Canon slide copying set-up

[M.Chapman]

On 03/02/2020 at 09:10, Harry Harrison said:

I think the changes you've made have been beneficial, and I also agree that the artefacts in the sky are the dye-clumping effects you get with film.

 

I did some further investigation and have found the cause of slight mottling in the sky. The upside-down  B&Q LED downlighter I'm using as a "lighbox" has a textured diffuser. I was supporting the slide several mm above it assuming the texture would be out of focus. Turns out that I was incorrect, at the edges of the frame the texture is very slightly visible as "mottling". I'm not sure if that is due to field curvature of my lens, or the increased "speckle" when looking at the diffuser from and angle. Anyway, the solution is simple, I just increased the spacing between the slide to 15mm and the slight mottling has now gone.

 

Mark

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Anyway, the solution is simple, I just increased the spacing between the slide to 15mm and the slight mottling has now gone.

Good outcome. It does go to demonstrate that the DIY approach (which I also use) is not for the faint-hearted but once the problems are solved and understood it should be fine. The Nikon ES-1 certainly does simplify the process for Nikon users and it's a little disappointing that other manufacturers haven't provided their own solutions - Fuji would be one obvious candidate given their history in film.

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Good outcome. It does go to demonstrate that the DIY approach (which I also use) is not for the faint-hearted but once the problems are solved and understood it should be fine. The Nikon ES-1 certainly does simplify the process for Nikon users and it's a little disappointing that other manufacturers haven't provided their own solutions - Fuji would be one obvious candidate given their history in film.

 

I don't know when the Nikon ES-1 was introduced, but its instruction leaflet shows it mounted on a Nikon F3 film camera. The ES-2 was only released in 2018, and Nikon suggests pairing it with the D850, so logically Nikon must have predicted a demand. If so I wonder why other manufacturers haven't, without abusing Nikon's copyright, produced their own. 

[geogphotos]

25 minutes ago, sb photos said:

 

I don't know when the Nikon ES-1 was introduced, but its instruction leaflet shows it mounted on a Nikon F3 film camera. The ES-2 was only released in 2018, and Nikon suggests pairing it with the D850, so logically Nikon must have predicted a demand. If so I wonder why other manufacturers haven't, without abusing Nikon's copyright, produced their own. 

 

That's an interesting question.

 

But without Canon producing their own version I wonder if anybody has come across actual examples of Canon users with 100mm macro lens using the ES-1/ES-2 for slide/negative copying.

 

If so, do you have any links to videos, blogs or whatever? Thanks.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[MDM]

1 hour ago, sb photos said:

 

I don't know when the Nikon ES-1 was introduced, but its instruction leaflet shows it mounted on a Nikon F3 film camera. The ES-2 was only released in 2018, and Nikon suggests pairing it with the D850, so logically Nikon must have predicted a demand. If so I wonder why other manufacturers haven't, without abusing Nikon's copyright, produced their own. 

 

Nikon brought out the ES-2 at the same time as the D850 an additional selling point for the camera, as one of the features of the D850 is the ability to convert negatives to positives in camera. However, the drawback is that it can only do JPEGs which to my mind somewhat negates the benefits, as shooting raw is one of the main advantages of copying as against scanning. 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by MDM

[MDM]

On 04/02/2020 at 10:11, Harry Harrison said:

I think the maths changes for Micro 4/3 though, diffraction probably comes in earlier, depth of field is also more at any given aperture compared to full frame.

 

Edit - or is it, not so sure now I come to think about it.

 

I think diffraction effects come in at wider apertures with larger sensors so a 45MP camera might show some diffraction effects at f11 whereas a 24MP might not . There is an equation somewhere that reveals all. Later 😀

Edited February 5, 2020 by MDM

[Chuck Nacke]

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 05:06, M.Chapman said:

 

Probably. But I do need to double check the corners of the slide to confirm the significant softening in the beach sand at bottom right corner of this image is present in the original slide and not some field curvature effect in my macro lens. (I've already cropped the worst of it out from the digitised copy).

 

Mark

Mark,

 

Are you scanning or copying "Mounted 35mm slides (chromes)?"  I always scan unmounted chromes, I feel that I get a flatter sharper image and you also

gain some image that is covered by a standard 35mm mount.

 

Chuck

[MDM]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

That's an interesting question.

