Enlarger lenses for digitalizing photos/prints with DSLR

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

I've just digitalized about 400 photos ranging in age from 1910 to 1960 using Sony A7 and Focotar-II 50/4.5 (high class enlarging lens) as a christmas present. It took only about 3,5 hours incl. cropping and PP

This it how it looks (already heavily cropped, these are ~4x3,5cm prints!)

A little larger print, from an about 6x9cm photo, cropped

High Res: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54671350@N02/11627057564/sizes/k/in/photostream/

I've mostly photographed a whole DINA4 page or slightly smaller and then cropped the tiny 4x4 and 4x6,5 old B/W contact prints out of the image in Lightroom (A7 and Focotar-II both have plenty resolution) and synchronized a little PP (added a little clarity, sharpness, pulling details from highlights and shadows) on all of them at once.
For the lightsetup I've used 4x 25W tungsten lights in about 45° angles towards the pictures for illumination and manual white balance (using white paper as reference) of course.
Cable- or IR remote were necessary to avoid vibration/shaking.
It was hard to get flat pictures due curvature in the photoalbums I've used (I didn't want to remove the photos from the albums), so I've used an heavy piece of windows glass and put it on the pages because it didn't wan't to stop the lens down stronger than F8. That was slightly degrading resolution on the perfectly focused spots but produced an much better overall resolution and made the work much faster.

Observations:
-Colors in colored pictures and B/W tones are better (closer to original) than with my mid-class Epson V500 flatbed scanner.
-Sony A7 has higher dynamic range, giving more much more freedom in PP to push and pull shadows and hightlights etc. in software like Lightroom
-About DINA4 sized and larger pics were hard to illuminate evenly with my setup
-In most cases it's easier to photograph a DINA4 page from an album than to put the album on an flatbad scanner
-Pictures with very(!) rough survaes give weird reflections (white spots) which are more offensive than with flatbed scanner
-In terms of resolution both methods are about equal (outresolving prints); the Focotar-II is somehow able to catch more fine details though if you're focusing on only one pic at once (which takes more time though)
-You need a good tripod or better a repro stand
-In terms of speed the photographing method is a lot faster (faster "scanning" and less PP for colors etc.) when you've once found your workflow
-A software like Lightroom should be used
-Focotar-II 50/4.5 works better than Rodagon 50/2.8 and modern Zeiss FE Sonnar 35/2.8 in all aspects.

Here are some samples, many of them like the first one are about 80 years old (Hitlerjugend times of my girlfriends grandfather) and only about 4x6cm sized contact prints

Note: It's very impressive what resolution these tiny old B/W prints can have! I wish I had the negs of them!

Conclusion: This digitalisation technique very good choice if you want to digitalize many pictures at once, because it's much(!) faster than usual flatbed scanners (actual scanning process alone would have taken more time) and with correct setup the IQ is overall the same but can be even better if done with care. If you only want to do few digitalisations the scanner is much easier to use because it's more failsafe and much easier to setup.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

Thanlu you for both the technical information and the images!

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England

Super super results. Very interesting photos too I love things like this. The photos of the Hitleryouth kids must have stories behind them do you know?

Enlarging lens is the perfect way to capture prints. Although at this magnification any good lens at f8 would probably do a very acceptable job. Did you use a stand of any sort?

did you see my old photos of my grandmother http://forum.mflenses.com/bertha-lewis-missionary-1932-t63181,highlight,%2Bbertha.html

Not as good as yours these were taken with various box cameras but copied using an OM10 and standard lens on the windowsill in the early 90's. You do what you must sometimes.

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Those are really great. I may try using my Rodagon for the boxes of old glass plates I have instead of my Sigma macro lens.

Old films, to my eye, seem to have as much if not more detail than modern films. Maybe that's just because the negatives were larger and required less enlargement.

RSalles · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:06 pm Post subject:

I'm digitalizing my 4x5' negatives also, but there is a problem with this lens: M39 - not adapter available to Canon EOS -and FF - focal lenght too short,

Crying or Very sad

Renato

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Renato, do you have an APS or FF DSLR?

With an APS you can use an 85mm (or longer) enlarger lens and obtain 1:1 reproduction with a macro bellows. With an EOS bellows get an M39-m42 adapter (literally a thin ring threaded on each side) and an M42-to-EF adapter. That ought to do it. I have an M39-M42 adapter and then use an M42 female on my macro bellows with a K mount male, effectively making the bellows the adapter. It works great.

