Print quality after dslr scan

[gorbas]

I assume the 80mm lens is for the 35mm negatives and a 50mm lens would be for medium format. Just guessing. Or by using bellows will the 80mm enlarging lens work for both formats?

Yes, benefit of using 80-75mm for 35mm and 50mm lens for medium format is that you will save on the length of the set up.
Right now my 6x6 set up with Full frame sensor and 55mm lens is around 26cm long (from sensor to negative carrier).
To copy 24x36mm negative with APSC sensor and with 75mm lens, length of the set up is around 32cm.
You need to check minimum magnification with your bellows (fully compressed), camera and lens you are using.
When I started this journey I already had most of the stuff I needed. It was fun figuring our everything from hardware to workflow.
If end up with Nikon DSLr you need just mechanical adapter M39 or M42 to Nikon, without the optical element.

 

[markjwyatt]

Are those photos on your media scanned by this method? Or if not all then can you show me examples? Thanks!

Hi Laci Toth- here are links to the ones I scanned. Keep in mind

1. Many of my old negatives (and slides) are in bad shape (deteriorating plastic sleeves, in some cases just poor storage); all from the 1970s and early 1980s so far.
2. I do not have a great post process- basically I invert curves in ON1, then tweak the curve plus other adjustments to bring out what is there (slides are a bit easier). I have created some starter profiles for different film types.

Some 35mm B&W negs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157713900205636;
Kodak High Speed Infrared: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Kodak High Speed AND infrared
Some Olympus Pen F half frame B&W negs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157715046980242
Some 35mm slides: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Kodachrome OR Ektachrome OR Fuji slide

I do need to try and digitize some new, good negatives and compare to commercially scanned results (Noritsu).

 

[Laci Toth]

Hi Laci Toth- here are links to the ones I scanned. Keep in mind

1. Many of my old negatives (and slides) are in bad shape (deteriorating plastic sleeves, in some cases just poor storage); all from the 1970s and early 1980s so far.
2. I do not have a great post process- basically I invert curves in ON1, then tweak the curve plus other adjustments to bring out what is there (slides are a bit easier). I have created some starter profiles for different film types.

Some 35mm B&W negs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157713900205636;
Kodak High Speed Infrared: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Kodak High Speed AND infrared
Some Olympus Pen F half frame B&W negs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/albums/72157715046980242
Some 35mm slides: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Kodachrome OR Ektachrome OR Fuji slide

I do need to try and digitize some new, good negatives and compare to commercially scanned results (Noritsu).

Oh, I loved the first link! Many thanks for sharing!

 

[craigclu]

I had some beginners luck with using a Fuji X-T2 and the Fuji 60mm macro lens to photograph negatives, but have now realised that trying to increase quality from my initial experiments is / will be more challenging. Photrio user 'NortheastPhotographic' has some useful experience with this approach and his Panasonic S1R camera that can do multi-shot exposures to give better reproduction quality.

I'm also having good initial results with my Fuji (pro-2) and the 60mm macro. I'm using a 10mm extender and getting close to frame filling magnification on 35mm. I happened to have a Versalab laser rig for my darkroom alignments and it works nicely to assure true plane alignment. I'm getting at least as-good or better results over my Canon 9950F film scanning abilities and it's much faster to accomplish large jobs. A quick inversion in PhotoShop and auto-toning gets me 90% to final satisfactions on almost all b&w negatives. This follows much fumbling with my old bellows rigs and adapters, etc and has proven much easier overall.

Old negative from 1972 attached. (Zenit E, Helios) so pretty pedestrian gear!

 

[MattKing]

M39 to M42 + M42 to OM will do it.

Sadly, the M42 to OM film mount really doesn't exist - the M42 cameras had a shorter flange distance than OM cameras.
I've been wandering down the reversing ring to enlarger lens rabbit hole, but it is challenging to determine filter thread sizes for enlarging lenses - even the ones I own!