 

But without Canon producing their own version I wonder if anybody has come across actual examples of Canon users with 100mm macro lens using the ES-1/ES-2 for slide/negative copying.

 

If so, do you have any links to videos, blogs or whatever? Thanks.

 

 

 

The Nikon copiers are designed for using with standard macro lenses that focus very close so the problem with using longer lenses (short to medium telephotos) is that the minimum focus distances are too long. The solution it appears is to put an extension tube between the lens and the copier. I have just bought a few of these (inexpensive, coming from China) as well as some stepping rings to see how things work with other lenses. I will report back when I get the stuff. There is no intrinsic reason why this should not work with Canon cameras as long as you have the right extra bits.

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

But without Canon producing their own version I wonder if anybody has come across actual examples of Canon users with 100mm macro lens using the ES-1/ES-2 for slide/negative copying.

Ian, I already provided you with a link to someone who described what was necessary, namely:

 

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1185821/0

 

"I've used the Nikon ES-1 slide adapter on the Canon 100/2.8 (along with other macro lenses); it works fine. I found some cheap 52mm-threaded extension tubes on eBay (marked "for Olympus SP550 UZ 52mm") --- just a hollow metal tube with male/female 52mm threads on each end --- to add the extra extension needed in front of the lens. Then, a 58mm->52mm filter step-down-ring on the front of the lens, and you're set. Illumination by pointing towards a wall lit by a camera flash (manually set to consistently give the right exposure) worked well."

 

So, a 58mm to 52mm step-down ring on the front of the lens just to take the desired length of extension tubes selected from a cheap set of 52mm extension tubes with the ES-1 mounted to that.

 

This Hong Kong company seems to sell 52mm spacer rings just for the ES-1.

Here

 

Bear in mind that the ES-1 has some flexibility in terms of extension as I think it is formed from two sliding tubes, hopefully someone will tell you the minimum and maximumm extension possible. If someone esle is able to tell you the distance a slide has to be from the end of the 100mm Macro then you should be able to work out how much extension to buy.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

think diffraction effects come in at wider apertures with larger sensors so a 45MP camera might show some diffraction effects at f11 whereas a 24MP might not . There is an equation somewhere that reveals all.

Yes, these are complex multi element lenses so it might be hard to predict but the DPReview article suggested that all the Micro 4/3 camera lenses they'd tested started to suffer from diffraction beyond f6.3 and the 45mm Macro was no exception. On full-frame I don't see any deterioration until f11, which I think is what you use.

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

If so I wonder why other manufacturers haven't, without abusing Nikon's copyright, produced their own. 

 

Full marks to Nikon for recognising a niche and providing a solution. It seems that accessories are otherwise a thing of the past, I've not seen any manufacturer who produces auto-bellows in the digital era for example. In the film era one might choose a camera system based upon the accessories that were available for it, Olympus were fantastic for Macro shooters for example with all kinds of flash setups and a full range of high quality bellows-mounted macro lenses. The Nikon PB-6 bellows is a great bit of kit and that has a slide copier available as well. A lot of Nikons now might not slide along the bellows because there is too much depth below the lens but it be might be possible to make them work for slide copying with the right lens just with the camera at one end.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[geogphotos]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Ian, I already provided you with a link to someone who described what was necessary, namely:

 

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1185821/0

 

"I've used the Nikon ES-1 slide adapter on the Canon 100/2.8 (along with other macro lenses); it works fine. I found some cheap 52mm-threaded extension tubes on eBay (marked "for Olympus SP550 UZ 52mm") --- just a hollow metal tube with male/female 52mm threads on each end --- to add the extra extension needed in front of the lens. Then, a 58mm->52mm filter step-down-ring on the front of the lens, and you're set. Illumination by pointing towards a wall lit by a camera flash (manually set to consistently give the right exposure) worked well."

 

So, a 58mm to 52mm step-down ring on the front of the lens just to take the desired length of extension tubes selected from a cheap set of 52mm extension tubes with the ES-1 mounted to that.

 

This Hong Kong company seems to sell 52mm spacer rings just for the ES-1.

Here

 

Bear in mind that the ES-1 has some flexibility in terms of extension as I think it is formed from two sliding tubes, hopefully someone will tell you the minimum and maximumm extension possible. If someone esle is able to tell you the distance a slide has to be from the end of the 100mm Macro then you should be able to work out how much extension to buy.

