DIY 3d printed negative scan box. Comments please ...

[Adrian Bacon]

For those who care, I did a quick non-scientific test to do a sanity check on the purity of the light coming from the backlight module that I used in the last test.

These were both shot with the Fuji that I intend to use to copy the negatives and slides. One of these was in outdoor daylight. The other was in the bathroom, vanity and overhead lights off, illuminated by the light from the backlight module in the box.

Anyone care to guess which is which?

I’ll bite... the top one is daylight.

 

[jtk]

A while ago I joined a local "Technology Cooperative" and I've been taking some classes there on 3d printing.

A couple of years ago I saw the Film Toaster at Photo Plus, and it looked like a workable idea, although for $1300 us it's quite steep. I was thinking that something much simpler could be made that would be nearly as functional for much less.

Now that I think I've graduated from doing simple 3d print things like little kitchen gadgets and Baby Yoda dolls, I've been playing around with a design for a box to do just this.

I'm envisioning a box to hold a light source and a two-part plate with a 36x25.. (for a slight overscan) which would all sit on a more or less standard copy stand.

Simple! Almost minimalist.

I haven't printed any of this yet, and I'm interested in hearing if anyone here sees any issues that I'm overlooking.

The one issue I'm well aware of is that (at least the pieces that touch the film) will need to be carefully sanded and polished, as 3d prints tend to be rough, particularly around the edges.

I still haven't figured out what kind of light source to try. (LEDs???) Any suggestions?

Thanks.

fwiw... That "mask" is much like the Omega D2 negative holders which are made of heavy aluminum. The weight is important to shooting vertically from copy stand (mine is an old Durst 609 enlarger stand that allows copying from large format film as well as prints etc).
.
One holds and positions 2X2 slide mounts...very convenient. Another, from Bay, has the traditional modification many of us know about...(we filed them out an extra mm all around to hold 35mm film strips without encroaching on image area...often explains black borders on prints.)

Another "mask" is a Durst 70 adjustable that holds film from 6X9 down to something a bit larger than 16mm Also holds Durst glass.

Others are beautifully made by betterscanning.com, which also offers (or offered) AN glass.

I'm simply suggesting that many here may have negative carriers and even stands that would serve the purpose nicely.

 

[dmr]

I’ll bite... the top one is daylight.

Survey says ... ... {long pregnant pause} ... ... **DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!**

I honestly expected much more of a difference. The reds do appear a bit weaker to me in the one lit by the backlight module, but nothing that I don't think can be corrected.

And, to answer a point raised on "Another Network", the only adjustment I made to the shots of the Color Checker was set the white and black levels by sampling the appropriate squares. (And also, that's not my thumb on the bottom one. It's a round thingie on top of a jar I used to support the Color Checker.)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Survey says ... ... {long pregnant pause} ... ... **DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!**

I honestly expected much more of a difference. The reds do appear a bit weaker to me in the one lit by the backlight module, but nothing that I don't think can be corrected.

And, to answer a point raised on "Another Network", the only adjustment I made to the shots of the Color Checker was set the white and black levels by sampling the appropriate squares. (And also, that's not my thumb on the bottom one. It's a round thingie on top of a jar I used to support the Color Checker.)

if you white balance correctly, the differences generally won’t be as large as you’d think, however, what gave it away was actually knowing what a color checker chart is supposed to look like under full spectrum daylight. Once you see it, you can’t un see it, and it becomes relatively straightforward to pick out what isn’t lit by full spectrum daylight. In this case, the yellows, blues, and purples are the bigger offenders, followed closely by the skin tones, reds, and magentas.

 

[dmr]

On a related topic, does anyone know of anything negative about Meike lenses? Specifically I'm looking at the one shown below. I can get a better deal on one locally and it looks like it will be just what I need for the copy box. This is a totally manual lens, and as I found out before, autofocus and auto exposure were close to worthless when shooting an image through the box.

Thanks again!

 

[Adrian Bacon]

On a related topic, does anyone know of anything negative about Meike lenses? Specifically I'm looking at the one shown below. I can get a better deal on one locally and it looks like it will be just what I need for the copy box. This is a totally manual lens, and as I found out before, autofocus and auto exposure were close to worthless when shooting an image through the box.

Thanks again!

I don’t know about that specific lens, but I can say that if you’re shooting APS-C for the scanner camera, you don’t need a macro lens that can go a full 1:1 for scanning 35mm film unless you plan to do multiple captures and stitch them together. Other than that, putting he camera in manual mode and having good autofocus is helpful.

 

[jtk]

The advantages of true macro prime for me have been mechanical stability ( zoom=wobble), exquisite focus, and flat field.

 

[gorbas]

From my testing, the best kind of lens for this kind of copy work is enlarger lens. Way better than most of legendary macro lenses. Of course, YMMV

 

[jtk]

From my testing, the best kind of lens for this kind of copy work is enlarger lens. Way better than most of legendary macro lenses. Of course, YMMV

Without commenting on that basic idea, I'll just point out that most (not all) enlarging lenses have always been built for amateurs who don't have high expectations. Schneider, for example, has never rivaled Fuji at the same price level.

 

[gorbas]

Schneider, for example, has never rivaled Fuji at the same price level.

In my 43 years in photography I maybe have seen by my eyes 10 Fuji enlarger lenses in total, maybe 15, but not much more and have seen thousands of Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon lenses. Even Minolta's EL are more visible.
When I'm talking about better quality I mean modern 6+ elements Componons, Rodagons, El Nikkors or Minolta's and their APO variants

 

[jtk]

In my 43 years in photography I maybe have seen by my eyes 10 Fuji enlarger lenses in total, maybe 15, but not much more and have seen thousands of Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon lenses. Even Minolta's EL are more visible.
When I'm talking about better quality I mean modern 6+ elements Componons, Rodagons, El Nikkors or Minolta's and their APO variants

I won't argue the point with you. I've seen a lot of Fujis in custom labs and I've collimation-tested them Vs your favorites. My own favorite non-Fuji is Leitz, which you neglected to mention.

For me it has always been important to focus with a fast lens (e.g. 2.8), and one of the many beauties of Fuji enlarging lenses is that they have preset aperture...open very wide to focus, turn down to the intended printing aperture without dealing with clicks.

That's all beside the point. If you want to deal with slow lenses, such as enlarging lenses, have at it.

 

[gorbas]

For me it has always been important to focus with a fast lens (e.g. 2.8), and one of the many beauties of Fuji enlarging lenses is that they have preset aperture...open very wide to focus, turn down to the intended printing aperture without dealing with clicks.

That's all beside the point. If you want to deal with slow lenses, such as enlarging lenses, have at it.

Yah, sorry, Leitz EL, very exotic too! But less than Fuji.
Slow lens for DSLR copy work? Why not, any how it has to be done around f8 anyhow.
I did try modern Carl Zeiss Makro Planar 2/50, an amazing lens generally and it sucks for ratios 1:1 and 1:2 at any aperture.
Newer Schneider's have very nice preset mechanism too.
I always prefer Fuji Optics ENG/EFP (video broadcast zooms) over similar Canons, so I like Fuji and I own their mirrorless system, so don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against them.

 

[jtk]

I've not tried to confirm, but I suspect stopping down in the vicinity of APS and FF actually hurts detail resolution, as with process lenses and with point source enlarging...Waterhouse stops would be a lot better.