 

[Laci Toth]

I'm also having good initial results with my Fuji (pro-2) and the 60mm macro. I'm using a 10mm extender and getting close to frame filling magnification on 35mm. I happened to have a Versalab laser rig for my darkroom alignments and it works nicely to assure true plane alignment. I'm getting at least as-good or better results over my Canon 9950F film scanning abilities and it's much faster to accomplish large jobs. A quick inversion in PhotoShop and auto-toning gets me 90% to final satisfactions on almost all b&w negatives. This follows much fumbling with my old bellows rigs and adapters, etc and has proven much easier overall.

Old negative from 1972 attached. (Zenit E, Helios) so pretty pedestrian gear!
View attachment 250511

This photo is a beauty!
As I’m about to ‘scan’ both 35mm and 6x7 and as I’m definitely not an expert on the field I don’t know if a macro lens or two separate enlarging lens would be better. If I go with my gut feeling I’d say I’ll choose the enlarging version.
I checked so many dslr scan in the recent days and the best I’ve seen was shot with full frame cameras or higher end stuff with great lenses but as it’s an experiment for me at this moment I think I just give a go for a smaller format and will see if I’m happy with the results.

 

[Laci Toth]

Yes, benefit of using 80-75mm for 35mm and 50mm lens for medium format is that you will save on the length of the set up.
Right now my 6x6 set up with Full frame sensor and 55mm lens is around 26cm long (from sensor to negative carrier).
To copy 24x36mm negative with APSC sensor and with 75mm lens, length of the set up is around 32cm.
You need to check minimum magnification with your bellows (fully compressed), camera and lens you are using.
When I started this journey I already had most of the stuff I needed. It was fun figuring our everything from hardware to workflow.
If end up with Nikon DSLr you need just mechanical adapter M39 or M42 to Nikon, without the optical element.

Okay, I give this a go then.
I’ll pick two lenses and a dslr and will see.
Thanks for your thoughts! I’ll be on it to get back with the results and possible questions if you don’t mind.

 

[Fraunhofer]

The Takumar has a pretty strong field curvature, I had better luck with a 50mm El Nikor enlarger lens.

 

[Laci Toth]

The Takumar has a pretty strong field curvature, I had better luck with a 50mm El Nikor enlarger lens.

Oh yes, I won’t use the Takumar I just tested it if it’d be okay.
Right now I’m thinking of getting a Schneider Componon s 50mm 2.8 and a 80mm. I once had the Componon S 80mm f4 and it was great but I can’t find it at this very moment.
Any suggestion is more than welcome.

 

[gorbas]

Sadly, the M42 to OM film mount really doesn't exist - the M42 cameras had a shorter flange distance than OM cameras.
I've been wandering down the reversing ring to enlarger lens rabbit hole, but it is challenging to determine filter thread sizes for enlarging lenses - even the ones I own!

Hmm?? OM is 46mm and M42 is 45.46, so there is 0.54mm extra. More than enough!
Sorry Matt, Olympus OM was never on any of my radars so I do not know for sure. But in one moment before introduction of OM they had M42 camera. Usually any company that produced M42 was friendly toward it after introduction of new system. Maybe OM was playing hard game? Now is very hard to do any search on OM because digital Olympus items overruns everything.
Most of enlarging high quality 6 element lenses for 35 and 120 are 40.5 filter thread. They well correspond to camera lenses. Check here

 

[MattKing]

Goran,
Thanks for the link.
I'm not sure why it is such a challenge - maybe because the predecessor to the OM-1 was the 42mm screw thread Olympus FTl.
More likely though the problem is that there are no digital cameras that use the OM film mount, and all the market for adapters is oriented towards those digital bodies.
I've found one source for an OM film body reversing ring - more than a month wait for a shipment from China, and the reversing ring is limited to 52mm filter threads. We shall see....

