Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Is there an equivalent of ES-1 or ES-2 for medium format 6x6

Not that I'm aware of but a mounted 6x6 slide shouldn't be too difficult to support above a lightbox for copying. Contriving to shoot from directly above (i.e. checking with a mirror or I suppose a level) is going to be easier than shooting at an angle I would have thought. I imagine most people are happy with a decent flatbed scanner for medium format, they certainly handle it better than 35mm. Obviously you're going to lose resolution in the crop to square unless you arrive at a method of shooting it in sections and photomerging. Cropped is probably enough resolution for you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution that Phil Crean suggested on page 1 (Novoflex copier) is what I would go for if I had lots of medium format film to digitise in addition to 35mm.  Life is potentially too short to waste time and energy using equipment that is not going to do the job perfectly. My philosophy is to do the job to the best of my ability and that includes the equipment used. For the manually skilled, then home made methods can be made to work no doubt but for the rest of us you can’t beat ready made precision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not that I'm aware of but a mounted 6x6 slide shouldn't be too difficult to support above a lightbox for copying. Contriving to shoot from directly above (i.e. checking with a mirror or I suppose a level) is going to be easier than shooting at an angle I would have thought. I imagine most people are happy with a decent flatbed scanner for medium format, they certainly handle it better than 35mm. Obviously you're going to lose resolution in the crop to square unless you arrive at a method of shooting it in sections and photomerging. Cropped is probably enough resolution for you anyway.

 

Yes shooting from overhead does make most sense. The resultant resolution is fine for my needs. Using Live View makes it fairly straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Yes shooting from overhead does make most sense.

As you probably know, Speed Graphic stock Novoflex should you choose to go down that route, I think it's about £300 for the Castel-L (or Q) rack and the slide copying stage. I see that they also do a reasonably priced copying stand plus LED light sources for flat copying. Combined with a suitable lightbox or light panel this could form the basis of a good slide copying setup and also deal with your prints.

 

https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs720_large_copy_stand_with_led_light_panels/25948_p.html

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2020 at 12:37, Harry Harrison said:

As you probably know, Speed Graphic stock Novoflex should you choose to go down that route, I think it's about £300 for the Castel-L (or Q) rack and the slide copying stage. I see that they also do a reasonably priced copying stand plus LED light sources for flat copying. Combined with a suitable lightbox or light panel this could form the basis of a good slide copying setup and also deal with your prints.

 

https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/copy_stands/cs720_large_copy_stand_with_led_light_panels/25948_p.html

 

 

Thanks Harry. I still need to do those old black and white prints. This looks the right gear for that too. 

Share this post


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

Thanks Harry. I still need to do those old black and white prints. This looks the right gear for that too. 

One thing, it might not be (probably won't be) tall enough to use with your 100mm for anything other than small prints, easy to check for yourself first though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

One thing, it might not be (probably won't be) tall enough to use with your 100mm for anything other than small prints, easy to check for yourself first though.

 

Thanks again Harry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

http://dondouglas.com/_XTC4461a.jpg

 

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, and finally a Nikon Slide Copying Adapter ES-1. The reason for choosing the Fuji X-A5 is because of its Bayer sensor. Although I very much like the X-Trans sensor for photography in general, copying film, especially old grainy black and white, presents some unique problems, but I've also seen it in Kodachromes, etc.

 

My usual workflow is to load the film in the kit and make the capture in RAW. Then it's processed in ACR. From there I enlarge it in PhotoZoom and denoise it in Neat Image. The enlargement is done because 1) Neat Image needs a patch of even tone to work, and 2) my uneducated opinion is that denoising the image at the larger size causes less destruction to the image resolution. (I'm open to correction on this by someone who knows more about it.) After the denoise process, I go back to PhotoZoom to reduce the image to its original size or often smaller, say 4K pixels on the long side.

 

Below are small patches from a candid outdoor portrait on 35mm Tri-X with the individual's hair as a sharpness reference. I copied it twice, once with a Fuji X-T2 and again with the X-A5. At the base exposure with no denoise applied, both of the 24 megapixel images look fairly similar (with a slight edge to the X-A5). Both were focused at f/2.8 and shot at f/8. After the enlargement-denoise-reduction process, they're quite different.

http://dondouglas.com/A5-T2_comparison2.jpg

 

Edited by DDoug
wrong photo
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, DDoug said:

Following a suggestion by MDM, I'm moving comments from a thread where they didn't actually belong to this one.

