Jump to content

Canon slide copying set-up


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

But one link was from someone shooting at f4.5 (full-frame) who claims that it makes the dust/scratches very out of focus. I'm skeptical of this. But I'm going to try some test shots with a variety of apertures.

Well, if the scratches and dust are on the base, sure, focussing on the grain may help a bit.

Hang on, what if they're the other side? Doh.

If someone would care to test the DoF theory by scratching some film....... I use an antistatic brush, then a rocket blow, and sometimes a final blow when the frame is lined up. No shutter speed or ISO problems with flash.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 35mm slides, I've been wiping with a lens cloth, then with a lens brush, then a blower. Shooting with an APS-C Canon SL1, extension tube, 50mm macro, spacer ring, and ES-1, shooting into a florescent studio light.

 

For 120-size (6x6 cm) slides, I'm shooting with an APS-C Sony a3000 (great use for this odd model), extension tube, Sigma 60mm ART lens, and lightbox on a little copy stand. If the slide (all family shots from the 40's - 60's) is in a glass and metal mount, I remove it from the mount, wipe it with a PEC pad and 99% isopropyl, put it on the lightbox and cover (flatten) it with a piece of glass. Then I put it back in the mount. If it's in glass taped together with black tape, I don't disassemble that but wipe the glass and put it on the lightbox. 

 

Both setups allow me to do a zoom focus using the lcd.

 

I'll be doing test shots for both scenarios regarding apertures. The setup for the 120 slides assures flatness.

Edited by Bill Kuta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bill Kuta said:

But one link was from someone shooting at f4.5 (full-frame) who claims that it makes the dust/scratches very out of focus. I'm skeptical of this. But I'm going to try some test shots with a variety of apertures.

It maybe a light collimation effect, and not an out of focus effect. I recently copied the same slide (and dust) with the light source at increasing distances away (nothing else was moved or changed). The further away the light source, the more clearly defined dust and scratches became. See pictures below. Using a lens at wide aperture will allow a large cone angle of light to enter the lens, whereas a small aperture will restrict the angle of light that can enter, increasing the collimation and potentially emphasizing dust and scratches.

 

Directional light (more collimated)

Directional.jpg

Diffuse light, less collimated.

Diffuse.jpg

 

But... using a wide aperture may cause DOF problems with non-flat or imperfectly aligned slides or with lenses with curved fields. For my slide copying lens (Leica 45mm macro) I found f5.6 was the best for overall sharpness, providing I aligned the setup carefully (using a mirror). My diffuse light source is about 10mm from the slide.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a little experiment this evening and found that there is virtually no depth of field effect on dust and scratches with my ES-1 and Tamron 90 setup. In fact I found that using apertures smaller than f11 (f16-f32), thereby increasing depth of field, was more effective at reducing marks or dust on the film, as the sharpness of the lens decreased. Of course the image quality was also significantly degraded at these small apertures. One thing I did notice was that reversing the slide had an effect. In the case of the slide I photographed, scratches were a lot less obvious with the emulsion side facing the camera, presumably because the scratches were on the other side. 

 

Another thing I discovered yesterday when I finally got my ancient Nikon LS4000 film scanner back in working order after a service was that scratches are far more evident on basic scans with no or only light IR dust removal with Vuescan (digital ICE in Nikon parlance) than with the camera copying method. It must be something to do with the optics of the scanner versus the camera I guess. Using heavy IR in Vuescan was more effective but softened the image a bit. 

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nikonscan 4000 and 2000 do a second scan when IR is turned on. The first scan is for the transparency normally backlit. The second scan is angled light only glancing across the surface of the film that highlights any dirt or scratches sitting on the surface.

 

The scanner software takes this second scan and uses it to apply a clone effect to the first final scan, to areas of dust that were highlighted in the second scan. This cloning results in a softening of the overall first scan. If the film is particularly dirty there is lots of cloning and the softening is even greater.

 

Look at the surface of Kodachrome with a glancing light and you can see that the surface is actually three dimensional. It looks like lines on a relief map. The glancing light from the scanner sees that relief as dust and scratches and tries to clone it out. This is why IR does not work well on Kodachrome.

 

I had a 4000 scanner and never used IR because of this softening effect. I cleaned the transparency as much as possible with Pec 12 solution, and then I did my own better cloning in photoshop.

