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?
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.
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.)
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!
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
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.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
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.
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?