DDoug

I have a cheap, generic Nikon AI TO Fuji FX adapter that's on the short side, so it focuses beyond infinity (a term that makes sense only to photographers and Buzz Lightyear). To that I added the shortest of my several Nikon extension tubes. Shown side-by-side with the Kipon NIK-FX M at its maximum extension, it looks like it's about 5mm taller and thus focuses closer than the Kipon. There is probably something equally inexpensive that would work better than what I have. But basically, I'm sure you're right. If the purpose is only slide duplication, something a lot less expensive than the Kipo

There's definitely more than one way to accomplish the task. I used to have an old, bordering on ancient, Novoflex bellows with a Fuji X mount adapter, slide copy attachment and an APO-Rodagon lens. It did a good job of copying slides. I would still have it, except that I also wanted a macro lens for general close-up photography and got the Micro-Nikkor. Then I figured, “Why have both?” The current kit does double duty. I tried a combination of extensions, but, unlike you, I couldn't get it right so I got the Kipon. If I were starting from scratch today and didn't have the Micro-Nikkor, I

After some trial and error, I settled on this set to get the full 35mm frame focused on the Fuji APS-C chip:

Today I received a Nikon ES-2 film digitizing adapter, purchased because the ES-1 with FH-2 film holder was too much bother. A less ham-fisted and more patient person might find it not so difficult to work with. By contrast, the plastic holder for film strips that comes with the ES-2 is easy to use. The ES-2 holder for mounted slides doesn't accommodate thick mounts, but the ES-1 doesn't have a problem with them. Thin mounts work well in either. I was reluctant to spend more money on the project, but the obvious answer was to have both the ES-1 and ES-2. My Fuji kit wit

There's another approach I've tried for MF film, but it's a work in progress and I'm not sure it will be successful. I built a simple box to go over the Viltrox LED light with a matte board on top with cut-outs for various film sizes. Unlike a scanner, the camera can be set for f/11 or so if there is a problem with film flatness. In doing that, I found that I could see the individual LEDs in the grid that makes up the light, so I covered it with a 13x18cm acetate film sleeve that is frosted on one side. My last efforts with this were when I was still trying to make it work with my X-T2. I

Thanks back. So far, I've been cautious and have only uploaded scanned 35mm as archival, and only if they had some historical value. The medium format scans have cleared QC.

I think the ES-1 is better for that. I find the FH-2 strip film holder a little fussy to work with, but have no problem with thick mounts. Although the ES-2 is pricey, I think that for strip film it might be better than bothering with the FH-2 as I have been doing. If trying to digitize film at either end of the strip, the imbalance causes it to tip to the side and that's after getting it correctly inserted in the first place.

I do like the idea of reducing the number of steps and keeping everything from raw processing through keywording in Photoshop would no doubt work best for me. I'll work more with noise and sharpening in ACR. Thanks for the help.

Thanks for your suggestions. I started with the original TIF which was processed from RAW using Photoshop with only minimal image modifications and without the up- and downsizing. I downloaded the free trial of Topaz Denoise AI The slider was set at 34. I then did the same with Neat Image, letting the software sample and set the amount of denoise to apply. Lastly, I went back to the RAW file and applied noise reduction in ACR, slider set at 17. Most of what I have in my backlog of film images is on transparency film, but at the meantime I'm working on some black and whites. Re

I have a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 shift lens which, combined with the Kipon tilt adapter, gives a pretty good range of view-camera movements. The pair of them cost around 600 EUR. I prefer it to Kipon's tilt-shift adapter because tilt and shift rotate 360 degrees independently.