 

I used a Canon 5D with a Canon 100mm macro lens in a copy setup for 4X5 film and the results were very good, particularly in dynamic range. As an experiment I went back and did some 5D copies of 35mm film that had been scanned on the 4000. The 5D copies were sharper, had greater dynamic range, and the process was much faster.

  • Thanks 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

The Nikonscan 4000 and 2000 do a second scan when IR is turned on. The first scan is for the transparency normally backlit. The second scan is angled light only glancing across the surface of the film that highlights any dirt or scratches sitting on the surface.

 

The scanner software takes this second scan and uses it to apply a clone effect to the first final scan, to areas of dust that were highlighted in the second scan. This cloning results in a softening of the overall first scan. If the film is particularly dirty there is lots of cloning and the softening is even greater.

 

Look at the surface of Kodachrome with a glancing light and you can see that the surface is actually three dimensional. It looks like lines on a relief map. The glancing light from the scanner sees that relief as dust and scratches and tries to clone it out. This is why IR does not work well on Kodachrome.

 

I had a 4000 scanner and never used IR because of this softening effect. I cleaned the transparency as much as possible with Pec 12 solution, and then I did my own better cloning in photoshop.

 

I used a Canon 5D with a Canon 100mm macro lens in a copy setup for 4X5 film and the results were very good, particularly in dynamic range. As an experiment I went back and did some 5D copies of 35mm film that had been scanned on the 4000. The 5D copies were sharper, had greater dynamic range, and the process was much faster.

 

I agree about the camera copying being a lot better than the LS4000. I just got the scanner fixed (it was not expensive) to see how it would compare and it is not really in the same league as my copying setup (D810, Tamron 90 and ES-1 adapter with extension tube between lens and ES-1). Dynamic range is really important with slide copying and the camera is far better at holding detail in the highlights and shadows, moreover because I can shoot raw which also gives much better white balance. It is also much faster as you say. I will use scanner for a while for testing but might eventually sell it. It was great technology in its day but not now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I've seen some videos of labs using a Canon EF 100mm L macro (i have this lens) attached with whatever adapters for your digital camera, and a flat 35mm lens holder, 

 

like this video

 

http://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR9fMghm  I don't know what film holder they are using, but there's a kinetronics anti static brush attached on it.

 

also  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Ex83cYAes which features a lot of 35mm digital camera scanning setup and scanning tips

 

 

this person in the UK sells a plastic version of of a 35mm film holder, and list other suppliers/competitors of more expensive options 

 

https://clifforth.co.uk/EXA/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sooth said:

I don't know what film holder they are using

She links to Negative Supply from her website

 

The essential film holder gets a lot of positive responses on the Negative Lab Pro forum, in particular because it is designed for sliding through uncut film, and holds the film flat. I think it was a lockdown project and he's sold over 20,000.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Honeywell Repronar

Essentially a chunky version of the Illumitran some of us use.

The thread is perennial, what with fresh caches of originals being found, and new bits of kit being made to copy them.

The Essential chap talks disparagingly about making your own film carrier out of cardboard. As I did, but about 30 years ago, for my enlarger. A little trim with the Stanley knife and a strip of double-glazing lead to flatten the film, and it's in the scanner......and licensing pix monthly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

The Essential chap talks disparagingly about making your own film carrier out of cardboard

If it meant I was going to sell 20,000 of my own design I think I would as well! I made my custom oversize 35mm neg holder for the Illumitran out of 3mm MDF, works a treat. I haven't got one but for anyone considering the EFH it does seem to be a very good design, and certainly is very good value in comparison to other offerings as he shows. It is a bit finicky for getting the negative loaded though as unless the strip is perfectly flat to begin with it can catch on the far side of the aperture, still he's quite clear about that and recommends cutting the film off at an angle, something you can't do once you've cut the film into strips though. No such problems with the 35mm slide adapter though probably not the best if you are in the habit of taking the frame out of the mount and photographing it because I don't know how you could get it in to the holder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 06/02/2020 at 18:31, Klinger said:

I have made a copy of one of my slides, cleaned off all the little hairs and dust (maybe) manually. Adjusted the color, shadows, highlights, and lets say, it's done for now. 8MP final image. How would I best upload to Alamy? If I remember the Archival route is only if they allow that. So do I apply and say, I'm processing my old slides, or upload the standard submission making it clear that the source is slide film? Or??? Travel images, not press, news or important.

