I also use a 100mm macro lens, and focus at the taking aperture of f11 whilst looking at a 100% live view image of the film. Even at f11, tiny deviations from perfect focus are visible on the screen. Overall it probably makes a very minor difference to the end result, but a difference nonetheless.
DSLR scanning 120 film
-
H
- Thread starter Omid_K
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Shen Hao or Ebony 6x17 camera
- Started by djdister
-
For Sale Black Paint Nikon Fe2
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
Sold Minolta 7000 (Refurbished) w/ 50mm f/1.7
- Started by Acere
Forum statistics
I also use a 100mm macro lens, and focus at the taking aperture of f11 whilst looking at a 100% live view image of the film. Even at f11, tiny deviations from perfect focus are visible on the screen. Overall it probably makes a very minor difference to the end result, but a difference nonetheless.
Be sure you’re actually seeing f/11. My experience with auto focus lenses is that the only time the aperture isn’t wide open is when the picture is actually being taken and when the depth of field preview is engaged, otherwise the camera opens it up all the way and gives you a simulated exposure view on the live view, so even though you think you’re focusing at f/11, you’re really seeing and focusing wide open. This is what I like about the lens I use. The aperture isn’t controlled by the camera, it’s on the lens barrel.
That's not how live view works (at least on Nikon cameras, and provided you are using a lens with electronic contacts of course). Unlike when using the viewfinder, live view automatically stops the lens down to the set aperture, which is why it is so useful in accurately being able to gauge DoF at 100% magnification. You can look into the lens barrel whilst in live view mode to confirm this; the aperture is stopped down, and will change in real time as you vary the f-number.
My mirrorless is a canon EOS-R and the Aperture is wide open unless your taking the photo or hit the DOF preview. I even have a button programmed to do DOF preview on the back of the camera.
Edit: on Canon DSLRs, in live view, the behavior is the same, the aperture is wide open unless you hit the DOF preview button, otherwise, it gives you a simulated exposure view, assuming you turned that on. So it appears the Canon and Nikon cameras don't behave the same way. That being said, I'd want to focus with the lens wide open, especially in macro mode. If you manually focus stopped down, you run the risk of being close, but not actually nuts on, whereas if you focus wide open, you're nuts on and adding aperture just adds depth to both sides of the focus plane. I imagine that the Nikon system in autofocus would at least temporarily open, focus, then close when the focus button is pushed.
Edit: on Canon DSLRs, in live view, the behavior is the same, the aperture is wide open unless you hit the DOF preview button, otherwise, it gives you a simulated exposure view, assuming you turned that on. So it appears the Canon and Nikon cameras don't behave the same way. That being said, I'd want to focus with the lens wide open, especially in macro mode. If you manually focus stopped down, you run the risk of being close, but not actually nuts on, whereas if you focus wide open, you're nuts on and adding aperture just adds depth to both sides of the focus plane. I imagine that the Nikon system in autofocus would at least temporarily open, focus, then close when the focus button is pushed.
Last edited:
Adrian, the use of a strobe is really nice to get any vibrations out of the picture (hehe). Unfortunately not practicable for me. I'm using a Kaiser copy stand, which I bought new, and a light plate. The old Kaiser Slim lite is better for this as it is brighter than my newer and bigger Slime lite plano. The plano will also cause Newton rings. You are avoiding all this, but my setup can be placed on the dining table and then put back into a corner...
I use a tethered setup with a laptop with the Olympus Capture software. I can focus manually (on the laptop) at 10x magnification. Exposure is set to electronic shutter, so no vibration there. At the 10x focus magnification I can see slight vibration, but in my latest images I see no ill effect.
I used to use the AN glass from my enlargers negative holder to keep the film flat, but I started to think that it gives me faux grain. I bought an AN glas for a Kaiser enlarger for this purpose, but I immediately saw 'orange peel' texture in my images. At least the colour ones, as colour inversion will highlight any problems in the original file. So the Kaiser AN is different from my LPL AN. I'd say the LPL is finer ans sharper, the Kaiser glas structure seems to be rougher and smoother/rounder.