Excellent, I wondered if the X-A3 would be just as suitable, it seems to have essentially the same 24MP sensor but without phase detection for AF. However it seems scarcer and around the same price second-hand anyway. As I said in the other place, quite a lot of these cameras are sold secondhand as having been converted to full spectrum infra-red, at least on ebay.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


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

Excellent, I wondered if the X-A3 would be just as suitable, it seems to have essentially the same 24MP sensor but without phase detection for AF. However it seems scarcer and around the same price second-hand anyway. As I said in the other place, quite a lot of these cameras are sold secondhand as having been converted to full spectrum infra-red, at least on ebay.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you used this Kipon Nikon G to FX adapter with helicoid tube. Presumably one could get by with appropriate extension tubes once the required extension was known?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Harrison said:

I'm guessing you used this Kipon Nikon G to FX adapter with helicoid tube. Presumably one could get by with appropriate extension tubes once the required extension was known?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DDoug said:

Mine works only with manual focus lenses

Right, didn't know they did an F version, but could you use an extension tube instead, the Micro-Nikkor has a long focusing throw itself. I'm guessing not, otherwise you would but I'm just missing the point a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Right, didn't know they did an F version, but could you use an extension tube instead, the Micro-Nikkor has a long focusing throw itself. I'm guessing not, otherwise you would but I'm just missing the point a little.

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

Edited by DDoug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DDoug said:

but the smallest one I had gave me too much extension and cropped in too tightly.

Right, I see. I happen to have a straight manual Kipon Nikon to FX adapter myself, obviously designed for any Nikon lens to focus on infinity on the Fuji. Kipon are a very good make, well made. I've also got the Micro-Nikkor 55mm so I can play around with it on the Illumitran. I've tried it for slide copying in fact, on Canon full-frame, and it is as good as the enlarger lenses that I use (Rodagon) but not better, mind you it doesn't need to be better if it's sharp to the corners which it is at the right aperture. Enlarger lenses are better on the Illumitran because the camera is pointing down and there's no risk of moving the focus accidentally once the bellows stages are locked. However Illumitrans are thin on the ground, especially complete with carriers, and very old/obsolete, your method with the X-A5 and the ES-1 looks like a very good slide copying setup.

Share this post


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

Right, I see. I happen to have a straight manual Kipon Nikon to FX adapter myself, obviously designed for any Nikon lens to focus on infinity on the Fuji. Kipon are a very good make, well made. I've also got the Micro-Nikkor 55mm so I can play around with it on the Illumitran. I've tried it for slide copying in fact, on Canon full-frame, and it is as good as the enlarger lenses that I use (Rodagon) but not better, mind you it doesn't need to be better if it's sharp to the corners which it is at the right aperture. Enlarger lenses are better on the Illumitran because the camera is pointing down and there's no risk of moving the focus accidentally once the bellows stages are locked. However Illumitrans are thin on the ground, especially complete with carriers, and very old/obsolete, your method with the X-A5 and the ES-1 looks like a very good slide copying setup.

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 anywhere thanks to Covid-19 and have a bunch of old film. Since six of my last seven sales were for archival images, I'm hoping the process will be worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DDoug said:

I also would use a Kipon tilt adapter

I really like the combination of the EVF, focus peaking and the Micro-Nikkor on the Fuji,  but the tilt would be handy, I have it for the Canon in the 90mm TS-E tilt-shift and a Fuji equivalent would be nice. The 90mm Canon is a great lens even though its design dates from the film era, focuses pretty close with a lovely manual focusing action, and sharp of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see this thread revitalised and some great info DDoug. It is fascinating to see all the different approaches. 
 

The 55 Micro-Nikkor is an amazing lens as it is pin sharp corner to corner which is the most important thing in a lens for this kind of work. The only lens I have used that is even better is the Tamron 90 and the only reason for that is that the autofocus works even at very close distances which makes the job easier. 
 