 

    What do we mean by reportage images?
    Photojournalistic images illustrating a story but captured under difficult circumstances and might not pass our standard QC checks. Examples include photo essays or features.
    What do we mean by archival images?
    Images that are historically or culturally significant, examples include film stills, press archives and specialist collections.

    You can apply for Reportage/Archival image upload through your contributor dashboard, or by completing this application form.

 

That's either or, so which is best?

I actually made copies of many slides, I just did one for the application and experience to see if it's suitable. I won't be editing the rest until I have more understanding.

 

 

 

The parts and pieces you need at on eBay, they will come from China in weeks or a month, maybe by surprise faster? 😉

 

Order a bag of step up rings and a bag of step down rings. They are cheap, oops, inexpensive and that will allow you any combination you might need in the future. Also order a set of the inexpensive manual extension tubes. You have all you need for your kit. Oh except the ES-1 or ES-2?

 

I now have a Prinz T-mount slide duplicator (they are called that but I think in our case they are copiers?) It has a holder, a tube with a lens in it, and is designed for film cameras of old. With that, I put it on a 40-D with assorted adapters, like T mount to EF, and it produced a cropped image. So I put it on the 1Ds and it's full frame. No lens involved. LED flat panel for lighting.

 

I have the Canon slide copier, which has many different names and numbers, they all seem to be the same. With the step down rings, mine came with a 48mm adapter, I had it on a EF-S and later on the 100mm older Macro lens. The bellows sags, as it was meant to be connected on a rail? I also mounted it on a 70-200 L and used the variable zoom to frame the images. You can start there, as I assume you have a zoom lens or two? Just like the Nikon it was designed for the 55mm lens on a full frame camera.

 

The final and I think best results so far have been a camera mounted on a stand, extension tubes (or macro lens would be the same) flat panel LED unit that's supposed to be a ceiling light. Everything square, and click, I have a copy. This may be the easiest way to make slide or film conversions, including from larger formats. I have some 2 1/4 square slides for example. Almost every old enlarger I had, also came with tripod 1/4x20 stud, for making the enlarger into a copy stand.

 

If anyone looks, you'll see the lab scissors stand which I use for all kinds of other things, like a macro rail? But I don't want to leave out that you'll need to get the light and slide, at the right distance for the macro lens or lens with extension tubes, to be able to focus. And what's that piece of translucent Plexiglas. One of the slides was over exposed, I had to reduce the back lighting. The LED panel I bought was cheap and non-dimmable. The new ones are able to be connected to a dimmer.

 

slide-copying.jpg

 

slide-copy-example-web.jpg

 

downsized for the forum, this is not the one I edited and not the one I want to upload to Alamy. Just an example.

 

 

 

I would be interested to know what the colour temperature and CRI of that LED unit is, particularly as you used the word cheap to describe it.

 

I am looking into putting together a basic rig like this for scanning negs, but there is no point doing it (IMO) if the colour temp is significantly out or the CRI is low, you really want something with at least 90 CRI or higher so all colours are represented reliably.

 

Daylight balanced film is in the region of 5500K I believe, so a light around that CCT with very high CRI (an example would be a 950 fluorescent lamp) would be ideal.

 

I know this is a reply to an old post but if anyone else can answer with the specs of their softbox (light colour temperature, CRI if you know it) I'd be interested.

 

I'd also be interested to know how to go about reliably making sure that any grain or pattern from whatever diffuses the light is not transferred to the scan, given it will be sitting directly below the film. I thought of simply using a piece of A4 paper on an upturned plastic storage tub with the light underneath it as a sort of uber cheap start out method just to practice on, but even then I imagine the grain in the paper would be intrusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get an LED video light with variable colour temp. These are really common now and pretty cheap.  Check out the vast selection on WEX. But the light is only a very small part of the process. I still advocate the ES1 or ES2 Nikon slide copiers for 35mm slides/ negs for ease of use and precision as I did back on Page 1. But how much extra you need to spend to get this working depends on what you already own in the way of cameras and lenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cal said:

I know this is a reply to an old post but if anyone else can answer with the specs of their softbox (light colour temperature, CRI if you know it) I'd be interested.

