New to DLSR Scanning

[skahde]

I made a copy stand...

All what is needed as "copy-stand" is readily available as Nikon ES-2. Everything besides camera, lens and light-source is in the box. Fix it to a macro-lens of the right focal length for the sensor-size as stated in the manual and off you go.

Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set #602 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set #602 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[fiddle]

All what is needed as "copy-stand" is readily available as Nikon ES-2. Everything besides camera, lens and light-source is in the box. Fix it to a macro-lens of the right focal length for the sensor-size as stated in the manual and off you go.

Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set #602 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set #602 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

I scan 120 as well.

 

[skahde]

Sure, for 120 I also use the copy-stand but things take a lot more time this way, hence it stays an exception with the ES-2 beeing the rule.

 

[Richas]

Dear Rich,

I've been doing this for many years and in many ways. I can assure you: You are right on track here. With respect to the lens in use there ist no reason to get too picky. The same rules apply as in the darkroom: As long as you can see clearly defined grain all over the field and the borders of the negative ar nice and straight you are set and there is little to improve if at all. No need to make any more fuss about it in this regard and the 28mm CRC-lens on APSc represents the field of view of a 42 mm in full-format terms if it checks the above criteria (which I can't judge from the examples above), just go ahead and use it.

But after scanning many thousands of slides and negatives this way I would always prefer a method that is easy and quick to work with if I had the choice. In this respect I would prefer something like the Nikon ES-2, which I upgraded to from the ES-1 which I used with a Nikon D800E and a Micro-Nikkor Ais 2,8/55 for several years. Positioning the film is a breeze, it is held still relative to the camera so shake is no issue and you can most often skip the refocussing after every shot. Stopping down to f8 will ease out most differences e.g. with slides provided the make and model of the frames is the same.

With respect to the post-processing it is easy with slides as your camera will do most of it even auto WB works pretty decent and you can use about any light-source you like, provided its spectrum is continuous and not too far off 3200-5000 K. Flash can be tricky to get the exposure right but you can easily adjust the output and redo the shot, using the histogram as your guide.

But I would like to stress again, that the whole matter is less complicated and difficult than it might seem when starting to dig into the details. There is more than one way to do it and no one correct way because it is EASY to do. Take a decent lens, get it fixed at the right distance to the film and get rid of any stray light and you are mostly done. The rest is up to your convinience and preference.

Best

Stefan

Stefan,
Thank you for the encouragement. I am looking for a new film holder and a macro lens now. I am looking at this film holder:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1646769-REG/negative_supply_bfc35_35mm_basic_film_carrier.html

The clamshell type I have now is PITA. Plus I can't seem to cut negatives without ruining frames! I plan on buying a camera clamp and building my own stand.

In the meantime I will try to "optimize" what I have to make it work.

Thanks again
Rich

 

[xkaes]

That sounds nice, at least in theory. But in practice, what good does it really do?

FYI, this:

http://www.jackandsuedrafahl.com/magazines/photographic/pdf/89JanBesselerDuplicator.pdf

 

[cptrios]

My setup (which I can't currently take a picture of):

1. A 14" long, 1/2" wide black pipe threaded into a floor flange, mounted on a board (or, more specifically, an Ikea wall shelf)
2. One of these Raleno lights, the high CRI of which should theoretically be good for color negs
3. An Essential Film Holder - Way cheaper than the Negative Supply stuff. Is it as good? No idea! But it works well for me. (I also use a Pixl-latr for 4x5. I didn't enjoy it much with 35mm and 120.)
4. A Manfrotto super clamp to attach the mount to the pipe
5. One of these leveling mounts - I would say that this was the single best investment I made and the only 'advice' I could offer you - getting the camera level on the Y axis was always a huge pain in the butt, but now it's as simple as turning a ring.
6. A no-name ballhead - I only use this if I need to extend the camera out a bit so I can move the frame around without hitting the pipe base (i.e. for hi-res 4x5 scans).
7. My old NEX-7 with an AF Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 - I think that using an APS-C sensor has a few advantages, but even at ISO 100 it does introduce a bit of noise to the party that can be unwelcome with super-low-grain films like CMS 20. Eventually I'll pick up one of the A7R models. Eventually.

