Which is better for neg scanning, macro lens or enlarger lens?

[Adrian Bacon]

I have tried numerous film holders, and none of them allow this luxury. As you advance film, the optimal focus field varies from shot to shot because the film surface always bends slightly, unless you have your negative sandwiched between two pieces of ANR glass.

What aperture are you digitizing at? If you’re up at f/8-f11 this is a lot less of an issue.

 

[markjwyatt]

I have been using my Fujifilm XT-2 (APS-C) on a Durst slide duplicator and enlarging lenses. I set it up with a modified Pentax Bellows ring adapter to fix the camera to the slide copier. I find that I can do full frame 35mm and 6x6 with a 75mm enlarging lens (6x6 is top of bellows travel). For half frame 35mm I used a 50mm enlarging lens. I am using a PIXL-LATR film holder (not great but works), plus have used enlarger negative carriers.

With the PIXL-LATR, I focus using a fine focus mechanism on the Fujifilm, and it acts like a grain focuser. I find that the focus holds with a set-up as I run a roll through. Any time I need to disturb the set-up I do refocus.

 

[Ardpatrick]

This discussion about holding focus etc is really a workflow question. If you want to digitize every frame of every film processed, each at maximum resolution, it might become a necessity to critically refocus for every image, thus making AF appealing.

I don’t work like that. I make something like a contact sheet - shooting a neg sheet on my copy stand setup, back-lit with a light box. I look at the ‘contact sheet’ on a laptop and select specific images of interest which I then digitize. I get critical focus manually for each of the selected images. It’s not a big deal to refocus each selected frame with my current set-up.

 

[xkaes]

What aperture are you digitizing at? If you’re up at f/8-f11 this is a lot less of an issue.

As I've already mentioned, this is my experience as well. I usually shoot as close to f11 as possible -- usually a 75mm lens.

 

[Ethan Brossard]

I did some experimenting on this topic today, so I figure I'll share what I found out. In the past I've used a camera scanning rig with a GFX 100s and Fuji 120mm F/4 macro. The Fuji 120mm can't go all the way to 1:1 though, so it got switched out for the Pentax 120mm Macro. The results from those two were very similar. More recently I started looking for a proper flat field macro to use for art digitization jobs, and came across the Schneider Kreuznach Apo Componon 60mm F/4 in the Makro Iris mount. The Pentax and Fuji lenses would work for that purpose too, but have a much narrower field of view, which makes it much harder to copy large paintings. With a series of adapters I mounted the Apo Componon to a GFX 100s and began testing with it. At f/4 it suffers from vignetting, but at f/11 it evens out completly. Today I tested it against the Pentax 120mm macro on the same 4x5 negative at the same magnification. I can't share the actual scans as it wasn't my negative, but the results were fairly conclusive. The Schneider 60mm is definitely sharper than the Pentax 120mm. The Pentax also suffers from slight chromatic aberation, wheras the Schneider has none. Curiously, I also discovered that Fuji's pixel shift / stitch program for generating 400mp files produces images very slightly less sharp than single 100mp exposures. It does create a less noisy image than the single exposure though, so its a tradeoff. I may experiment to see if I can figure out a way to get the best of both worlds, but for now that's what I've discovered

tl;dr, The schneider industrial mount lenses, which are identical to the Apo Componon HM lenses are sharper than any of the macro lenses I've tested. I should also mention that as far as I know, the Schneider Apo Componon 60mm f/4 industrial lens contains the same optics as the 60mm f/4 Apo Digitar, and costs a fraction of the price

 

[Adrian Bacon]

As I've already mentioned, this is my experience as well. I usually shoot as close to f11 as possible -- usually a 75mm lens.

Depending on the setup, sometimes it’s worth sacrificing some center sharpness to diffraction to gain a deeper DOF and an image that is sharper deeper into the corners.

 

[ced]

Scanner lens.

He wants to use his camera as a scanner...

 

[Eric Rose]

I use my cellphone to make a quick contact sheet if I want to share it.

I have a friend who uses a Panasonic S1 that utilizes pixel shift. His 6x6 negs come out very sharp.

 

[slackercrurster]

I will be using a Nikon D800e. Currently I have been using a Nikkor 60mm macro lens and it's "ok" but am wondering if using an APO 80mm Schneider enlarging lens might be better.