Most of my older negatives are flat enough to just place them down on the light plate, so no more AN glas on top. If necessary I can flatten the film strip by placing to Li-ION batteries from my digi cams on both sides of the negative. I set up guide lines on screen and move the negative until it is in its place.
I use only single shot for anything. Since I print negatives in the darkroom I only need my digitised film images for use on screen and online. That being said a 6x6 image will still look technically 'better' than the same film in 35mm. Capturing at higher resolution (medium format) and then downsampling still gives better results.
I've uploaded two images to flickr to add to this post. PanF+ 120 developed in Amaloco AM74. Lens was a Rollei (for system 6000) 150mm Sonnar for both, I believe.
Repro with an Olympus OM-D E-M5, 60mm M.Zuiko Macro, single shot. The sensor size is only a quarter of a 35mm negative. I'm happy with the result, I only had to buy the copy stand and the light plates. The latter I need for slides, anyway. But I don't know what would happen when printing these on an inkjet.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139815197@N06/47930520166/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139815197@N06/47930505302/in/dateposted-public/
Edit: Forgot to mention that I stopped down the macro lens to f/7.1 and that the images are on Flickr in full res. Just click to get them magnified.
I use a tethered setup with a laptop with the Olympus Capture software. I can focus manually (on the laptop) at 10x magnification. Exposure is set to electronic shutter, so no vibration there. At the 10x focus magnification I can see slight vibration, but in my latest images I see no ill effect.
I used to use the AN glass from my enlargers negative holder to keep the film flat, but I started to think that it gives me faux grain. I bought an AN glas for a Kaiser enlarger for this purpose, but I immediately saw 'orange peel' texture in my images. At least the colour ones, as colour inversion will highlight any problems in the original file. So the Kaiser AN is different from my LPL AN. I'd say the LPL is finer ans sharper, the Kaiser glas structure seems to be rougher and smoother/rounder.
Most of my older negatives are flat enough to just place them down on the light plate, so no more AN glas on top. If necessary I can flatten the film strip by placing to Li-ION batteries from my digi cams on both sides of the negative. I set up guide lines on screen and move the negative until it is in its place.
I use only single shot for anything. Since I print negatives in the darkroom I only need my digitised film images for use on screen and online. That being said a 6x6 image will still look technically 'better' than the same film in 35mm. Capturing at higher resolution (medium format) and then downsampling still gives better results.
I've uploaded two images to flickr to add to this post. PanF+ 120 developed in Amaloco AM74. Lens was a Rollei (for system 6000) 150mm Sonnar for both, I believe.
Repro with an Olympus OM-D E-M5, 60mm M.Zuiko Macro, single shot. The sensor size is only a quarter of a 35mm negative. I'm happy with the result, I only had to buy the copy stand and the light plates. The latter I need for slides, anyway. But I don't know what would happen when printing these on an inkjet.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139815197@N06/47930520166/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139815197@N06/47930505302/in/dateposted-public/
Edit: Forgot to mention that I stopped down the macro lens to f/7.1 and that the images are on Flickr in full res. Just click to get them magnified.
Last edited:
So true about the cardboard negative masks! I am looking to buy some kind of better negative carriers.
As for the 50mm lens, I chose a longer lens because I had some concerns about getting the lens extension I needed for the magnifications I wanted. If you already have a 50mm macro lens, by all means try it and see if it works. But I didn't want to buy a lens and then find out I could not get the exact amount of extension need to just fill the frame of my digital sensor without cropping.
