requirements -- and auto-focus is a waste of time in macro & micro work.

On top of that, digital cameras are easy to adapt to older bellows that you can buy for next to nothing -- as well as older manual-focusing macro and micro lenses.

Some of the new models allow tilting the lens, which can boost apparent DOF, very few older models allow this.
However the price difference has certainly had me sticking to the older models!

Mine are mainly BPM models which allow the mounts at either end to be changed. Strangely it's often cheaper to buy a set of these (with 2+ mounts) than to buy a single mount on it's own. this is why I now have 3 BPM bellows...

FWIW chinese manufacturers make short M42 adapters for many modern mounts specifically for mounting bellows & helicoids.

 

[xkaes]

Some of the new models allow tilting the lens, which can boost apparent DOF, very few older models allow this.

While swings & tilts & shift & rise/fall were not the most common feature of manual-focus bellows, there were plenty that had it. My Minolta Auto Bellows III has both -- and with bellows lenses from 100mm to 12.5mm with the extra large image circles that are required. The AB III even allows you to reverse the lens!!! Nikon, Contax (Yashica) and others made these bellows too -- even Spiratone sold one. They were more expensive, of course, so fewer were sold, but nowadays you can get them without needing a loan from the bank.