 

[gorbas]

Matt, Actually in the last few months I found the Ebay shipments from China are actually faster than previous 2 years. It was like 3 weeks, quite fast. I was pleasantly surprised.
On Ebay I tried to find that OM-M42 adapter and all hits were for Digital Olympus.
30+ years ago before tsunami of camera adapters made in China I had Nikon BR-2 reversing ring (nikon F male to 52mm male) with simple custom made brass adapter to M42 (both female).
In that case of macro shooting range, flange distance is irrelevant.
Do you know for how long Olympus FTl was made? Never seen one?

 

[MattKing]

Do you know for how long Olympus FTl was made? Never seen one?

Not long 1971 - 1972. Full aperture metering in a screw mount camera.

 

[markjwyatt]

I am trying to use my Durst slide copier to color correct for color film asking. I dial in a color that aligns the RGB histogram to eye, then shoot. One issue I see a color gradient on the diffusion plate (not good). I then try and invert and correct in ON1 and get some results, but not that satisfactory. May take some more work and development or just better software.

VPSII

Hunters and Deer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Kodak VR400 (Kodacolor gen1)

Rasco by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Fujicolor (actually used the VPSII preset for teh best results!)

Spooky Fountain by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

I think film boxes used to (and maybe still do) print suggested color corrections for enlargement. Does anyone know where to find that information on the internet?

EDIT: experimenting going to GIMP for a final color correction. ON1 just does not do it in all cases.

 

[markjwyatt]

The last bit of color correction makes all the difference. I do not know why ON1 does not have an obvious way to do color corrections (I understand it is oriented towards digital procession, but still). Maybe I just have not figured it out yet.

Here is the Hunters and Deer shot with a final pass through GIMP. I just need to figure out why I am getting some flaring at top of the open frame on the Durst.



Hunters and Deer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[craigclu]

As I'm feeling pretty comfortable on dealing with black & white, I am quickly running out of talent and skills on the few color projects I've attempted.... Frustrating enough to set aside for a future endeavor. Your successful hunters have tweaked out well!

 

[markjwyatt]

As I'm feeling pretty comfortable on dealing with black & white, I am quickly running out of talent and skills on the few color projects I've attempted.... Frustrating enough to set aside for a future endeavor. Your successful hunters have tweaked out well!

Thanks, I think I have a potential for a process. I bumped up the saturation a bit (I did not want to saturate a picture with a green cast):


Hunters and Deer by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[gorbas]

Laci, there is one I took a few days ago. Nikon D7000, DSLR scan, 75mm lens, LrClassic.

 

[gorbas]

Laci, after many years of procrastination you pushed me to put side by side results from Nikon Scan 8000 film scanner, Nikon D7000 and Nikon D810. I did not split hair here to match them as close as possible. Portrait of me from 39 years ago, June 2nd 1981. Just global corrections roughly to match shots. Both DSLR shots with the same 75mm lens, on the same rig with different magnification. Processed in Adobe LrClassic.

 

[Laci Toth]

Laci, after many years of procrastination you pushed me to put side by side results from Nikon Scan 8000 film scanner, Nikon D7000 and Nikon D810. I did not split hair here to match them as close as possible. Portrait of me from 39 years ago, June 2nd 1981. Just global corrections roughly to match shots. Both DSLR shots with the same 75mm lens, on the same rig with different magnification. Processed in Adobe LrClassic. View attachment 250684 View attachment 250685 View attachment 250686

Three days later on the fifth I was born. =)
Well the difference is small at least for my eyes and also just here and there but overall doesn’t seem that it made too much sense which setup you used, I think. Probably the difference would be more visible for larger prints but as I’m only intending to print in 6x8 inch size I think a d3300 and a macro or enlarging lens will work.
I’m still oscillating between a macro lens or an enlarging lens. Somehow I just feel that with a macro lens I can cover both formats but I’ve to purchase two enlarging lenses if I want to do the same to cover both 35mm and 6x7.

 

[138S]

I’m still oscillating between a macro lens or an enlarging lens. Somehow I just feel that with a macro lens I can cover both formats but I’ve to purchase two enlarging lenses if I want to do the same to cover both 35mm and 6x7.

