Who is using a flash for copying negatives with a dSLR?

[michaelfoto]

But the exposure is made at the brief duration of the flash, not by shutter speed.

To my surprise the duration of the flashlight on these older studioflashes was quite long. I began with 1/125 sec and was forced near f22.
This led to diffraction unsharpnes.
I found that 1/800 sec allowed me to go to the sweet spot of f8.
Michael.

 

[michaelfoto]

I think this is pretty genius. I'm not sure I have the native coordination to use a setup like this without tripping on it

Thanks. I might still mess it up by kicking the tripod or something else.
Michael.
The good thing though is I dont have to touch the camera, because its fully controlled from the PC.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I was thinking a white surface or mirror at a 45 degree angle to redirect the light up through the film holder - have you tried that? The box would need to be much thicker (taller). I was thinking of angling the reflector 45* one way for the flash, then rotating it to 45* the other way for the focusing light. Make sense?

Yes. Unless you make the box much larger you end up with a gradient from left to right because the distances are so short that you still have a lot of fall off.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

To my surprise the duration of the flashlight on these older studioflashes was quite long. I began with 1/125 sec and was forced near f22.
This led to diffraction unsharpnes.
I found that 1/800 sec allowed me to go to the sweet spot of f8.
Michael.

Yeah, a big flashgun is way too much. The flash I'm using is only ~80 watt-seconds and I never have it at more than 1/8 power for color neg, and BW and E-6 is usually down at 1/64 or 1/128 power.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

but with NO hotspots.

Hot spots are the bane. I'm not 100% there yet for 4x5 (at least to my satisfaction), but it's still a work in progress in the finessing of light.

 

[wiltw]

To my surprise the duration of the flashlight on these older studioflashes was quite long. I began with 1/125 sec and was forced near f22.
This led to diffraction unsharpnes.
I found that 1/800 sec allowed me to go to the sweet spot of f8.
Michael.

Dropping flash power to some fractional output shortens the duration and intensity of the light burst, allowing somewhat larger aperture to be used, thus avoiding diffraction.
Reduction of flash power allows a fixed X-sync shutter speed to be used on focal plane shutter cameras with reasonable f/stop. Modern flash can go to 1/256 power with very brief flash durations.

 

[gorbas]

This is my current DSLR rig with Nikon D810, SB-28, PB-5 & PS-4 and APO Rodagon D 4.5/75. Six or more years ago when I started this journey I used Rosco LED panel. Focusing and framing light is 6 heads strip of LED. Even 3 heads will be just fine.
The best solution for one flash to provide even coverage and without added bulk is distance.

 

[runswithsizzers]

This is my current DSLR rig with Nikon D810, SB-28, PB-5 & PS-4 and APO Rodagon D 4.5/75. Six or more years ago when I started this journey I used Rosco LED panel. Focusing and framing light is 6 heads strip of LED. Even 3 heads will be just fine.
The best solution for one flash to provide even coverage and without added bulk is distance.
View attachment 284406

Thanks for posting. I think I have the same lens (?) - or similar; mine is f/4.0.

Because I am working vertically, on a copy stand, I was hoping to reflect the flash to keep my working height from getting awkward. I may have to re-evaluate the whole setup - or just be satisfied with what I have. I expect any improvements I might gain from the flash will be fairly small (if any). Did you notice any improvement in either color accuracy or sharpness when you switched from the LED panel to flash?

 

[gorbas]

Rosco LED had "criminal" colour quality. Back then I was actually ready to send letter to Rosco CEO with question how they can ruing legacy of such great company with crapy product like that. It had horrendous green colour cast with CRI most likely close to 0.
Good thing I was using it 99.9% for copying BW negatives and it was bright and even. Difference I noticed between continuous light and flash is just minimal, easily negligible.
I always has used horizontal configuration for 35mm negatives and vertical for 120 formats. Vertical configuration was very uncomfortable for me and I never tried it again. Now my 120 set up is also horizontal.

 

[jgboothe]

In response to the opening post:
When I have digitized film at home, I used a flash setup. It was just a test setup to see how well it worked, so it was fairly make-shift and unstable, but it certainly proved that it could work successfully if I took the time to develop it further. I include a diagram above to give you a rough idea of the setup.

A basic description:-
Kaiser copy stand with Canon 5DS R and Sigma 105mm OS macro lens and hood.
The camera was connected to a laptop using a USB cable to enable live view and camera control via Canon Utilities software.
The film was held with enlarger negative carriers of various types, supported on a sheet of glass, with white perspex diffuser underneath. The glass was used to provide a more stable support than the perspex.
Beneath these, I used some white card with glass from a small picture frame resting on it, both at 45 degree angle.
The flash was on a stand/tripod pointing horizontally at the 45 degree glass. The distance was varied somewhat to control exposure (it was an old flash with rudimentary power control), but it was never less than around 40cm from the glass.
The continuous light source was an angle-poise lamp with a daylight-balanced fluorescent tube. This was positioned on the table in such a way that it could be moved into the light path easily at any point for focusing.
The room was a garage with very low light levels.
Resting on the film holder, I used a piece of card with a rectangular aperture in the centre. This blocked stray light from around the film holder, as well as shading the lens from a direct view of the flash.