Even though this is nowhere near an ideal setup, and I'm still improving technique etc., the results are better than anything I'd be getting with a scanner. Maybe a Coolscan 9000 comes close when everything's done properly, but there are plenty of tradeoffs with those as well, beyond the whole "paying several thousand dollars for a 20-year-old device" thing. It's not extremely convenient to have to stitch frames to get good resolution out of 120 film, but it's worth it in the end (and an aforementioned A7Riv would fix that issue).

 

[koraks]

FYI, this:

Yeah, I know what a slide duplicator is. My question was/is: does the color filtration offer any improvement in the present use case? @L Gebhardt actually answered this from a theoretical perspective, but I wonder how much real-world benefit there is. I suspect it may not be all that much.

 

[xkaes]

My question was/is: does the color filtration offer any improvement in the present use case? @L Gebhardt actually answered this from a theoretical perspective, but I wonder how much real-world benefit there is. I suspect it may not be all that much.

Depends on what you mean by "quality". The resolution is the lens -- easy to get a good inexpensive flat-field macro. Getting everything parallel is simple mechanics -- but a slide copier takes care of that, and provides even illumination. The Beseler model has a buit-in color diffusion head for up to 4x5". What a color head mainly will do is allow you to adjust the color -- if desired or for creative effects -- but it allows for easy cropping and other special effects, as mentioned in the article.

 

[koraks]

What a color head mainly will do is allow you to adjust the color

Yes, I understand. So the question was/is: how does that help in a scanning setup? I can see something at a theoretical level to the argument of curves overlapping in order to expose to the right using a digital camera (i.e. optimizing s/n ratio), but I very much doubt the result is meaningfully better than just shooting an orange C41 negative and slide out the color cast in digital post.

I mean, the 1989 article you linked to doesn't give much footing when it comes to DSLR scanning with a color head, or am I missing something?

 

[MattKing]

Yes, I understand. So the question was/is: how does that help in a scanning setup? I can see something at a theoretical level to the argument of curves overlapping in order to expose to the right using a digital camera (i.e. optimizing s/n ratio), but I very much doubt the result is meaningfully better than just shooting an orange C41 negative and slide out the color cast in digital post.

I mean, the 1989 article you linked to doesn't give much footing when it comes to DSLR scanning with a color head, or am I missing something?

There is a decent chance that, in addition to being a continuous source, a good colourhead may be designed with colour consistency in mind.

 

[xkaes]

I very much doubt the result is meaningfully better than just shooting an orange C41 negative and slide out the color cast in digital post.

You very well may be right. And someone who loves working with digital transformation would probably prefer that route, and there are options -- at various purchase prices.

But if one understands color, and has a colorhead -- or can obtain one at a good price -- it's one way to not only have a good stable diffuse light source, but to correct for the mask in color film -- which varies from company to company, type to type, and batch to batch -- and make other corrections/adjustments at the front end.

As this discussion has pointed out, there's more that one way to skin a cat. Pick your poison. I just think an inexpensive color head and an inexpensive macro lens -- which is needed anyway -- is a good way to go for extra flexibility & control.

 

[koraks]

Alright, thanks for explaining You may have a very solid point in deciding based on where ones preference lies. Maybe for darkroom color printers (I guess I'm one, too), a color head is quite intuitive to use in a DSLR scanning setup. I'd have to try it if I happen to end up with a dichroic head in my hands at some point.

 

[Richas]

Hi, OP here.
I have obtained a Nikkor 55mm Micro F2.8 lens. I am disapointed to see that, at its closest focus, a 35mm image only fills about 75% of the frame. Am I missing something?