I lived for some years in a coastal village in northern California, across the street from an octogenarian Swiss gentleman, erudite, multilingual, a great conversationalist. Once he read my palm and said, “You lack meticulosity.” Right. I could be more disciplined about testing alternative software and such, but I tend stick with whatever works. Years ago Michael Reichmann wrote that Neat Image was the best noise reduction software, that it caused the least degradation. Perhaps it was true at the time and not now, but, whether or not, I keep on using it because I lack the “meticulosity” to try

Along the way I went through a phase with a Novoflex bellows and APO Rodagon. It was good, but I also wanted something to go out in the garden and shoot bugs and flowers. For that, i prefer the set-up I use now (although I'put the lens back on the X-T2.) I also would use a Kipon tilt adapter, which allows for interesting effects. My opinion of the Rodagon was that it was apochromatic with respect to lateral CA, but not longitudinal. That wasn't their interest, only flat-field stuff. After a lot of trial and error, I've got a kit which suits me now and the time is right since i can't go anywhe

No doubt you could, with the right one. I tried it with a Nikon extension tube, from a set of them, but the smallest one I had gave me too much extension and cropped in too tightly. I also tried it with a Heliopan +1 diopter close-up filter. That was good, but I didn't want an extra piece of glass. The Fuji versions are too expensive. I settled on the Kipon adapter because it is continuously adjustable from infinity, so I could dial in just the right amount to get the whole slide

Very similar. That one is designed to be able to adjust apertures on Nikon G lenses. Mine works only with manual focus lenses. They're about the same price, so the one you referenced would be better if you want to use it with G glass at some point.

Yes, equal, and the phase detection wouldn't matter unless you also want to take it out to shoot general subjects.

Following a suggestion by MDM, I'm moving comments from a thread where they didn't actually belong to this one. I constructed a light baffle based on scraps available in my wood bin, leftovers from various woodworking hobby projects. The idea, of course, is not to look directly into the LED light source for any length of time. The light is a Viltrox L116T, for which is claimed a CRI of 95. The camera is a Fuji X-A5. It's attached to a Kipon NIK-FX M helical macro adapter, which is attached to a Micro-Nikkor AIS 55mm lens. To that are two 52mm extension tubes

Mostly I use ACR in Photoshop, occasionally in Lightroom. For the X-T1 files I first run through Iridient X-Transformer; haven't found it necessary with X-T2. I tried Capture One, couldn't quite get used to it. I'm happy with the X-Trans sensor output, with the exception of combination with pronounced film grain.

Right. I think a good used one in the UK is around 150 pounds. Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread, Kitty. Here is a comparison, both shot with the same kit (Micro-Nikkor 55mm with Kipon helical macro adapter, Nikon slide copy attachment). Top is unaltered shot, below is denoised as described above:

The X-A5 is a recent purchase and the difference between its files and those of the X-T2 with respect to slide and negative copying is more subtle than I expected, frankly. However, the rest of my workflow with these images involves enlarging in PhotoZoom, denoising in Neat Image, then reducing again in PhotoZoom. (Neat Image needs a patch of even tone to work with, hence blowing the image up.) With the Bayer sensor I get an end result that looks like natural film grain and with the X-Trans, something not actually usable. If I were just to leave it alone at the original “scan” size, there woul

Not really. One reason might be that I'm a back-button focuser. I don't know if focusing with the shutter button would make a difference in responsiveness, just guessing. I have velcro on the various relevant buttons — AEL, Focus Assist, front FN, etc. — and the use of the camera is comfortable to me. With two bodies and 14 + 18-55 lenses, I never change lenses in the field. I mostly use the X-T2 for video, tabletop and macro. For video it's definitely a better camera. I use the X-A5 only for slide digitizing because I find the Bayer sensor to be better than the X-Trans for that work, especial

A couple of very low $$ P.U. sales of archival images from China, 1990.

I'm another Fuji X user, but Olympus 4/3 should be fine. One thing to note is that camera brands vary in their ability to produce JPEG files on the fly. An in-law sent me some JPEG files from his new Olympus camera a while back, a high-end model, and I noticed a fair amount of so-called JPEG artifacts. I don't know if this is typical of Olympus or an anomaly. Pentax also are not renowned for their in-camera JPEGs, but are fine if you shoot RAW and process in the computer. Fuji does a great job with JPEGs (depending on specific model), but I prefer to shoot RAW. Anyway, if you

Five for $181 gross, direct, exclusive (to Alamy, not the customer). It puts me slightly ahead of the skimpy income I had last year.

Yes, it was quite a privilege.

Thanks, Sally He really is a brilliant musician and it was an honor to meet him. Ravi Shankar had a house in L.A. and this was shot when the Festival from India performers were relaxing in his back yard.