Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Thanks!

That gave me enough clues to work out what was missing. I had none of the expected Topaz directories in either Library/Application support folder. So I reran the TDN installer script using terminal with admin rights and now everything has appeared and the filter is available in PS. No idea why that made a difference. I had no error messages previously except the Mac OS asked me if I was happy to run a program downloaded from the internet. Maybe it blocked some parts of the install even though I was logged in as Admin? Mmm... 

 

Martin Evening's PS book is in my shopping basket.

 

Thanks again,

 

Mark

 

 

Don't mention it. Glad it helped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MDM said:

(such as the Nikkor 55) with excellent edge to edge and corner to corner sharpness.

When I bought my copy of this lens new over thirty years ago it already had an excellent reputation. I've since sold most other manual focus gear, but kept this one. Due to your posts on copying slides it looked like this method had a chance. Although the technical aspects are mostly beyond me at the moment, it's easy to see that this set-up allows for quick copying of lots of slides with great results. Scanning is something I still do now and then, but won't miss it if I stop. Regarding OP, IMO this lens beats Canon 50mm f/2.5, but a cheap adapter allows for its' use by Canon owners. The quality is such that I haven't ordered stuff from China for other lenses. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KevinS said:

When I bought my copy of this lens new over thirty years ago it already had an excellent reputation. I've since sold most other manual focus gear, but kept this one. Due to your posts on copying slides it looked like this method had a chance. Although the technical aspects are mostly beyond me at the moment, it's easy to see that this set-up allows for quick copying of lots of slides with great results. Scanning is something I still do now and then, but won't miss it if I stop. Regarding OP, IMO this lens beats Canon 50mm f/2.5, but a cheap adapter allows for its' use by Canon owners. The quality is such that I haven't ordered stuff from China for other lenses. Thanks!

 

It's the Canon 100mm L lens with IS that I am considering. 

 

From my reading the Nikkor 55 is not going to be as good as the 100mm for other uses such as macro. 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

It's the Canon 100mm L lens with IS that I am considering. 

 

From my reading the Nikkor 55 is not going to be as good as the 100mm for other uses such as macro. 

Agreed. And the 100 looks to be such a good lens that it could out-perform the 55 for copying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, KevinS said:

IMO this lens beats Canon 50mm f/2.5, but a cheap adapter allows for its' use by Canon owners.

Thank you for confirming this, in particular for showing that the 55mm Micro-Nikkor f2.8/PK-13 extension tube combination can be used with the ES-1 on a Canon with the aid of a simple Nikon/EOS adapter. These are plentiful, I use Fotodiox Pro, though I've also got a Novoflex. K&F Concept may be the best balance of quality over cost now but anything would probably do as the tolerance required for perfect infinity focus is not a factor and any possible looseness could be taken up with a paper shim.

 

The same combination could also be used on Sony full-frame of course with the right adapter, and on Fuji APS-C but in this case I understand that the ES-1 needs to be mounted a further 21mm away from the lens with the aid of a 52mm diameter extension tube from Hong Kong or China.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

It's the Canon 100mm L lens with IS that I am considering. 

 

From my reading the Nikkor 55 is not going to be as good as the 100mm for other uses such as macro. 

 

Sixteen Pages and here we are. 😃

 

Pretty much where you started this. ES-1 and a macro lens, whether that means the Canon (which may be too much lens?) or a 55mm Nikon manual macro. I'm not getting the quality I want for stock from any of the multiple efforts. But I'd be happy to hear from you, when you get some finished images, copies of slides and have them uploaded and accepted here.

 

I hope that works out for you and everyone else in this brainstorming thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

From my reading the Nikkor 55 is not going to be as good as the 100mm for other uses such as macro. 

Quite so, but it's not clear whether the ES-1 will fit the 100mm, I think it may not but when MDM's extension tubes arrive we might have a better idea as I think he may try it on his 105mm which is similar in some ways. The Novoflex CASTEL-COP DIGI Slide Copier is designed to fit into their Castel-L focusing rack but it looks like the combination may be a good universal solution for all quality macro lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is intriguing and simple for copying negatives and maybe slides too.   He doesn't mention color temperature or if it is full spectrum light from the led panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Johnnie5 said:

This is intriguing and simple for copying negatives and maybe slides too.   He doesn't mention color temperature or if it is full spectrum light from the led panel.

 

AWB or set your own, I though people shot RAW for that kind of thing? 😉

 

23 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Quite so, but it's not clear whether the ES-1 will fit the 100mm, I think it may not but when MDM's extension tubes arrive we might have a better idea as I think he may try it on his 105mm which is similar in some ways. The Novoflex CASTEL-COP DIGI Slide Copier is designed to fit into their Castel-L focusing rack but it looks like the combination may be a good universal solution for all quality macro lenses.