I've recently started to use the Cinestill CS-Lite which I purchased from Speed Graphic but unfortunately they don't list it currently, it might be worth asking them if they plan to get some more in, I think it has proved to be very popular so perhaps it is hard to get hold of. It has 3 colour temperatures though for slides I would use the 5500º K option and although I wouldn't put the slide directly on the panel I couldn't actually detect any LED cells showing through, I use it about 40mm below my slide holder. It is USB powered, ideally from a 2A phone plug (Ipad say) and the simple controller is on the cable rather than on the back, it is also very bright allowing a shutter speed of around 1/160 sec at f5.6/8 which is the aperture at which my lens is at its best. There is a 1/4" tripod socket which makes it easy to use with the Nikon ES-1/2 adapters if you put it on a little table tripod. It's supposed to be >95CRI and has been well received on the various slide copying forums.

 

Speaking of which I would recommend the one for Negative Lab Pro

 

This thread shows the almost bewildering array of different setups that people have come up with:

 

https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/lets-see-your-dslr-film-scanning-setup/27

 

and this one goes into light sources:

 

https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/suggested-backlight-sources-for-scanning-film-with-dslr/130

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison
  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I've recently started to use the Cinestill CS-Lite which I purchased from Speed Graphic but unfortunately they don't list it currently, it might be worth asking them if they plan to get some more in, I think it has proved to be very popular so perhaps it is hard to get hold of. It has 3 colour temperatures though for slides I would use the 5500º K option and although I wouldn't put the slide directly on the panel I couldn't actually detect any LED cells showing through, I use it about 40mm below my slide holder. It is USB powered, ideally from a 2A phone plug (Ipad say) and the simple controller is on the cable rather than on the back, it is also very bright allowing a shutter speed of around 1/160 sec at f5.6/8 which is the aperture at which my lens is at its best. There is a 1/4" tripod socket which makes it easy to use with the Nikon ES-1/2 adapters if you put it on a little table tripod. It's supposed to be >95CRI and has been well received on the various slide copying forums.

 

Speaking of which I would recommend the one for Negative Lab Pro

 

This thread shows the almost bewildering array of different setups that people have come up with:

 

https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/lets-see-your-dslr-film-scanning-setup/27

 

and this one goes into light sources:

 

https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/suggested-backlight-sources-for-scanning-film-with-dslr/130

 

 

 

very useful, thanks. 5500K and >95 CRI is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cal said:

 

very useful, thanks. 5500K and >95 CRI is perfect.

Actually it looks like it is out of stock in the US as well, I think it's been very popular because it is the first to be designed specifically for camera scanning at an affordable price (i.e. not Negative Supply), and it is extremely competitively priced, particularly in the US. That light source thread suggests others that are commonly used but are generally designed as light sources or video lights so the controls are often on the back and they are not necessarily designed to lie flat. Others like the popular Kaiser Slimlite are more for viewing and are much less bright so need quite slow shutter speeds, much like the also very good recent Ipads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't laid out money on a particular setup yet, and you're not in a hurry, I could still recommend waiting for a used Illumitran, which uses flash, to pop up on eBay. One has recently sold for £35 which is about what I paid for mine. The one listed at the moment are for silly money- somebody wants £300 which is having a larf. Perhaps word has got round how useful they are for scanning. A bit of DIY may be needed to get the stand-offs right,, but it's doable with a saw and power drill and an offcut of thin wooden batten.

If you already have a macro lens I would no longer recommend an enlarging lens with the bellows, which is what I did. Before getting a Tamron 90 for my birthday.

It won't work with a DSLR with a deep base though- I have Sonys- unless you just use the 'Tran as a stage and light source and stand the camera over it on a short tripod.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valoi is a well regarded company and they have been recommending the Raleno PLV-104S and sell a holder for it to use with their system so I guess it must be good also. In fact Raleno make a range of different sized panels named according to the number of LEDs and reflecting their size. Recently they seem to have switched their allegiance to the Cinestill CS-Lite and now make a frame for that.

 

https://kamerastore.com/collections/valoi-360

 

This video of theirs shows how to make use of the 104 even if you don't have their holder.

