Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

scanning negs via camera
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:38 pm    Post subject: scanning negs via camera Reply with quote

I made a simple neg scanner using my Nex and an M42 bellows.

I've fitted an enlarging lens to the front of the bellows. A Minolta E Rokkor 50mm f4.5 and at the other end I have the NEX attached via a NEX-M42 focusing helical. The photo shows a normal M42 adapter. The purpose of the helical is to fine-focus the lens if necessary. The bellows is set to focus with the helical at mid point. And the lens at f8

At the back of the box is a screen made from my favourite tinkering material - laminate pouches. 4 single layers diffuses the light. I usually just point the thing at the window and the light is good. 1.5 secs exposure is fast compared to my flatbed and the cheapo neg scanner. I can whiz thru a hundred negs in well under an hour.

The neg holder is out of my cheap scanner and the device it goes into is actually the bottom of a moo.com card box with slits cut into the side. All just glued and screwed onto a plank of wood. I have made a black paper cover which is folded back on the photo. It really works a treat and is much much better than my cheapo scanner.



I could have made a rigid version without the bellows but I want the option of scanning 16mm and 110 negs too, of which I have many! I can mount the NEX directly on to the bellows and move the lens closer.

I'll do some scans tomorrow and post 'em.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The dark box between the negs and lens is critical. I've been using M42 macro tubes. I use a 40.5mm to 49mm step-up ring and then a 49mm to 42mm step-down ting to mount the macro tubes on the front of my 80mm Rodagon. Before I had a second set of macro tubes and could do a tunnel from the lens to the slides, I go a LOT of flare in the sun, even with a single set of macro tubes and a long sun shade.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you're right there about the light. I made some paper bellows but they were too flimsy. I will make a firmer box from card so I can get to the inside when I want.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting looking outfit you got there.

I've cobbled together something a bit more rigid that I use for duping slides and film strips.



I'd be interested in learning what software you're using for duplicating your negatives, and the steps you take to get to the end result.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:

I'd be interested in learning what software you're using for duplicating your negatives, and the steps you take to get to the end result.

Sorry for hijacking
No clue if your little tool is good. I hope it fits your sensor (many of them only can produc 1:1 but not 1:1.5 what you need if you have APS-C.
I would recommend Adobe Lightroom
Invert graduation curve for B/W negatives to get a positive, auto audjust (does not always work for some reason), fine trimming (audjust black and white levels, exposure, contrast,... if necessary) and last but not least a little sharpening.
Once you've finished that procedure on one well exposed negative from that film roll you can mark all others from that series and synchronize your settings. After that you only need a very little PP if any for all further negatives from the same series (film/developer). With a different film type or under-/overexposed pics you have to reaudjust most settings.



My hardware (with LED backlight modified <5 slide film framing helper device in; of course a steady tripod works as good or even better as such a little repro stand); You can scan a whole 135 film in one step:


Lens and lightsource are important for this technique! After testing about 10 lenses I found Apo-Rodagon-R(-D) 75/4 @F5.6 works best, closely followed by much cheaper Rodagon 105/5.6 @F8. Both better than the normal 100mm Macro lenses I tried (Cosina 100/3.5, Minolta MD 100/4, Minolta MD 50/3.5 and maybe more).
All 50mm enlarger lenses (Rodagon 50/2.8,....) or normal lenses (Tessar 50/2.8, Helios 44-2 58/2,...) on tubes I tested didn't work well for me (low contrast, curved field of sharpness, flaring/haze, low fine details, low sharpness...). Only exception (visibly better than El Nikkor 50 and Rodagon 50) was Noritsu 50.7/9.5, but it was inferior to Rodagon 105/5.6 for this.
If you have a large "light spreading" light source you need an hood otherwise it will be a contrast killer.

Some samples I made with the same technique but different gear


This film was 40 years old!


This film was 40 years old!

TriX 400 @ 3200 in Xtol, Jupiter-3 50/1.5:




TriX 400, Nokton 50/1.1+ND Filter, don't know ISO


APX100, don't remember developer


Lucky SHD 200 B/W film in Xtol


100% crop:



Results from B/W film are the best with this technique - after correct PP it beats the crap out of my Epson V500.
Slides do also work but are only slightly sharper than my Epson V500 while PP needs more time.
For color film PP is much more difficult - I never had success!

