Enlarger lens for copy of negative and slide film

[lauge]

Has anybody experience with copying film with an enlarger lens, bellows and DSLR? Any recommendation on enlarger lens for that setup is much appreciated.

 

[Diapositivo]

You should reformulate the question as:
Has anybody experience with copying film with an enlarger lens, bellows and SLR? Any recommendation on enlarger lens for that setup is much appreciated. I am also interested in performance with a DSLR.
That would avoid invitations to ask the question in another forum

PS No I haven't any specific information to offer. I don't think that SLR and DSLR behave differently in this case, as the lens is far from the image plane and the light rays arrive "perpendicularly" to the image plane. DSLR tend to have some quality problem on the edge of the image especially with range-finders because the lens is nearer to the focal plane, the rays striking the edge are not perpendicular to the image and don't strike the sensor in an optimal way.

 

[lauge]

Yes, I should add, my current setup is a macro lens with a home made tube and film holder and the performance is good for what I use it for. Now I'm changing setup to bellows + slide copier and wanted an enlarger lens for the copying to get even better performance but have no practical knowledge about enlarger lenses for that type of work.

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
Thirty minutes, without a suggestion to visit DPUG.
Strange, But True ...

Ron
.

 

[lauge]

what, I didn't knew that site existed Thanks for the reply, might as well delete or close this thread then

 

[lauge]

On second thought, if you have a good advise I would still like to hear it as this place is probably more knowledgeable on enlarger lenses than any.

 

[Bob-D659]

A good macro lens, most are flat field and with 1:1 reproduction you are good to go on an SLR. Bonus, no bellows required.

Most short focal length enlarger lenses are not really designed for 1:1.

 

[Diapositivo]

Enlarger lenses are normally very well corrected for field planarity and distortion (maybe also chromatic aberration). They are not necessarily symmetrical and, when you approach 1:1 (as is your case I presume), you could try them in inverted mount and compare performances (it's useless to invert symmetrical schemes).

 

[Chan Tran]

I used to do it as a job in a photo fininshing place. I used a 35mm SLR, bellow, I think a 50mm enlarging lens and the flash. It works ok but I honestly not happy with the result.
(don't want to be kicked out of here but for what you want to achieve I would use my scanner)

 

[tkamiya]

Why would you even need to involve an enlarger lens? You could do it with any macro lens made for that (?)SLR. Or - use a bellows (assuming you got one already) and regular lens. You will have to light it from behind the negs though, which will require some kind of light box.

 

[lauge]

Because enlarger lens < 50€ macro lens > 150€ (that's about 25 rolls of the finest B&W film more) and bellows lenses are up there with the macros. I actually already have a macro lens that I currently use for the job but was suggested to use an enlarger lens with recently purchased bellows slide copier. Macro lenses and supposedly enlarger lenses are better corrected (flat field) than a regular lens so enlarger lens sounds most appealing but don't have any experience with enlarger lens, macro lens might be the way if copy unit can get far enough on the bellows rails? Oh, and digital can't be a banned word here ((?)SLR) I can see there is a nice gallery of peoples work

 

[2F/2F]

Has anybody experience with copying film with an enlarger lens, bellows and DSLR? Any recommendation on enlarger lens for that setup is much appreciated.

There is an active thread about this on DPUG at this very moment.

You don't need bellows or an enlarger lens; it is overkill. Think about the magnification needed. Using FX format, a 50mm macro lens with a 50mm extension tube would be the most you would need, unless you were copying frames smaller than 35mm. You may not even need the extension tube if using APS-C format.

 

[tkamiya]

Let me see what happens if I do this...

DSLR
SCANNER

..... ducking for cover

 

[Chan Tran]

Speaking of enlarging lenses. I used the 135mm, 105mm, 80mm, 50mm and 40mm enlarging lenses on my bellow. I have choice of different focal lengths, very high magnification with the shorter lenses, results are very good and cheap.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Title updated, since the issue of using enlarger lenses for copying negs and transparencies is relevant to APUG, but digital copy work is better discussed on APUG's sister site, DPUG.org in threads like this one--

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/scanning-dslr-2185/

 

[lauge]

@Chan Tran, which of the focal length did you have most success with?

@2F/2F, yes, I started a thread on dpug after M.A.Longmore made me aware of it, don't know if it's rude to keep this thread alive but thought you might know a bit more about enlarger lenses?

 

[Chan Tran]

If I remember correctly the lens that I used back in the day was a 50mm lens for slide copying. The unit that I used looks kind of like this Beseler unit but it wasn't Beseler ( I can't think of the brand now).
http://www.angelfire.com/oh/ohiodeal/images/bes4102a.jpg
Today like I said I don't do slide copying any more, but for general close up I like the 105 and 80mm lenses best. The 50mm lens gets a bit too high magnification for most of my pictures. I used an F3 with the 6x viewfinder and Nikon PB-6 bellow. I get a 39mm screw mount to Nikon F adapter to mount the lenses. I don't reverse the lens. I may get better result reversing the lens but I have not tried due to the difficulty of mounting the lenses on the front filter thread.
The 80mm would give me a 1:1 magnification. The 105mm give me good working distance and can focus to about 30 ft. The 135mm I can focus all the way to infinity but magnification isn't very high at the close end. Good for flower shot or something like that. I rarely use the 50mm lens or 40 mm lens.