 

100% + After trying different lenses and setups, full frame and crop, you guys will need to see in a real physical situation to make the final determination.

 

The discussion has been interesting. I just made a black foam mask for my light stand with the LED panel. Waiting for the bellows, I have two slide copier attachments, tubes and lenses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Johnnie5 said:

This is intriguing and simple for copying negatives and maybe slides too.   He doesn't mention color temperature or if it is full spectrum light from the led panel.

Interesting, he uses Negative Lab Pro as well, and a Panasonic G9 on its 90MB High Resolution sensor shift mode, seems very slick. That's a Kaiser LED panel and they do rate their colour quality "Color temperature approx. 5000 Kelvin and color rendering index CRI of 95 provides for precise color rendering for inspection and photographic reproduction of originals", so that's OK.

 

Much of the success of this process comes down to just basic stuff concerned with how to hold the camera securely and precisely align it with the slide, even more important with 35mm than the medium format that he shows here. That RRS extendable L-Grip is very nice but not everyone will have one of those. On other videos that I've seen most of the comments are of the 'where did you get that copy stand' variety. The ES-1 does solve all the alignment problems in one go for 35mm slides, though obviously not for medium format. He's got a more recent video where he talks about more Kaiser products specifically designed for DSLR scanning but he doesn't actually show them, maybe they are pre-production.

 

Those negative holders look very good, I think you can get them from Lomography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Klinger said:

AWB or set your own, I though people shot RAW for that kind of thing?

Actually that's not about white balance, it's about full spectrum colour quality rated as a CRI index, you can't fix that with RAW though the differences are likely to be subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Actually that's not about white balance, it's about full spectrum colour quality rated as a CRI index, you can't fix that with RAW though the differences are likely to be subtle.

 

I suppose then I should be using Sunlight? Or not technically good enough, unless that's at Noon in Rochester? 😃

 

I understand you care about precision and accuracy, but starting to worry about CRI for copying a 50 year old 35mm Ektachrome or Fujichrome slide, somehow seems a bit much. 2 1/4 slides from the 50s I could use a bare incandescent light bulb? A lower rated flat panel wouldn't hurt me, the old slides are so degraded by age. Unless I was really purple with green hair and spots, when I was 12?

 

Anyway, read this and see what you think? I've seen others, this was just the one I could find fast. Part of the premise is why CRI is flawed:  http://www.sdalighting.com/blog/cri_color/

 

I'd agree about consistency, quality and design, but check the part about color and the perfect 100 CRI incandescent that lacks blue.

 

 

Edited by Klinger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Klinger said:

I suppose then I should be using Sunlight?

Flash is good, but it's not expensive to get a light source with a good CRI index, or at least a known CRI index, but as I said the differences will be subtle and faded/degraded slides will not benefit but if one is going to the trouble and expense of creating a decent setup then one might as well put a bit of thought into the light source. Certainly it should be consistent and repeatable which rather rules out daylight. The earlier link from the Negative Lab Pro forum that Mark posted seems well thought out. 

 

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

 

The central aim of this thread is I think to get scans of sufficient quality to get through Alamy QC by the normal route so there isn't much to be gained by playing fast and loose with the light source. Which is not the same as saying that you couldn't do it by using daylight or some other light source that you have handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Klinger said:

That's interesting but I think it is about how we perceive colours with our eyes, and concerns the choice of lighting for interiors. He gives an example of looking at pairs of blue and black socks under a single incandescent bulb and being unable to tell them apart. That is not the same thing as photographing them and setting the white balance accordingly, tungsten light has long been a perfect light source for product photography and would be for slide copying if it didn't get so hot.

 

Our eyes are amazing at adapting to different coloured light, just walk into the warm glow of a shop from a dark street and see how quickly your eyes adapt, but by the same token they are fallible when judging colours.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That's interesting but I think it is about how we perceive colours with our eyes, and concerns the choice of lighting for interiors. He gives an example of looking at pairs of blue and black socks under a single incandescent bulb and being unable to tell them apart. That is not the same thing as photographing them and setting the white balance accordingly, tungsten light has long been a perfect light source for product photography and would be for slide copying if it didn't get so hot.

 

Our eyes are amazing at adapting to different coloured light, just walk into the warm glow of a shop from a dark street and see how quickly your eyes adapt, but by the same token they are fallible when judging colours.

 

The subject of WB and colour slides seems like a topic in it's own right. When I first started trying to copy slides I set a default (starting) WB off my LED light source and set the exposure to almost clip. But then I realised that the slide base material isn't clear. It reduces the light level a little and has a slight tint to it. So I took a totally overexposed slide and put that on my light source and set my default WB and exposure from that from that. I then tried copying a number of slides and found that although this technique gave a good WB for the highlights, the mid-tones (of course) vary according to the lighting when the shot was taken and the variation in film base and processing. So I went through a good number of shots taken in sunlight with wide tonal and colour range and used LR Auto WB on each and then wrote down the Temp and Tint it calculated for each. I then set my "daylight" default in my preset to the average of the values recorded. This seems to give a sensible starting point for shots I took in daylight (most were).