For slides you can easily modify an old slide projector with an ~25W bulb instead of ~250W and an diffusor
Than it's perfect for batch digitalisation - a few hundred incl. PP in one day are no problem, if setup is adjusted well.




*old slide*


*very old slide*


*very old slide*


*very old slide*


Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:33 pm; edited 5 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent results I like the slide projector being used as a light source. It kind of puts it all together. I could try that myself.
Thanks


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw a YouTube video where someone had set up a slide projector to run automatically and used their camera's automatic shutter speed to capture each slide, allowing them to walk away and let the slides run. but even at one slide per second and 120 slides at a time, it's only two minutes being saved. But, compared to hand-swapping each slide, it does actually save a lot of time.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
I saw a YouTube video where someone had set up a slide projector to run automatically and used their camera's automatic shutter speed to capture each slide, allowing them to walk away and let the slides run. but even at one slide per second and 120 slides at a time, it's only two minutes being saved. But, compared to hand-swapping each slide, it does actually save a lot of time.


That's a great idea, use an intervalometer to fire the camera and use a projector running on an auto program. but it would take me a month to get it set up which kinda negates the time saved! Laughing

But this is the way I'm going to do it, I have a spare projector and assorted bellows and lenses. I want to mount it all on a baseboard so I can move it around and not have to mess around setting it up every time I want to use it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's such a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EXHH1Nz2AM
But actually old slide projectors tend to get stuck quite often Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForenSeil wrote:
Here's such a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EXHH1Nz2AM
But actually old slide projectors tend to get stuck quite often Very Happy


and old ones like mine have no program settings and must be used manually


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_QXqY6-vMU

https://picasaweb.google.com/diascanner/OpstellingVanDeDiascannerEnEnkeleVoorbeeldenVanScans

this one is very impressive!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:

https://picasaweb.google.com/diascanner/OpstellingVanDeDiascannerEnEnkeleVoorbeeldenVanScans

this one is very impressive!


Hmm for my eyes it looks unsharp, but that's caused by the slightly improper lens he's using which causes an effective F35-F40 aperture (F11+2xTC --> F22; F22@1:1,5 Macro --> ~F38.5) , so resolution is highly limited by diffraction. A proper macro or medium format enlarger lens lens in the same setup would deliver visibly better results.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are my Lightroom (4) settings for a typical B/W negative digitalisation, might be helpful for some of you.
With the button on the bottom on the left side you can synchronize all you pics of that series with that adjustments.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also use a cobbled together system of copying using my Canon 50D and achieve far better results than my scanner can.

For colour negative film I modified the negative carrier slightly so that a part of the film base appears in the shot, then shoot in raw, process with Canon DPP (or any raw convertor ) by clicking on the film base for white balance correction I get the right colours every time.
Then it's just a case a case of negative-positive conversion and any necessary tweaks to saturation/contrast etc.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ramon wrote:
I also use a cobbled together system of copying using my Canon 50D and achieve far better results than my scanner can.

For colour negative film I modified the negative carrier slightly so that a part of the film base appears in the shot, then shoot in raw, process with Canon DPP (or any raw convertor ) by clicking on the film base for white balance correction I get the right colours every time.
Then it's just a case a case of negative-positive conversion and any necessary tweaks to saturation/contrast etc.


That's interesting, a very neat idea.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ramon wrote:
I also use a cobbled together system of copying using my Canon 50D and achieve far better results than my scanner can.

For colour negative film I modified the negative carrier slightly so that a part of the film base appears in the shot, then shoot in raw, process with Canon DPP (or any raw convertor ) by clicking on the film base for white balance correction I get the right colours every time.
Then it's just a case a case of negative-positive conversion and any necessary tweaks to saturation/contrast etc.


That seems like a good idea. I can modify my setup simply.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ramon wrote:
For colour negative film I modified the negative carrier slightly so that a part of the film base appears in the shot, then shoot in raw, process with Canon DPP (or any raw convertor ) by clicking on the film base for white balance correction I get the right colours every time.
Then it's just a case a case of negative-positive conversion and any necessary tweaks to saturation/contrast etc.