Rich

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Are you still using the tubes? Shorter focal length (<105mm) full-frame lenses are only capable of 1:2 without additional extension.

You can experiment to find a combination of extension, lens focus, and working distance that gives 1:1 magnification with good optical performance.

 

[Richas]

Are you still using the tubes? Shorter focal length (<105mm) full-frame lenses are only capable of 1:2 without additional extension.

You can experiment to find a combination of extension, lens focus, and working distance that gives 1:1 magnification with good optical performance.

Using a 1 cm extension tube seems to do the trick. Will this degrade the performance of the lens in anyway?

Thanks for the help.
Rich.

 

[koraks]

Will this degrade the performance of the lens in anyway?

Very slightly, but not something I'd be concerned with. I'd just start using this setup and see if you ever run into any issues with it. I don't think the optics will be a problem area. Have fun!

 

[IMoL]

Shorter focal length (<105mm) full-frame lenses are only capable of 1:2 without additional extension

The Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 D (and non-D) both go to 1:1 without tubes.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Hi, OP here.
I have obtained a Nikkor 55mm Micro F2.8 lens. I am disapointed to see that, at its closest focus, a 35mm image only fills about 75% of the frame. Am I missing something?

Rich

The Nikon PK-13 Auto Extension Tube allows the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor to focus as close as 1:1 and maintains the auto aperture function. A plain extension tube will not support the auto aperture. The second set of distance and magnification numbers on the lens barrel are specifically intended for use with the PK-13.

 

[cerber0s]

I gave up on DSLR scanning three days ago and bought a dedicated film scanner. I couldn't be happier. I guess my best tip is: give up

Anyway, this is what I did with your file. The key is to first set white balance to the frame edge before you do anything else.

As has been mentioned before, your lens has sharpness issues, distortion, and you have light leaks.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I still have the copy of Vuescan I bought for use with my Epson flatbed and Plustek scanners before I switched to digital camera scanning. It works just as well for processing my digital camera scans of color negatives as it did with my dedicated film scanners.

 

[mtjade2007]

Has anyone ever seen a color slide copy stand available in the 80's? Such copy stand uses a tungsten and an electronic flash (sync'd by the copying camera) light source. And it has a set of dichroic filters built-in for color correction. Its copying area is only of the size of medium format slides (including up to 6X7). This machine is ideal for DSLR scanning if not the best. It wasn't cheap back in the 80's though. I have seen one in the shop in Palo Alto California called Keeble & Shuchat. I somehow came across one in the 90's but I have never used it. I plan to dig it out and give it a try for DSLR scanning. If I do dig it out I will upload a few pics here.

 

[MattKing]

Bowens Illumitran?
From an Ebay listing.

The camera mounts were sized for older film bodies, and sometimes interfere with modern digital bodies with incorporated grips. And they are best suited to use with cameras with larger sensors, as it can be challenging to match them with shorter focal length flat field lenses.

 

[mtjade2007]

Found one on the internet. It's sold long time ago though:

Beseler dual mode slide duplicator model 4100 for Sale in Davis, CA - OfferUp

Used (normal wear), Selling a dual mode slide duplicator $125 obo. Make an offer!;

offerup.com

 

[MattKing]

The Beseler and the Bowens units competed for the same market.

 

[mtjade2007]

Found one on the internet. It's sold long time ago though:

Beseler dual mode slide duplicator model 4100 for Sale in Davis, CA - OfferUp

Used (normal wear), Selling a dual mode slide duplicator $125 obo. Make an offer!;

offerup.com

The metal box on top of the film window is an attachment for something. It doesn't belong there. It can be put aside. Mounting a digital camera takes some effort as Matt said. This one has the same challenge but it should be easy DIY to achieve a good mounting of a camera. The great thing about this slide duplicator is it is equipped with dichroic filters and an electronic flash light source. I am wondering how well (or bad) it will do if I mount my Canon 5D-iii on it.