I was trying to find some combination of lens and extension method that would work to fill my APS-C sensor with either a 135 or 120 negative. For maximum adjustability between the two formats, I decided to go with bellows. My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicated that - combined with the adaptors I needed - some models of bellows might provide too much extension, even in the fully collapsed position. That is, it seemed possible that even with the bellows fully collapsed, a 50mm lens might provide too much magnifiction, cropping the image of a 120 negative on my sensor. A 60-85mm focal length lens might be a safer bet, depending on how thick your adaptors are, and what kind of bellows / extension rings you plan to use. The 100mm enlarger lens I chose works for both film formats with my bellows. But it's quite possible I might have accomplished the same thing with a somewhat shorter focal length lens - and that would have provided a more convenient focusing distance.
When I was first experimenting with DSLR scanning I tried sandwiching the film between two pieces of AN glass, and had similar problems; a visible reduction in sharpness and a "gritty" texture to the captured frames. I also found it didn't completely eliminate the Newton rings either.
I have since switched to using a glassless negative carrier to hold the film being captured, and it works extremely well.
According to online *macro* Depth of Field calculators, using a a 1.5 crop sensor camera to photograph 120 film (one exposure*) is not particularly demanding of Depth of field. At the required magnification (around 025x-0.28x), and f/11 you should have about 8mm-9mm DoF. So perfectly flat negatives should not be necessary. *Macro* DoF calculators <here> and <here> (Use only macro DoF calculators which are based on subject-to-SENSOR focusing distances, and not general photography DoF calculators based on subject-to-LENS focusing distances. Discussion on another forum <here>)
If photographing 35mm film, however, the required magnification to fill your 1.5 crop sensor goes up to around 0.65x, and at that magnification, f/11 will provide only 1.8mm depth of field.
*Obviously, if you are shooting your 120 negatives at higher magnification, and stitching together multiple images - you will have much less DoF than 8mm-9mm. At 1x (1:1) and f/11, DoF drops to less than 1mm!
If photographing 35mm film, however, the required magnification to fill your 1.5 crop sensor goes up to around 0.65x, and at that magnification, f/11 will provide only 1.8mm depth of field.
*Obviously, if you are shooting your 120 negatives at higher magnification, and stitching together multiple images - you will have much less DoF than 8mm-9mm. At 1x (1:1) and f/11, DoF drops to less than 1mm!
Last edited:
My setup is dedicated and stays set up. I've run so much film through it that the shutter counter on the camera I'm using is way over the rated shutter life. I'm actually trying to decide if I should just replace the camera same for same or go to a higher resolution model. Same for same would be simple and straightforward. I've found that in practice, having as little as possible in the optical path is best. If the film isn't particularly flat, it's better to have a deeper DOF and some refraction than it is so put stuff in the optical path to try to flatten the film.
I have one of the function buttons on my D810 assigned to DoF preview too, for use with the viewfinder.
You have the focusing wide open vs stopped down argument backwards. Ideally you want to focus at the taking aperture, as otherwise if the lens exhibits any focus shift you will not have perfect focus when stopped down, and this issue is especially critical at these focusing distances. In live view using a small aperture isn't an issue either, as the gain is boosted such that the live image doesn't get dark.
Also no, with my Nikon the lens remains stopped down when autofocusing in live view mode. As I use an LED lightpad as a light source for the film, there is no issue at all with focus hunting (and the focusing system of the D810 is superb anyway).
Last edited:
@lantau said:
... I used to use the AN glass from my enlargers negative holder to keep the film flat, but I started to think that it gives me faux grain. I bought an AN glas for a Kaiser enlarger for this purpose, but I immediately saw 'orange peel' texture in my images. At least the colour ones, as colour inversion will highlight any problems in the original file. So the Kaiser AN is different from my LPL AN. I'd say the LPL is finer ans sharper, the Kaiser glas structure seems to be rougher and smoother/rounder.
Most of my older negatives are flat enough to just place them down on the light plate, so no more AN glas on top.
@GLS said:
... When I was first experimenting with DSLR scanning I tried sandwiching the film between two pieces of AN glass, and had similar problems; a visible reduction in sharpness and a "gritty" texture to the captured frames. I also found it didn't completely eliminate the Newton rings either.