I have to ask why you don’t use noise reduction in ACR and downsize rather than the unusual workflow you describe. Upsizing is going to lose some detail and likely add artefacts I guess. My most recent workflow which developed from this thread is to process the raw image twice (in Lightroom but that is the same as ACR), one with strong noise reduction with bland areas such as skies in mind and another with healthy sharpening for the detail areas. I open as layers in Photoshop and use layer masks to blend the images. After spotting I downsize which produces in a sharp image, low in noise (grain?) and no fear of Alamy QC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I took delivery of a pixl-latr scanning aid that was mentioned in this thread some time back. Currently too busy to try it out until next weekend. Will report on it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sb photos said:

Yesterday I took delivery of a pixl-latr scanning aid that was mentioned in this thread some time back

I have a feeling that I might be responsible for that. I've been following @HamishGill on Twitter and he seems to be getting positive responses so far, sometimes he posts some explanatory stuff as well. It was a long time coming after the initial Kickstarter money was raised which caused some bad feeling but he's explained in detail how that came about, the product is better because of it I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDM said:

Great to see this thread revitalised and some great info DDoug. It is fascinating to see all the different approaches. 
 

The 55 Micro-Nikkor is an amazing lens as it is pin sharp corner to corner which is the most important thing in a lens for this kind of work. The only lens I have used that is even better is the Tamron 90 and the only reason for that is that the autofocus works even at very close distances which makes the job easier. 
 

I have to ask why you don’t use noise reduction in ACR and downsize rather than the unusual workflow you describe. Upsizing is going to lose some detail and likely add artefacts I guess. My most recent workflow which developed from this thread is to process the raw image twice (in Lightroom but that is the same as ACR), one with strong noise reduction with bland areas such as skies in mind and another with healthy sharpening for the detail areas. I open as layers in Photoshop and use layer masks to blend the images. After spotting I downsize which produces in a sharp image, low in noise (grain?) and no fear of Alamy QC. 

 

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 others and scrutinize the results.

 

I do also treat images in different ways, put them in layers and erase through, however. So I'll apply Polaroid dust and scratch removal to sky and other non-detailed areas, or develop an image as both Velvia and Astia in Silkypix and end up with Astia faces in a Velvia environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I really like the combination of the EVF, focus peaking and the Micro-Nikkor on the Fuji,  but the tilt would be handy, I have it for the Canon in the 90mm TS-E tilt-shift and a Fuji equivalent would be nice. The 90mm Canon is a great lens even though its design dates from the film era, focuses pretty close with a lovely manual focusing action, and sharp of course.

 

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.

Share this post


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

I have a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 shift lens

I'm quite fond of photomerge panoramics with these shift lenses (I use the Olympus version).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, DDoug said:

1) Neat Image needs a patch of even tone to work, and 2) my uneducated opinion is that denoising the image at the larger size causes less destruction to the image resolution. (I'm open to correction on this by someone who knows more about it.

 

I don't upsize, but I did find (when using Topaz denoise to reduce digitised film grain) that it much was better to denoise first, then downsize and not the other way around. I've been pleased with results from my digitised 35mm slides I made this year and have had sales from over 24 of them already (not on Alamy though). Good to have them earning some return instead of just gathering dust in old slide boxes.

 

You might want to try the free trial of Topaz Denoise AI. I tried Neat image but  preferred Topaz Denoise AI when pocessing digitised colour slides

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DDoug said:

 

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 others and scrutinize the results.

 

I do also treat images in different ways, put them in layers and erase through, however. So I'll apply Polaroid dust and scratch removal to sky and other non-detailed areas, or develop an image as both Velvia and Astia in Silkypix and end up with Astia faces in a Velvia environment.

 

OK I can relate and I admit I lack meticulosity to do noise testing with various bits of software so I settled on Lightroom/ACR some years ago as it gives results that are more than adequate for my purposes. I have never used Neat image so can't add anything there. I also tried Topaz DeNoise AI as Mark mentions but found it much too slow on my computer. It would also produce artefacts on the slide/negative copies close to the edges and around boundaries within the image so it was an easy decision to stick with Adobe. I am quite meticulous in general with my photography though but I guess Mark is a few orders of magnitude more meticulous than I am and has done some very thorough investigations. So Topaz Denoise AI may be worth a look but it requires some serious computing power or a lot of patience with the downtime as it tends to take over the computer. Certainly dealing with noise and/or film grain is a very important part of film copying.

 

Upsizing as a general technique in copying is questionable as you are adding in pixels that were never there in the first place. This is likely to cause deterioration in image quality and the benefits in terms of noise reduction are open to debate. Dealing with the noise and sharpening at native size followed by downsizing would be a more standard approach. However, I must check out this technique for the sake of meticulosity 😀.

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • 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.