Eric

Gotta test them. They are cheap enuf on eBay to try options. If you don't like it, you can resell without much loss.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I know that. What I never will understand: Just with the monetary value of the time you gain by using ICE you already can buy an entire farm of scanners.

Wow you make it sound like there’s a whole range of great quality film scanners out there just waiting for buyers! Wouldn’t that be great!

 

[Ardpatrick]

Hey if you like using ICE - absolutely. I can see the point. But it’s not necessary to make those trying other methods seem foolish. Each has their reasons.

Even back in the day when I used Nikon Coolscan for 35mm I recall turning ICE off, as it degraded scan quality. That’s 15-20 years ago so my memory may be wrong. Either way as I was also shooting 120 & 4x5 I soon migrated to Imacon / Flextight. If there was ICE there, again I turned it off.

I would be still using a Flextight if the photo coop where I accessed it were still able to get service on the scanner. That became unaffordable some years ago. Epson flatbeds are inferior for smaller formats and although I’ve considered Coolscans on EBay I’m wary of buying what is in electronics terms a dinosaur piece of gear. It may work for others but it’s a long way from ideal. And it only does 35mm - the least important format for me. As for the 8000 /9000 ED, previous searches gave me the impression they really are incredibly expensive & rare on eBay.

Dslr capture is certainly not ideal - it’s a hack - like reinventing something that previously existed. But I have a fairly decent setup which cost me nothing - I had the Dslr, the lenses (macro / enlarger) a copy stand, a light box, wireless flash gun. All fairly standard stuff. I don’t need a 20 year old scanner and an old computer running ancient OS etc. I’ve done all that with other gear. Not for me.

 

[xkaes]

Dslr capture is certainly not ideal - it’s a hack - like reinventing something that previously existed. But I have a fairly decent setup which cost me nothing - I had the Dslr, the lenses (macro / enlarger) a copy stand, a light box, wireless flash gun. All fairly standard stuff. I don’t need a 20 year old scanner and an old computer running ancient OS etc. I’ve done all that with other gear. Not for me.

My story exactly. I also have a few very nice scanners that I got for next to nothing on EBAY. The problem I've had with each of them is getting the computer hardware and software and operating system that will work with each. None of them will work with Windows 10.

 

[Steven Lee]

Dslr capture is certainly not ideal - it’s a hack - like reinventing something that previously existed.

It is all relative. If I saw my current camera-based setup back in 2003 when I was scanning with a Coolscan, I would have been begging to take my kidney for it. So... ideal or not, it's the best film scanning technology under $15K the world has ever seen. If we put our dreams aside, the fact is that there's never been a better time to scan film at home. If this was available back then, maybe I wouldn't have stopped shooting film to begin with.

 

[Ardpatrick]

It is all relative. If I saw my current camera-based setup back in 2003 when I was scanning with a Coolscan, I would have been begging to take my kidney for it. So... ideal or not, it's the best film scanning technology under $15K the world has ever seen. If we put our dreams aside, the fact is that there's never been a better time to scan film at home. If this was available back then, maybe I wouldn't have stopped shooting film to begin with.

Great point. But if I still had access to a serviced Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, that would be my go to.

 

[250swb]

When it comes to using single exposures with a digital camera to digitize film, "Scanning" is one of those commonly used terms that makes no logical sense - "scanning" usually implying a moving sensor and/or multiple exposures stitched together - but like many other commonly used terms, its familiarity seems to succeed over logic.

Good common sense because it also infuriates me when somebody says they shot or captured an image. Given you've only captured it it could escape again so maybe shooting it would be the best option? What do you think, lasso or gun?

 

[Eric Rose]

Posted an image on Instagram ericrose4x5 of my first try with the new setup. Some tweaking to come but so far I'm happy.

 

[Eric Rose]

BTW, my main motivation for all of this is to get good 35mm scans. I have a top of the line Epson scanner that does a great job on MF and 4x5. Albeit very slowly. From what I'm seeing, the camera setup will replace the Epson for 35 and MF. Dust has really never been an issue for me, but when it does become a problem anyone proficient in PS can retouch a neg in a matter of minutes. Almost a "two step process".

 

[Eric Rose]

I just found out a suspicion of mine was valid. The scan is sharper if I set the camera to "liveview" since there is no mirror movement during exposure. The difference was very noticeable sadly. I use a 10 second self timer setting BTW.

May be I should just use my mirrorless camera .....

