I don’t really have focus issues as at f/11 for 120 film, the DOF is roughly a 1/4 inch with that lens/camera combo
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.
I still like the setup from @runswithsizzers (post #14). It is an elegant solution, with a minimum of material, cost and time to set it up. It is also very flexible to choose all the parts just what you have in stock or your budget.
The only thing it still needs is decent film-holder with quick feed-through, because with the cardboard frames it is much prone to dust and it would work faster.
I bet a tripod is inherently much stabler than most copy stands, the latter colums tend to vibrate and are often tied to a wall to dampen it. If you take a short 50mm (macro) lens to reduce the dimensions of the tripod it further increases stability, and to prevent kicking it off the table too easy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Billy,
... I also get Newton rings with CN film in the enlarger, because the lower glass sheet is not AN.
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.
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.
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
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.
The main point of using the cable release is so that the autofocus can be engaged without having to touch the camera. At these distances, touching the camera in any way to focus moves the camera enough such that when it is released again the focus will no longer be dead on. This is at least true with my Kaiser RS2XA copy stand (which is hardly a cheap model).
I converted an old enlarger into a copy stand: the film-camera distance can be adjusted much more easily than with a tripod. The camera is also much more stable and less subject to wobble.
I never had corner sharpness issues, but 1) the 60mm Nikon has a flat field.
My 2 cents,
Etienne
Hello Phil,Etienne, SVP,
Which enlarger? I still have my old Omega B22. I also have a Nikon 55 mm f2.8, which is an older lens, but good.
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?