 

https://www.valoi.co/gearguide-adaptingraleno

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spacecadet and I are both fans of the Illumitran but it does need to be pointed out that even the lowest flash power is way too high for digital so you need to use a 1.2ND gel in the filter tray (theatrical gel is fine) to bring it down to a respectable level. This makes focusing difficult with a conventional DSLR as it reduces the focusing light as well though a mirrorless will compensate. 

 

Also you need to make sure that you have the right BPM adapters for the lens and the camera body, they were usually sold with a 39mm lens mount for enlarger lenses and something like a Rodagon or Componon-S 80mm will get excellent results. You also need the adapter to hold the slide and some of the recent high prices on ebay have been (I think) because of all the different format mounts that were included.

 

They are mostly sold with the so-called Contrast Control Unit rather than a simple column but they neglect to say that this needs a very special (and very rare) thin optical glass which is held at 45º below the lens. Actually with digital it is not really required which is a shame as I've got a few of them.

 

Accepting all that it can make a very compact unit for getting through a lot of 35mm slides fast. Medium format needs the camera to be on a copying stand.

 

It could be adapted to take a CS-Lite and I may do that but it is pretty major surgery and that giant capacitor inside is pretty scary.

 

P.S. Just in case there is an electronics expert reading this, it would be great if they could be modified inside to simply produce 1/16th of their rated power. A much smaller capacitor would be a start but I bet it's not as simple as that.

 

Edit: Also note that most large modern conventional DSLRs won't fit on the focusing rail, the distance from the base to the centre of the lens axis is too great though there are workarounds. The Nikon D600/610 does just fit I think, most mirrorless will be OK.

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

enlarger lenses

This is how I started as I have them but as I said I wouldn't recommend them against a macro. The way of the 'Tran does require a fair bit of tinkerage so maybe it's for those with more time than money (you're looking at one).

Presumably slide copying would be done on a slow stock such as K25 (at the MoD we made positives from colour neg and the stock was even slower) and you were supposed to be able to crop as well, putting up the reproduction ratio, so the flash output is, er, generous. I have a fixed pack of ND and drafting film under the film stage which doubles up as the diffuser.

The drawback with enlarging lenses is focus shift, so you usually have to focus stopped down, which as Harry says is a drag. This is the one thing that makes using a macro lens a breeze. With a good setup you only need to check focus once a sheet or so. For 6x6 I even use the kit zoom and a custom vignette in LR.

Before I had the Tamron I even used the bellows/enlarging lens setup in the garden for macro work. That was challenging.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

but as I said I wouldn't recommend them against a macro

Those 6-element ones that I mentioned are every bit as good as they are designed to have a flat field, and are lighter also so well suited to the Illumitran, the Apo-Rodagon 75mm 2x is apparently just about as good as anything barring line scanner lenses. Even expensive macro lenses won't necessarily be designed to have a flat field at 1:1 but I do know that the Tamron is good in this respect. The ubiquitous Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 is outstanding and cheap and will fit nicely on the Illumitran. For AF if your camera takes them the Sigma ART 70mm & 105MM are also outstanding at 1:1 but they are physically very large.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

a flat field at 1:1 but I do know that the Tamron is good in this respect.

Is it ever. Mine is film-era (1999 AFAICS), even so, sharp to the edges wide open and doesn't really improve until diffraction cuts in at 16, and you can fix that with LR tools. I've never had glass that good. It's dead-fly-compound-eye-receptor sharp. And made of METAL.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Is it ever. Mine is film-era (1999 AFAICS), even so, sharp to the edges wide open and doesn't really improve until diffraction cuts in at 16, and you can fix that with LR tools. I've never had glass that good. It's dead-fly-compound-eye-receptor sharp. And made of METAL.

Yes, I should have said 'Very good' because I've seen that it is, they continued to make it in various versions until now I think, with AF versions as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2023 at 16:04, Cal said:

I'd also be interested to know how to go about reliably making sure that any grain or pattern from whatever diffuses the light is not transferred to the scan

Use some opal (translucent white) perspex.

e.g. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/113822488792

 

A retina iPad or iPhone (if you already have one) displaying a white image with a sheet of perspex (to diffuse the pixels) on top works quite well. CRI  is OK (in fact it can be argued that a tri-colour light source is better than high CRI for slide copying if the spectral peaks align with the film dyes). Main problem with iPhone or iPad is they aren't that bright, so it's important the rig/setup is free from vibration.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.