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

But then I realised that the slide base material isn't clear. It reduces the light level a little and has a slight tint to

Back in the day manufacturers sold colour calibration slides for their main film stocks, colour test targets shot on that particular film, I suppose that's one of the reason's why it had to be shot on the same film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

This seems to give a sensible starting point for shots I took in daylight (most were).

 

The undocumented advice with the Flextight software for colour negative is to shoot a Macbeth Color Checker target with the different types of colour negative film that you are scanning under different light sources, sunlight, shadow, overcast etc. and then use that to create a 'setup' within the software. That's not practical now as much of the film I used can't be obtained even if I wanted to do that. Fortunately Flextight comes with a large number of 'canned' setups produced in this way (often by the very same person giving that undocumented advice) and it's easy to adapt them. You don't use Lightroom I think but it's got a built-in function to make your own colour profile by photographing a Macbeth Color Checker or the more recent X-Rite Passports. That could be done also by lighting the target with your LED bulb but of course it wouldn't take into account the film base etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Back in the day manufacturers sold colour calibration slides for their main film stocks, colour test targets shot on that particular film, I suppose that's one of the reason's why it had to be shot on the same film.

 

I did try photographing my passport Colour Checker target in sunlight using Velvia film. I then had the slide developed and copied it on my LED lightbox. I then tried to use that file to generate a DNG profile. But ran into 2 problems.

1) The WB of the series of neutral grey squares in the target wasn't constant enough (film base colour doesn't match mid-tones and problem with the film) and the software (Adobe DNG Profile Editor) therefore refused to generate a profile.

2) The lab that processed the film made a hash of it and none of the slides looked neutral (strong magenta cast)

 

So although it seemed like a great way to produce a profile I could use for my Velvia slides, it was a waste of time. :(

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

So although it seemed like a great way to produce a profile I could use for my Velvia slides, it was a waste of time.

I probably won't go there then. I remember now that they were transmissive Kodak IT-8 targets, much more complex than a Passport or Color Checker.  This is a reflective version:

 

https://colorconfidence.com/collections/kodak/products/kodak-it8-7-1-target-5x7-reflective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That could be done also by lighting the target with your LED bulb but of course it wouldn't take into account the film base etc.

 

That's quite an interesting idea for profiling my light source and camera/lens. My LED lamp is so bright I could use it to illuminate my colour checker, even with an overexposed slide in place on the lightbox. But I think the variation in the slide pigments (or whatever they are) is the dominant factor once a basic WB has been set from the LED lightbox and blank slide.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now processed quite a few slides with Topaz Denoise to reduce the film grain, and I'm pretty happy with the results. One thing that does need watching though is that it introduces some "artefacts" (faint ripples in contrast?) around the very edge of the frame in skies that need to be checked for and "healed".

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I realised that the slide base material isn't clear. It reduces the light level a little and has a slight tint to it.

On the other hand, surely that is part and parcel of the slide itself - i.e. how it was designed to be either printed or viewed? It's interesting really because we are all trying to bring back our scans to some kind of neutral digitally acceptable default whereas back in the day the manufacturers of both colour transparency and colour negative were trying to convince us how pleasingly different they all were, so you had Fuji Velvia at one extreme and Kodak Extachrome at the other if you like, both Fuji and Kodak had 'vivid' versions of their colour negative film also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I remember now that they were transmissive Kodak IT-8 targets, much more complex than a Passport or Color Checker.

 

 

I have a transmissive 35mm Kodachrome IT-8 target that I used to calibrate my Coolscan 5000 with VueScan. It made a noticeable difference to the quality of the scans.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

I have a transmissive 35mm Kodachrome IT-8 target that I used to calibrate my Coolscan 5000 with VueScan. It made a noticeable difference to the quality of the scans.

Thanks, good to know, I had forgotten that you could do it with Vuescan, I knew that Silverfast had the capability and in fact I see that they still make and sell the targets, quite a lot of information here:

 

https://www.silverfast.com/show/it8-targets/en.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are links to the stuff he used in the video.

 

Using the Panasonic Lumix G9 and negative Lab pro software. #film #LumixG9 #negativelabpro Negative Lab Pro : https://www.negativelabpro.com Film Holders 120 : https://amzn.to/2IyZmag 35mm : https://shop.lomography.com/en/access... 3 way level : https://amzn.to/2IvPGNH Kaiser Lightbox : https://amzn.to/2Y8Sh5M How to Develop Black and White film in 3mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9maIw...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.