 

 

Thanks for the reminder. I'm sorry but don't find that very clear which is why I didn't remember. 

 

I was hoping for something more at the 'for dummies' level -  video or similar.

 

If the Canon + 100mm + ES-1 is a straightforward workable system I'm surprised that I can't find somebody telling me about it on Youtube. 

 

But I have found a lot about what a great lens the Canon 100mm L is. 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

55 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If someone esle is able to tell you the distance a slide has to be from the end of the 100mm Macro then you should be able to work out how much extension to buy.

The 100mm f2.8L focuses to 1:1 at its maximum magnification which is what you will need to copy slides.

 

The slide will be at a very precise fixed distance from the end of the lens when it is focused on the slide but it will be farther away than the ES-1 will accomodate by itself (as that is designed for a specific 55mm or 60mm Micro-Nikkor lens).

 

You will need therefore to add an extension tube between the lens and the ES-1. to make up the difference.

 

(this part may be confusing as extension tubes are normally put between the lens and the camera)

 

The lens has a 67mm filter thread but the only available extension tubes, and the ES-1itself, both have a 52mm thread, so you need a 58mm-52mm step-down ring screwed into the lens.

 

So you just need to know how long the extension tube needs to be and hopefully with a bit of extra information you'll be able to find this out.

 

Edit:

The 100mm f2.8L has a 67mm filter thread, the description on the forum above was for the non-L version with a 58mm filter thread. This could be a problem with regard to the suitability of the ES-1 but you can get 67-52mm step-down rings.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Harry Harrison
67mm not 58mm

[geogphotos]

Somebody could make a nice little business out of selling ES-2 conversion kits for non-Nikon cameras.

[Harry Harrison]

3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Somebody could make a nice little business out of selling ES-2 conversion kits for non-Nikon cameras.

Absolutely, I'm fascinated to hear how you get on if that's what you do.

 

Regarding my comments above about the 'L' having a 67mm filter thread. A 67-52mm step-down ring will be fine with the ES-1 setup as the front lens element is much smaller than the 67mm filter ring surrounding it, probably the extra bulk over the non-L version is needed for the IS.

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Mark,

 

Are you scanning or copying "Mounted 35mm slides (chromes)?"  I always scan unmounted chromes, I feel that I get a flatter sharper image and you also

gain some image that is covered by a standard 35mm mount.

 

Chuck

 

The 35mm slides I'm copying with DSLR are currently mounted in glassless mounts. The medium format were unmounted. I take your point about gaining some image area, but I think I might need a "sandwich carrier" to improve flatness of an unmounted slide. At the moment the limiting factor on my 35mm copying is the grain of the film and quality of the lenses I was using when I exposed the film.

 

Mark

[sb photos]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

At the moment the limiting factor on my 35mm copying is the grain of the film and quality of the lenses I was using when I exposed the film.

 

Mark

 

The film I'm more interested in scanning are B&W 35mm strips of 6, was either FP4 exposed at iso 125 developed in ID11, or exposed at iso 200, developed in Patterson Acutol. Also HP5 developed in ID11 at base iso, and some uprated to iso 1600 for shooting bands. Earlier work was shot on Practika screw thread cameras with the Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4, my favourite, then another Zeiss,  the 135mm f3.5, and a Pancolar 50mm f1.8. Later I used a pair of Olympus OM1's and an OM2, with Olympus primes. Long ago I did scan a few frames with the Minolta Dimage, but noted the scanned films grain was more obvious than from earlier darkroom prints. I note Mark's comment on grain above. A lot of what I shot covered protests, Anti Apartheid Movement, Troops Out, Anti Nazi League, FoE, and politicians, those still alive that look very different now, and more. With old work it's interesting observing how your shooting style has evolved. Also have 3 large wooden boxes of card mounted Kodak slides that were taken by my father to scan and distribute amongst family. They won't be high quality, all shot on a Zenith E with Helios lens.

[Harry Harrison]

7 hours ago, sb photos said:

but noted the scanned films grain was more obvious than from earlier darkroom prints

I know that certain film scanners have in the past been described as tending to emphasise the grain, Nikon in particular I think.  However I've never seen any kind of review that actually tries to compare scans on this basis. There are two high end scanners, the Imacon 949 and the later similar but rebranded Hasselblad X5, that were the only models in that range to incorporate a diffuser, presumably to try and minimise this, but again I've never seen any comparison.