What a great idea. I'll give this a try. I should be able to maneuver the neg around in its carrier some so some of the base shows.

Tell me, have you tried doing this with Ektar? I've been able to do software-based neg conversion with both Paint Shop Pro and Photo Shop's built-in routines. The results were very accurate except for with Ektar. My scanner doesn't scan Ektar very accurately either, but at least I can correct the colors in pp with the scans. But with the Ektar dupes, I can never seem to get the colors right. Too much cyan in the reversed negative.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Ramon wrote:
For colour negative film I modified the negative carrier slightly so that a part of the film base appears in the shot, then shoot in raw, process with Canon DPP (or any raw convertor ) by clicking on the film base for white balance correction I get the right colours every time.
Then it's just a case a case of negative-positive conversion and any necessary tweaks to saturation/contrast etc.


What a great idea. I'll give this a try. I should be able to maneuver the neg around in its carrier some so some of the base shows.

Tell me, have you tried doing this with Ektar? I've been able to do software-based neg conversion with both Paint Shop Pro and Photo Shop's built-in routines. The results were very accurate except for with Ektar. My scanner doesn't scan Ektar very accurately either, but at least I can correct the colors in pp with the scans. But with the Ektar dupes, I can never seem to get the colors right. Too much cyan in the reversed negative.


Same problems here. White balance trick doesn't work here aswell. Maybe we could import the RAWs somehow in Silverfast etc.?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForenSeil wrote:


Same problems here. White balance trick doesn't work here aswell. Maybe we could import the RAWs somehow in Silverfast etc.?


My experience with Silverfast is limited to a demo version I tried years ago. I never could make sense out of its interface -- not at all intuitive -- but folks swear by it. I guess the question though is getting it to run standalone, instead of operating a scanner?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

interesting thread thanks!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would an Industar 61 L/Z be good for this purpose?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:


Same problems here. White balance trick doesn't work here aswell. Maybe we could import the RAWs somehow in Silverfast etc.?


My experience with Silverfast is limited to a demo version I tried years ago. I never could make sense out of its interface -- not at all intuitive -- but folks swear by it. I guess the question though is getting it to run standalone, instead of operating a scanner?


I had the same problem, everyone praised Silverfast so I tried the free trial and couldn't make any sense of it at all. I went back to Twain that came with the Epson scanner and have no problem with that at all. Silverfast just seemed to be overcomplicated and be all things to all users, Twain is simple, I like simple. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Lloydy, if you're referring to EpsonScan, which is the software that gets booted when you use Epson's TWAIN driver, then yes I agree. It is simple if you want it to be, yet can be complex if you want that too. I usually set mine up for the "professional" interface and for me to manually indicate the scan areas, rather than letting the software auto select scan areas -- even though it is very accurate when doing so for the most part. It's that part that isn't included in the "for the most part" which is why I still prefer to manually select areas.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick1779 wrote:
Would an Industar 61 L/Z be good for this purpose?

I've tried several normal ~50mm Tessars for that, results were barely "usable" at it's best. Very vow contrast, low sharpness, curved field of sharpness and such stuff. I haven't tried this particular one but I expect nothing great from it. There are much better lenses for that (like the lenses I mentioned of page 1) which are also not very expensive.
You could try to get an Componon, Rodagon or similar 6-element medium format lens with at least 80mm focal length, I guess they all would be the crap out of an Industar-61


PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the rig I cobbled together, a photo of which I posted on the previous page, the lens at the core of that dupe rig is a 55mm Micro Nikkor. Because of its excellent sharpness and flat field properties I believe it is the perfect lens to use for my setup. My camera is an EOS APS-C 1.6x crop body, so with about 25mm of extension behind the lens I get 1:1 sized images with my EOS.

With a FF camera, I would just use a bellows with its slide duplicator/roll film stage attachment. I would probably use the same lens, but if it is possible to use a longer optic, I have a few macro lenses in the 90-105mm range that I can also use. As for bellows, I prefer Nikon, and I have a PB-4 with PS-4 attachment, just waiting for me to finally get an FF digital. But others can be used to achieve the same results.