 

[Ardpatrick]

I use a wireless TTL flashgun as a light source. No shake.

 

[Steven Lee]

I just found out a suspicion of mine was valid. The scan is sharper if I set the camera to "liveview" since there is no mirror movement during exposure. The difference was very noticeable sadly. I use a 10 second self timer setting BTW.

May be I should just use my mirrorless camera .....

Vibrations is a big and often underreported issue with camera scanning. This get real bad real quick once you try to go above 3000dpi. A truck passing by your house, a wind gust, or a refrigerator kicking in nearby - any of these can erase the difference between a 26MP sensor and a 50MP one. Moreover, some apartment buildings (multi-story toothpick&cardboard complexes common in the southern US) are effectively uninhabitable from the camera-scanning perspective: the micro-jitter never goes away.

I see 3 possible ways to address it:

1. Increase the intensity of a light source to achieve much higher shutter speeds
2. Have the copy stand or a tripod placed on solid foundation, preferably on the ground level. Digitize when there's less disturbances around.
3. Adopt a more rigid negative mounting system with a hard linkage to camera+lens, like Nikon's ES-2 or FilmToaster.

The #1 is hard to achieve with continuous light sources. FilmToaster is expensive. My approach is closer to #2. Before digitizing, I wait for good weather (no wind) and do it after 11pm when everyone goes to bed and the house stops shaking. Having two separate desks helps too: one for the camera stand, and another for your computer which is tethered. I advance the film in the negative holder, wait for 2-3 seconds, then press the mouse button while trying not to touch the desk. And even with all this preparation, pixel shift is a gamble so I stopped using it.

I live in a standard toothpic&cardboard house so my experience isn't atypical for the rural US. From this perspective I miss Texas where single-story houses built on top of a solid concrete slab were common. That would have been ideal.

 

[mshchem]

I use a wireless TTL flashgun as a light source. No shake.

The way to go. This was an ideal way to copy film with film even back in the 70's. Perfect color temperature and very short exposure time.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

No need to make it sound as such, at any given time you can find on eBay 3 dozen of film scanners with ICE. Even in the absurd situation that you would have to search for one, the time invested is way less than what it will take you to retouch all the dust and scratches from your film.

That might be true if you're digitizing a bunch of old film that hasn't been stored well, or has been handled a lot, but for freshly processed film that has been hanging to dry in an area that has a HEPA filter running, the amount of dust that gets on the film is minimal at worst, and frankly, pretty much any modern digital camera and lens made in the last 5-10 years can easily deliver significantly higher baseline sharpness and overall resolution than the vast majority of available dedicated film scanners.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Vibrations is a big and often underreported issue with camera scanning. This get real bad real quick once you try to go above 3000dpi. A truck passing by your house, a wind gust, or a refrigerator kicking in nearby - any of these can erase the difference between a 26MP sensor and a 50MP one. Moreover, some apartment buildings (multi-story toothpick&cardboard complexes common in the southern US) are effectively uninhabitable from the camera-scanning perspective: the micro-jitter never goes away.

I see 3 possible ways to address it:

1. Increase the intensity of a light source to achieve much higher shutter speeds
2. Have the copy stand or a tripod placed on solid foundation, preferably on the ground level. Digitize when there's less disturbances around.
3. Adopt a more rigid negative mounting system with a hard linkage to camera+lens, like Nikon's ES-2 or FilmToaster.

The #1 is hard to achieve with continuous light sources. FilmToaster is expensive. My approach is closer to #2. Before digitizing, I wait for good weather (no wind) and do it after 11pm when everyone goes to bed and the house stops shaking. Having two separate desks helps too: one for the camera stand, and another for your computer which is tethered. I advance the film in the negative holder, wait for 2-3 seconds, then press the mouse button while trying not to touch the desk. And even with all this preparation, pixel shift is a gamble so I stopped using it.

I live in a standard toothpic&cardboard house so my experience isn't atypical for the rural US. From this perspective I miss Texas where single-story houses built on top of a solid concrete slab were common. That would have been ideal.

You can also reduce vibrations by using a strobe for the light source. My setup is a mirrorless camera with a strobe for the light and the camera is set to electronic first current shutter so the actual exposure happens up in the ~1/8000 of a second range. My biggest problem is film flatness. Newer currently manufactured film tends to be pretty flat, but there's lots of old film that still comes through and that stuff tends to be curly as all get out. Major pain to keep flat.