@lantau, thanks for mentioning this. What I gather from your description is that the film was sandwiched between the light plate and the AN glass. So, I guess the rough side of the glass is resting against the emulsion side of the film. In that case though the rough side virtually corresponds with the emulsion layer, increasing the chance that it is photographed with the image, which are both put in focus.
I think this is the wrong setup. What you should have is a film holder with the AN glass on the backside of the film (this is the glossy side where actually the Newton rings appear!), with the lightplate at a short distance behind the AN glass, and the emulsion side completely free looking to the lens. This in effect would place the base of the film between the AN glass and the emulsion layer reducing the chance of capturing the rough side. This is also the setup how the film holders and the glass are used in the Kaiser enlargers.
Only using a glass at the backside of the the film is enough to keep it flat because that is the convex side of the film, and when you are using a decent film-holder the edges of the film are already kept in place.
The bottom line is that you should never put anything between the emulsion side of the film and the lens because that would add dust (which is on the glass), and it introduces flare (reducing contrast).
That said, I also got this AN glass from Kaiser but I must still do some tests because I also wondered if I would see the rough side in the copy.
... I used to use the AN glass from my enlargers negative holder to keep the film flat, but I started to think that it gives me faux grain. I bought an AN glas for a Kaiser enlarger for this purpose, but I immediately saw 'orange peel' texture in my images. At least the colour ones, as colour inversion will highlight any problems in the original file. So the Kaiser AN is different from my LPL AN. I'd say the LPL is finer ans sharper, the Kaiser glas structure seems to be rougher and smoother/rounder.
Most of my older negatives are flat enough to just place them down on the light plate, so no more AN glas on top.
@GLS said:
... When I was first experimenting with DSLR scanning I tried sandwiching the film between two pieces of AN glass, and had similar problems; a visible reduction in sharpness and a "gritty" texture to the captured frames. I also found it didn't completely eliminate the Newton rings either.
@lantau, thanks for mentioning this. What I gather from your description is that the film was sandwiched between the light plate and the AN glass. So, I guess the rough side of the glass is resting against the emulsion side of the film. In that case though the rough side virtually corresponds with the emulsion layer, increasing the chance that it is photographed with the image, which are both put in focus.
I think this is the wrong setup. What you should have is a film holder with the AN glass on the backside of the film (this is the glossy side where actually the Newton rings appear!), with the lightplate at a short distance behind the AN glass, and the emulsion side completely free looking to the lens. This in effect would place the base of the film between the AN glass and the emulsion layer reducing the chance of capturing the rough side. This is also the setup how the film holders and the glass are used in the Kaiser enlargers.
Only using a glass at the backside of the the film is enough to keep it flat because that is the convex side of the film, and when you are using a decent film-holder the edges of the film are already kept in place.
The bottom line is that you should never put anything between the emulsion side of the film and the lens because that would add dust (which is on the glass), and it introduces flare (reducing contrast).
That said, I also got this AN glass from Kaiser but I must still do some tests because I also wondered if I would see the rough side in the copy.
Billy,
I place the emulsion side down onto the light plate. The AN side of the glass onto the film base. Most of the time I have dust fairly under control.
I used to have a colour correction filter between light plate and emulsion for CN film. It moves the orange negative fully into the colour space of the camera. Mostly no newton rings there, but CN film and the Plano do Newton rings on the emulsion side. The older light plate has a rougher surface. Coulor emulsions are too smooth...
I also get Newton rings with CN film in the enlarger, because the lower glass sheet is not AN.
I place the emulsion side down onto the light plate. The AN side of the glass onto the film base. Most of the time I have dust fairly under control.
I used to have a colour correction filter between light plate and emulsion for CN film. It moves the orange negative fully into the colour space of the camera. Mostly no newton rings there, but CN film and the Plano do Newton rings on the emulsion side. The older light plate has a rougher surface. Coulor emulsions are too smooth...