Enlarger lenses are very cheap and of atonishing performance for that kind of work. A good macro will be also suitable, but field flatness and low distortion usually better in enlarger lenses. A regular macro lens may have floating elements inside and it has to work also well for general photography, an enlarger lens is highly specialized for a kind of work.

One thing you have to consider is the magnification ratio you will play in the frame vs sensor, the lens should work optimally for that ratio. For example rondenstock had Rodagon R, D. Of the modern D you have the 1x and the 2x. Regular enlarger lenses are optimized for a larger ratio.

If not stitching crops, a Nikon EL 50 f/2.8 enlarger lens will work around 1:5 for MF in a DX sensor, which is ideal. Perfect for your pint size, but a 6x7 TMX frame may contain around 160MPix effective, a single D3300 shot may capture around 15Mpix effective but as aspect ratio is not matching perhaps you will get 12. Still that's ok for 8" prints.

Image Quality is very expensive in pixels. An image having x2 more effective pixels (x1.4 per axis) will deliver a visually slight enhacement only. And, of course, when quality is enough for the eye then more quality has little effect.

 

[Laci Toth]

Enlarger lenses are very cheap and of atonishing performance for that kind of work. A good macro will be also suitable, but field flatness and low distortion usually better in enlarger lenses. A regular macro lens may have floating elements inside and it has to work also well for general photography, an enlarger lens is highly specialized for a kind of work.

One thing you have to consider is the magnification ratio you will play in the frame vs sensor, the lens should work optimally for that ratio. For example rondenstock had Rodagon R, D. Of the modern D you have the 1x and the 2x. Regular enlarger lenses are optimized for a larger ratio.

If not stitching crops, a Nikon EL 50 f/2.8 enlarger lens will work around 1:5 for MF in a DX sensor, which is ideal. Perfect for your pint size, but a 6x7 TMX frame may contain around 160MPix effective, a single D3300 shot may capture around 15Mpix effective but as aspect ratio is not matching perhaps you will get 12. Still that's ok for 8" prints.

Image Quality is very expensive in pixels. An image having x2 more effective pixels (x1.4 per axis) will deliver a visually slight enhacement only. And, of course, when quality is enough for the eye then more quality has little effect.

I’ve read that field curvature can be also an issue when using enlarging lens on bellows though might be not that significant like in the case of a macro lens though Gorbas post was convincing.

 

[138S]

I’ve read that field curvature can be also an issue when using enlarging lens

An enlarging lens with 6 elements has more chances to ensure field flatness while correting well the rest, even if lens is not much stopped. Lenses with 4 or 3 elements may have more limitations.

 

[Laci Toth]

An enlarging lens with 6 elements has more chances to ensure field flatness while correting well the rest, even if lens is not much stopped. Lenses with 4 or 3 elements may have more limitations.

Alright, thanks!

 

[runswithsizzers]

I’ve bellows so I can mount the lens on it, the other end is for the dslr, all these on a tripod the negative is in a negative carrier which sits on a light table and to assure that it’s flat and the camera also I use a spirit level.
But you said for medium format you use a different setup. I’ve to ask what is it because I’ve be sure that a setup works before I invest.
I assume the 80mm lens is for the 35mm negatives and a 50mm lens would be for medium format. Just guessing. Or by using bellows will the 80mm enlarging lens work for both formats?

I know from personal experience that a 100mm enlarger lens mounted on a Pentax Bellows Unit II works for both 135 and 120 formats when copying with an APS-C sensor camera. I'm guessing an 80mm lens would also work, but have not tried it.

My setup requires 2 adaptors, one for the lens-to-bellows and the other at the camera end. By my calculations - if using a 50mm lens - the minimum extension provided by my bellows and the two adapters *might* have resulted in too much magnification for 120 negatives, making it impossible to fit the negative on the APS-C sensor. Might have worked, but it would have been close, so I opted for a 100mm lens to be on the safe side.

If your dSLR has a full frame sensor, then a greater image size is required to fill the sensor, so the minimum thickness of the bellows-plus-adaptors is less likely to be a problem than it was for my crop sensor camera.