 

My own experience is that this seems to be true when I've compared digitally produced B&W prints with old bromide prints printed in my darkroom but I've yet to compare B&W prints from DSLR scanning to see if there is a difference. I've also got loads of colour prints up to A3 printed on the same enlarger and my modern digital prints from the same negatives (I only used to print from colour negative) also seem to emphasise the grain, though this is a different sort of grain, dye-based, and not intrusive being from fine grain 100 or 200 ASA film almost exclusively, I just notice it from a technical point of view but I doubt anyone else would if they weren't a photographer.

 

My enlarger has a colour head, so a diffuse light source, and I've always printed with that but some people preferred a condenser light source which I think also tended to emphasise the grain even more.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

10 hours ago, sb photos said:

They won't be high quality, all shot on a Zenith E with Helios lens.

😀 So were a good number of mine. They're not bad generally.

I haven't found the grain obtrusive on the 'Tran copies but I suppose a bit of luminance smoothing might be acceptable.

[Harry Harrison]

This article describes the concept of 'grain aliasing' to describe why all scans accentuate the grain on film:

 

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-29937.html

 

and he quotes this article which shows actual examples

 

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm#problem

[Klinger]

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.

 

 

On 05/02/2020 at 12:28, geogphotos said:

Somebody could make a nice little business out of selling ES-2 conversion kits for non-Nikon cameras.

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Klinger

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

This article describes the concept of 'grain aliasing' to describe why all scans accentuate the grain on film:

 

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-29937.html

 

and he quotes this article which shows actual examples

 

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm#problem

 

Interesting article. So the author's simulated example suggests that the sharp edges of the grains mess up the digital camera bayer decoding causing a magnification in colour noise. Although most of what I see doesn't look like colour noise. It would perhaps be interesting to repeat his simulation in monochrome (grey noise + black white strips). 

 

I wonder if a possible approach to reduce this "grain exaggeration due to aliasing" is to take several exposures, with a tiny shift in position and combine in PS on multiple layers? For example load and align 5 pictures into layers and assign the following opacities (bottom layer to top) 100%, 50%, 33%, 25%, 20%. For some background see this article. I might give that a go and see what happens. Not sure if I'd bother up-sizing before combination or not, I think the averaging of multiple frames may be enough. I wonder if a PS action or script can be created to automate this? (There probably are some around already from the astronomy photographers as this is the same technique they use). Doesn't VueScan try something similar with scanners to reduce grain?

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Klinger said:

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.

 

A couple of comments on the setup. I think it's worth creating an opaque mask (e.g. sheet of card with 50mm square hole in it) and sticking to the diffuser (e.g. blu-tack). This will reduce the stray light entering the lens (an advantage of the Nikon ES-1...) and also helps locate the slide.

 

Also a bubble level isn't as accurate as using a mirror to set the camera square to the plexiglas. (Again something that the ES-1 does automatically... oh dear I'll have to get one....)

 

A comment on the digitised image - lots of blue fringing around the trees and some flare / CA around the marquee, presumably in the original slide? Likely to be rejected by Alamy QC so archival is probably the only option if the images are historically or culturally significant. You also mentioned that you'd downsized to 8MP, you can go down to 6MP on Alamy if you want.

 

Mark

Edited February 6, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

38 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Interesting article.

To be honest I've only skimmed it so far, I only came across the articles today, but I have often wondered why I seem to see extra grain compared to my darkroom prints in both colour and black & white. However, if avoiding it means going to the admirable lengths that you describe I might just learn to love it. I normally leave that sort of thing till the Winter, but hey, it is the Winter!

 

It does look like one of those Olympus cameras with the 'sensor shift' could be very good, especially with the 50mm f2 Macro that DPReview liked so much.

[MDM]

My recommendations: If you value your time then use a global Lightroom noise reduction with judicious sharpening, open in Photoshop, select sky where noise will be apparent, apply a mild Gaussian blur, downsize and that should do it. If the original is sharp then this should give acceptable results. Spending ages on noise or grain reduction does not make sense unless one really enjoys that sort of thing. That article is old as is the forum post. Noise or grain reduction is a lot easier now than it was back then if shooting raw. 

 

Also if you value your time then choose an instrument that is designed for the job as getting the film perfectly aligned is not an easy task and perfection is essential given the tiny depth of field.  

Edited February 6, 2020 by MDM