I also get Newton rings with CN film in the enlarger, because the lower glass sheet is not AN.
Sorry to say @lantau but when you place the film with the emulsion side on the light plate there are two layers between the emulsion and the lens: the base of the film and the AN glass. As said, you should never place anything between the emulsion and the lens. This is a well known rule of thumb for copying image material: place picture to picture with nothing else between it.
When you are not following this rule you can expect problems because the extra layers in the light path between emulsion and lens are introducing all sorts of unwanted optical effects.
When the AN glass is placed with its rough side to the backside of the film and the emulsion side looking to the lens, the light from the light plate (behind the AN glass) is shining through the AN glass first, then passing the rough layer of the glass, which is acting as a diffuser, and the light is then passing through the base of the film and the emulsion in the direction of the lens.
So, that is my theory why the AN glass would work without seeing the rough side of the glass. If you are looking closely to the AN glass with a loupe the small bubbles on its surface are made smooth and they are acting like small lenses dispersing the light in all directions like a diffuser. In this setup the diffused light is also passing the base of the film first before shining on the emulsion layer. Both effects are preventing to see the texture of the surface.
May I comment on this too.
If you are using the Kaiser enlarger, the upper side of the film holder (near the light source) is for holding the AN glass, and the lower side (near the lens) is for holding a mask, not for a second glass.
The film is kept sufficiently flat because the AN glass is on the convex side of the film, and the edges of the film are already kept in place in the film holder.
Unnecessary to say that the emulsion side of the film must be in the direction of the lens. The AN glass is on the backside because that is the surface where the Newton rings appear.
Edit - Also, placing a NR glass on the emulsion side of the film makes no sense because this surface never shows Newton rings. Moreover, what I said above, it is not a good practice to place glass between the emulsion and the lens.
Last edited:
Yes, that can cause problems. Depending on your camera/lens combination maybe more so, maybe less so. In my experience, using a 100mm macro lens on an APS-C camera, focusing at f/2.8 and taking the picture at f/11-f16 adds a lot of DOF and if the focus point is shifting, it’s not shifting so much that the film plane is out of focus. I have a harder time focusing stopped down and being in the middle of the zone of focus than I do focusing wide open. Unless burning a huge amount of time focusing every frame is the only acceptable way for you, it’s way faster to focus wide open, then stop down to the point that the DOF is large enough that the film will still be acceptably sharp from frame to frame. It’s gonna move as you move between frames. You want a reasonably large zone of focus to deal with that unless you’re gonna focus every frame.
Good advice! I knew about this in the context of contact printing, but for some reason didn't consider it for digitising. This may well solve my problems with colour film. I will try that right away! I'll leave the AN glass away if I can. This has given me the best results so far. The smaller and brighter light plate doesn't have glossy surface, unlike the current Kaiser models. But if that surface is still going to cause problems with colour negatives I'll see if I can use one of AN glass sheets as a fine diffusor as you describe.
I'm using an LPL 7700 colour enlarger with a universal negative holder. The film needs to be sandwiched between glass. Believe me that colour emulsions are so glossy that you can get newton rings. B/W doesn't suffer from that problem. Naturally the emulsion is facing the lens.
I saw the Kaiser AN glass at a reasonable price when I was shopping for film and thought that will allow me to leave the LPL glass in the enlarger for good. But perhaps following your advice it will have some use after all.
Edit: I stand corrected. After five months of RA4 I had my fist b/w session today. I just noticed that my last print of a TMX 135 negative has newton rings all over the image. None of the other prints. I'm devastated!
Last edited:
@iantau said:
I'm using an LPL 7700 colour enlarger with a universal negative holder. The film needs to be sandwiched between glass. Believe me that colour emulsions are so glossy that you can get newton rings. B/W doesn't suffer from that problem. Naturally the emulsion is facing the lens.