How well did it work?
In terms of getting even illumination for the images, it worked extremely well. Almost no variation across the frame on all formats (I tested carefully) up to 6x7cm. No reflections or stray light of any significance.
The continuous light setup worked 'well enough'. Moving it in and out of position was a minor inconvenience. It was 'bright enough', but more light would have been better.
In terms of colour accuracy of the flash light, the jury is out. I had some concerns that I was getting some colour distortions in the images. I think that these were more likely due to the camera profiles used in raw conversion, but I can't be sure.

Overall, my actual setup was far from perfect, but by far the biggest problems were with keeping the film in focus across the frame, because nothing was 'locked down' properly, plus the (fairly minor) colour issues I mentioned. Evenness of illumination was, as far as I was concerned, fully resolved.

Hope that is of some use to the OP. Happy to answer any questions about it.

 

[runswithsizzers]

View attachment 291064

In response to the opening post:
When I have digitized film at home, I used a flash setup. It was just a test setup to see how well it worked, so it was fairly make-shift and unstable, but it certainly proved that it could work successfully if I took the time to develop it further. I include a diagram above to give you a rough idea of the setup.

A basic description:-
Kaiser copy stand with Canon 5DS R and Sigma 105mm OS macro lens and hood.
The camera was connected to a laptop using a USB cable to enable live view and camera control via Canon Utilities software.
The film was held with enlarger negative carriers of various types, supported on a sheet of glass, with white perspex diffuser underneath. The glass was used to provide a more stable support than the perspex.
Beneath these, I used some white card with glass from a small picture frame resting on it, both at 45 degree angle.
The flash was on a stand/tripod pointing horizontally at the 45 degree glass. The distance was varied somewhat to control exposure (it was an old flash with rudimentary power control), but it was never less than around 40cm from the glass.
The continuous light source was an angle-poise lamp with a daylight-balanced fluorescent tube. This was positioned on the table in such a way that it could be moved into the light path easily at any point for focusing.
The room was a garage with very low light levels.
Resting on the film holder, I used a piece of card with a rectangular aperture in the centre. This blocked stray light from around the film holder, as well as shading the lens from a direct view of the flash.

How well did it work?
In terms of getting even illumination for the images, it worked extremely well. Almost no variation across the frame on all formats (I tested carefully) up to 6x7cm. No reflections or stray light of any significance.
The continuous light setup worked 'well enough'. Moving it in and out of position was a minor inconvenience. It was 'bright enough', but more light would have been better.
In terms of colour accuracy of the flash light, the jury is out. I had some concerns that I was getting some colour distortions in the images. I think that these were more likely due to the camera profiles used in raw conversion, but I can't be sure.

Overall, my actual setup was far from perfect, but by far the biggest problems were with keeping the film in focus across the frame, because nothing was 'locked down' properly, plus the (fairly minor) colour issues I mentioned. Evenness of illumination was, as far as I was concerned, fully resolved.

Hope that is of some use to the OP. Happy to answer any questions about it.

Very interesting! Thanks for posting that! Similar to what I had in mind, but yours has some additional intriguing details. It never would have occurred to me to use both paper and clear glass for the reflector. Is there some rationale behind that? Did you test it, paper-only vs. glass only?

One question, in the Front View, what is that parallel-dog-leg-looking object that seems to be acting as stage for holding the film?

 

[jgboothe]

Very interesting! Thanks for posting that! Similar to what I had in mind, but yours has some additional intriguing details. It never would have occurred to me to use both paper and clear glass for the reflector. Is there some rationale behind that? Did you test it, paper-only vs. glass only?

One question, in the Front View, what is that parallel-dog-leg-looking object that seems to be acting as stage for holding the film?

The 45 degree glass and card combo - this was partly just what I had available, but it worked well. Using a specular-reflecting surface like glass or a mirror should mean that 1) there is no fall-off of light due to distance across the film frame area, 2) that light is transmitted more efficiently to the film compared to a diffusing surface (less light is lost).
In this case, it's a combination of specular and diffuse, because the light which passes through the glass reaches the card, at which point it is reflected in a diffuse manner. I thought that this would work well because most flashes don't have a completely even spread of light, and thought the diffusing portion would help to mitigate any variations. However, my choice was partly due to not having a mirror of suitable size! I suspect a mirror would have worked pretty well also.
I'm not 100% sure whether I tested it with card-only or glass-only, but I'm pretty sure the combination is better.

Sorry I should have labelled it! The dog-leg-looking object is an angle-poise desk lamp. It's just something I had available which allows the lamp to be moved in and out of position easily. It has a base which I had sitting on the front edge of the table to one side. The horizontal part is the head containing a daylight fluorescent tube, which when in position, points towards the 45 degree glass. To be honest, I could probably have positioned this slightly above or below the light path from the flash and just left it in place, but I was worried that it may cause some unevenness of illumination from the flash.

One alternative would be to replace the 45 degree card with a diffusing material and have the continuous light source behind that. That way it could be left in place without any chance of it interfering with the flash light path.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I'm still a scanning person, but I did buy a Nikon ES-2 for the D850 in case the 9000 ever dies. I do have a big strobe with a soft box, and it has a modelling light for focusing. but to be honest it's easier and simpler to use an Impact continuous CFT light with a diffuser sock over it. Nearly everything I digitize is B&W, so perhaps I don't have to worry as much about colour temperature (it claims to be 5500K and 4500 lumens). At a distance of 12-18" I can point, focus and shoot and it all seems to just work. I suppose multi-bulb CFTs are old tech now but as long as it works I shall keep it around!