RSalles · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:56 pm Post subject:

Dave,

I own a MarkII, and a set of M39-M42 conversion rings. Yesterday I tried out to focus a Industar 61 L/D with the conversion ring (which is supposed to have a M39-Leica thread mount) with the MarkII and the focus was so close and so thin that I reputed it unusable with this camera. Apart that, I find the 50mm too short to work with, I would prefer a longer focal lens, - difficult to work at so close, I mean between lens and film,

Cheers,

Renato

David · Expire: 2013-01-25

Renato,

For MF and LF negatives, you're okay with a longer focal length. You can go for 1:1 or 1:2 enlargement and then stitch multiple shots together in post. For slides, though, it's easiest with 1:1 enlargement.

50mm enlarger lenses may not work, you're correct. Have you tried reversing them? Maybe then with the negative 50mm from the lens you could have enough front-element-to-sensor distance? I haven't treid it, but it seems that may be possible-ish.

RSalles · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:37 am Post subject:

Dave,

After the next dslr batch scanning I'll try it and let you know if it succeeds,

Thanks,

Renato

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Why do you put an crappy Industar 61 on the 5DMKII?
Any better enlarger lens like the Rodagons and Componons (you should use at least ~80mm or better ~105mm) or normal macro lenses easily beat the crap out of this often overrated lens.

I think the myth that the Industar 61 L/D has an above-average resolution is only based on some unreliable (unbelievable) MTF charts which were published some years ago ^^. It's like the myth with high iron content in spinach, once a lab assistent made a tenfold decimal point fault and it takes decades to until the myth is widely busted again. Also the Industar 61 L/D has a lot barrel distortion btw. (maybe ~3% I would guess so not an fisheye but that can be very annoying for architecture or repro work like this of course).

RSalles · Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:17 pm Post subject:

Foresnseil,

Crapy or not crapy, the fact is that this lens covers exactly the half of a 4x5 negative without much gymnastics, and, observing the last results I had with, or my technique is seriously improving, or the lens is not crapy at all - as the results I had last time I scanned the negatives the result are way much better now.

But I'm sure that with a better lens the results will be more acceptable indeed.

So, let's dig for a Rodagon at ebay...

Cheers,

Renato

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

RSalles · Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:15 pm Post subject:

Ok, here it goes,

6x7-0469-70 por Renato Augusto Salles, no Flickr

Industar 61 L/D received as gift from member X-Press, with a lot of lens I bought from him last year - the lens had the focus barrel stuck and now it's fixed and working!

At f8, flash triggered in a white box, EOS 5D MkII, with 2 images stitched in PS and PP with Silver Efex Pro.

Cheers,

Renato

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Great PP! Very nice work! Is it a print or a negative? Negatives are giving much better results of course.
Interesting setup with the white box, could you explain that more exactly?

RSalles · Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:31 pm Post subject:

Forenseil,

Simple, very simple setup:

Tripod, 2 flash triggers, flash, a plexiglass bord over a square whitebox mesuring 40x60cm average, and 2 stainless steel rules as wheith for the negative - the one at the photo is a 4x5 one.

Cheers,

RSalles

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I had a nice Nikkor EL 50mm back when I did darkroom stuff, but I sold it along with all the darkroom stuff when I knew I wasn't going to be doing my own prints anymore. I also had a couple of Rodenstocks, thought I'd sold both, but a few days ago I discovered one that I thought I'd sold. Nothing special, just an Omegar 55mm f/4.5. But I'm curious as to how it might perform as a copy lens, etc.

I don't think I've ever used this Rodenstock Omegar. Back in about 1990 or so, I bought a guy's darkroom stuff. The works, an enlarger, lenses, the pans and several tanks, and even several packages of 8x10 paper. The only items I didn't get from him were chemistry items. Just mentioning it, to explain why I've got an enlarging lens that I've never used.

I have made extensive use of my DSLR to dupe slides and negatives, and I prefer doing it this way instead of using my scanner because the resolution is noticeably better. Plus it is much faster.

I also have a large stack of old family photos that I need to go through and digitize. I would really prefer to use my DSLR instead of my scanner. One problem I'm having doing the DSLR approach, however, is that most of the photos have curled. They were never mounted in a photo album apparently, so they've curled. I guess I'll need to get a contact sheet printer thing -- you know, basically an 8x10 board with a piece of optically transparent glass that covers it, and is used to insure the negatives stay flat. Should work with prints too. Hope I can still find something like this. I used to have one, but it got sold with the rest of my darkroom stuff.

By the way, ForenSeil, those are some cool looking old pix. It causes me to think, to wonder about those peoples lives, etc.

RSalles, it looks like the old Industar worked out well for you, judging by that photo.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.