I saw the Kaiser AN glass at a reasonable price when I was shopping for film and thought that will allow me to leave the LPL glass in the enlarger for good. But perhaps following your advice it will have some use after all.
Edit: I stand corrected. After five months of RA4 I had my fist b/w session today. I just noticed that my last print of a TMX 135 negative has newton rings all over the image. None of the other prints. I'm devastated!
The only color films I have shot in my whole life was for a wedding. Long ago with my new Nikon F-801, and people were asking: "Is that one focusing automatically?" That explains my ignorance on this.
I'm not sure what you are doing with the TMX 135 here, I'm not familiar with the LPL 7700.
I'm using an LPL 7700 colour enlarger with a universal negative holder. The film needs to be sandwiched between glass. Believe me that colour emulsions are so glossy that you can get newton rings. B/W doesn't suffer from that problem. Naturally the emulsion is facing the lens.
I saw the Kaiser AN glass at a reasonable price when I was shopping for film and thought that will allow me to leave the LPL glass in the enlarger for good. But perhaps following your advice it will have some use after all.
Edit: I stand corrected. After five months of RA4 I had my fist b/w session today. I just noticed that my last print of a TMX 135 negative has newton rings all over the image. None of the other prints. I'm devastated!
The only color films I have shot in my whole life was for a wedding. Long ago with my new Nikon F-801, and people were asking: "Is that one focusing automatically?" That explains my ignorance on this.
I'm not sure what you are doing with the TMX 135 here, I'm not familiar with the LPL 7700.
A huge amount of time? I focus once on the first frame of a roll, and that process takes less than one second when stopped down
On all the subsequent frames I check the captured images at 100% to make sure they are all equally sharp across the frame as frame 1 (they always are, but I check anyway).
I do however take your point about it being easier to manually focus wide open due to the narrower DoF.
A huge amount of time? I focus once on the first frame of a roll, and that process takes less than one second when stopped down
On all the subsequent frames I check the captured images at 100% to make sure they are all equally sharp across the frame as frame 1 (they always are, but I check anyway).
I do however take your point about it being easier to manually focus wide open due to the narrower DoF.
That's my way of working too. I don't scan a 135 roll in 36 seconds (6 strips of 6 frames) but 15 minutes is also quite fast (including a check on the computer after each strip)
Last edited:
Some people are seeing the texture of an AN glass in copies of their film. So I did a real life test by taking a photo from a strip of 120 film, with and without AN glass, and comparing them.
Photo 1 - With AN glass
Photo 2 - Without AN glass
Camera: Pentax K5_II
Lens: Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro @ f/8.
Distance ring: Pentax Auto Nr.3, 25mm
Remote: Cable + Mirror up in advance
Light panel: Kaiser Slimline LED
AN glass: For Kaiser System V, 100x72.5 mm, 2mm thick, nr 4434.
Copied film: 120, HP5 plus
Photo 1 - With AN glass
The AN glass is taped to the light panel with the textured surface up, and the film strip is taped to the glass with the emulsion side facing the lens.
Photo 2 - Without AN glass
The photo without AN glass actually has the AN glass plate (2 mm thick) reversed with the textured surface facing the light panel, to get the same distance between film and the surface of the light panel as in photo 1. The film strip is taped to the glass with the emulsion side facing the lens.
The photo's are shown at 100% zoom, a screen dump was made, which was copied to a new image 400x400 pixels. Hence what you see is a crop from the 100% images.
The width of the photographed area is 24mm (0.945"), and the sensor of the APS-C camera is 4928x3264 pixels,
which gives a calculated scan resolution of about 4928/0.945 = 5200 dpi.
The sample from the film is an overexposed area, but it still has some density (hence the grain). An additional photo was taken with the film at 35mm distance from the light panel on a sheet of perspex, to be sure the grain was not an artefact from the surface of the light panel or the reversed AN glass. The result is identical to the photos above (photo 3).