 

[Chan Tran]

Thinking about your problem at hand, what I would do if I have to do slide duplication with a 35mm SLR (no scanning) is:
I would remove the dichroic head off my Beseler CB-7 enlarger. Mount the tripod head on the enlarger column and mount the F3, 6x viewfinder, PB-6 bellow, enlarging lens on it. I would put the dichroic head on the baseboard upside down to use as a light source and thus I can dial in almost any kind of color correction I may need. I just need to find a way to hold the slide just above the color head. May be a mounted slide carrier and something to prop it a distance away from the light.

 

[2F/2F]

This is really sounding way too complicated for a simple 1:1 flat copy. A backlit copy stand, a camera, and a 50mm lens with a 50mm extension tube (or a lens that can get to 1:1 on it's own) is all that is needed.

 

[John Koehrer]

s'not flat copy, tis film.
The bellows will probably be overkill, but the enlarging lens will be much more compact and you don't need a stop down mechanism or helical.
Keep in mind that with a 50 to get 1:1 you are going to be 50mm from the (film) and also 50mm from the subject.

 

[Chan Tran]

My dear John! I think with a 50mm at 1:1 magnification the lens is approximately 100mm from the film/sensor and 100mm from the subject. I said approximately because I don't know where the nodal planes of the lens are.

 

[Ambar]

I've done some!

I shoot quite a bit of slide film but I have no scanner, and while living in this digital, I had to come up with a solution to this problem myself.
Every time I go for a digitalization session this is what happens:
I have a canon T2i which I use to take the actual photos. Most of my lens and gear however is nikon so I bought a adapter ring to use my old AIS stuff on the digital.
I use a pk-13 tube extender and a 105mm/2.5 lens. A tripod and the 2sec delay to take the actual pictures (I have no cables or remotes for my digital). I make a lightbox out of a glass top table, a bedside lamp with a strong lightbulb, and some special heat tolerant diffusing paper to make and even light source. Custom WB is your friend here.
Yes, there are slight, but visible, distortions of all kinds when you look at the corners of the image. I can't attest to the fact that it's the sensors problem or the lens distortion with the tube extender (quite frankly, I don't care that much). Simple solution!! Don't fill the frame! I frame my duplicates to occupy the center of the image field and then I crop into the image later on. This way I leave the distorted areas out of my actual image. My camera spits out a 18MP image but after cropping my actual image size is generally around 6 or 7, which is more than enough to put on Facebook and emailing friends.
More quick tips that are quite simple:
Stop down the lens! I do most of the stuff at f/8
Don't raise the iso rating too much (200 gives good speed and little to no noise normally)
Don't let your exposures go on for ever. 1sec shots should do the trick normally. long exposures on digital can give rise to noise problems.

When scanning slides like this, I choose an exposure very simply. Make it so your light box (with no film over it) has just about overexposed (actually gone, I mean clipping). Like 1/3 of a stop too far and loss of information has started. Put a slide over it and adjust (you shouldn't be more than 2/3f away from ideal). Remember, adjust while looking at a histogram! Don't trust the light meter here, it wasn't made for this. Later on, pull blacks down just a little and you should be golden. Slides are A LOT easier than negatives for this stuff.
When scanning negatives things get little harder. Over exposing cases images to be quite dark and choosing a good exposure is quite tricky. Trial and error helps out more than anything.

Most important of all!!!!!!!!! Shoot these thing in RAW and adjust things accordingly later on.

And if this sounds convoluted and complicated for the simple task of scanning a picture. Well, it is(!!) and that's why I'm currently awaiting my scanner to come in. I got tired of doing this after a few months.

Best of luck

 

[Ambar]

Ps: A special macro lens is probably best and an electronic flash would be interesting, but I would stay away from enlarger lens simply because.. Well this is already a ridiculous amount of work for a simple task, and my experience has been that a 250 dollar scanner will do an easier, faster(if you count the setup time), and better job. And though I think it might be feasible, I don't think you need more complications.

I however will admit dreaming of using a full frame sensor for a contact scan! Dreams will, for the time being, be dreams..

 

[Diapositivo]

Yes, if one needs it for a digital negative, and needs maximum quality over all the image surface, the enlarger lens, or a bellows lens, is a good move because the stuff is actually optimized for reproduction work (unlike normal lenses and even macro lenses).

If one only needs a copy for internet use (friends, email, facebook) then something like this is the best solution:

http://cgi.ebay.it/DIAPOSITIVE-SCAN...0?pt=Studio_e_laboratorio&hash=item3f0b184936

they call it "scanner" but it actually only takes a digital picture of the film. That means it is also very fast, you don't have to worry about exposure, and about setting a proper light source.

 

[John Koehrer]

Can you say DOH! Of course it's 100mm! Smacks forehead. Again!