Photo 3 - At 35mm distance from the light panel on perspex
Care was taken the film was perfectly flat against the AN glass, taped all around.
A cross was drawn on the emulsion side of the film with a black marker pen as a focusing aid (the black area in the photos). The viewfinder was extended with an angle finder at 2x for better focusing (manual).
Conclusion: The texture of an AN glass placed behind a film at the backside is not visible in a copy.
Photo 1 - With AN glass
Photo 2 - Without AN glass
Camera: Pentax K5_II
Lens: Pentax-A 50mm f/2.8 Macro @ f/8.
Distance ring: Pentax Auto Nr.3, 25mm
Remote: Cable + Mirror up in advance
Light panel: Kaiser Slimline LED
AN glass: For Kaiser System V, 100x72.5 mm, 2mm thick, nr 4434.
Copied film: 120, HP5 plus
Photo 1 - With AN glass
The AN glass is taped to the light panel with the textured surface up, and the film strip is taped to the glass with the emulsion side facing the lens.
Photo 2 - Without AN glass
The photo without AN glass actually has the AN glass plate (2 mm thick) reversed with the textured surface facing the light panel, to get the same distance between film and the surface of the light panel as in photo 1. The film strip is taped to the glass with the emulsion side facing the lens.
The photo's are shown at 100% zoom, a screen dump was made, which was copied to a new image 400x400 pixels. Hence what you see is a crop from the 100% images.
The width of the photographed area is 24mm (0.945"), and the sensor of the APS-C camera is 4928x3264 pixels,
which gives a calculated scan resolution of about 4928/0.945 = 5200 dpi.
The sample from the film is an overexposed area, but it still has some density (hence the grain). An additional photo was taken with the film at 35mm distance from the light panel on a sheet of perspex, to be sure the grain was not an artefact from the surface of the light panel or the reversed AN glass. The result is identical to the photos above (photo 3).
Photo 3 - At 35mm distance from the light panel on perspex
Care was taken the film was perfectly flat against the AN glass, taped all around.
A cross was drawn on the emulsion side of the film with a black marker pen as a focusing aid (the black area in the photos). The viewfinder was extended with an angle finder at 2x for better focusing (manual).
Conclusion: The texture of an AN glass placed behind a film at the backside is not visible in a copy.
Hello Phil,
the enlarger is a Kaiser 6005 which I got second hand for cheap. I never used it as an enlarger, as I already had (a better) one for darkroom use.
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=4465
I converted it into a copy stand by using the following adapter:
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=5520
The adapter was actually the most expensive part of the kit at over 100€. But all in all it was cheaper than a copy stand which are almost impossible to find used around here and cost an arm and a leg new. I think I ended with similar hardware as the copy stands from the same manufacturer.
The key with your enlarger is whether you can remove the head and adapt a camera. I do not know the Omega, sorry...
The 55mm Nikon should work very well for scanning. As far as I know it has flat field too (which would be my #1 recommendation here). Which camera are you using?
Hope this helps
Etienne
I do not if anyone else has noticed but those cinema style back lit signs have slots for letters of height the same width as 120 film. Not running to a DLSR but a Sony bridge I tried the basic tripod approach on some 6x6 and 6x9 negatives and was very surprised at the results. I was expecting barreled images and they looked flat to me. High precision it is not but as a quick fix for old negatives from a box camera, or better it worked fine. The sign box I used has room for three rows of text so an area of even light for one negative is easy to find. I also bought a smaller box and found the light to inconsistent. Any how it will soon be a simple dark room lamp with a suitable filter. The translucent plastic is even, problem was the very basic ribbon of LEDs, the light source. WORKS in the UK, a budget store for all sorts of arty knick knacks. I suspect these light signs though are worldwide, I have seen them in Spain.
When you mention power supply I'm assuming you mean the AC/DC adapter and cord. Is this what you mean? If so, those units are available on Amazon for many different scanners ranging from $17 - $30.
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/
http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |