Thanks Godfrey. Lots to mull over. I thought about that mixed density issue yesterday evening. Problem is, to try these ideas at the moment i’d have to buy a full set-up, since nowhere is open like a photo club where i could experiment. I’m very reluctant to spend money at the moment as there’s a good chance i could be furloughed - they’ve already started at work - and although they are making people’s pay up to 100% (at the moment) and I am ready to draw my pension anyway, there is so much uncertainty around that I am only spending on absolute necessities until the picture is a bit clearer.
Cheers, Bob > On 11 Apr 2020, at 16:42, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bob! > > I do/have done quite a lot of negative, transparency, and small print capture > over the past thirty years using all sorts of scanners, copy camera setups, > and fixtures. I still shoot film in several formats—Minox to 6x9 plus instant > film prints. Here's a brief synopsis of my thoughts: > > - A dedicated film scanner nearly always produces better resolution and > detailing than any flatbed scanning solution, almost regardless of pixel > count, because any good one includes a focusing lens that will pinpoint the > correct focus accurately. Trying to obtain this precision with any flatbed > scanner is almost impossible, and is certainly quite a bit of work and > inconvenience. You can get this precision with a copy camera approach > presuming you take care in your focusing and have a reliable fixture for > camera and film that holds them in precise alignment. > > - For smaller than 35mm film, generally speaking the copy camera approach > produces the best results for the simple reason that I can net a higher pixel > count that is more editable with a copy camera setup than I can with a 4000 > ppi film scanner, given today's DSLR and EVF cameras. For example, given a > 35mm original, an Olympus E-M1 can produce up to a 15.9 Mpixel image BUT > since the format proportion is not isomorphic, the actual negative scan data > will be less than that. My Nikon Coolscan V ED (LS-50) film scanner will net > 21.4 Mpixels at the limit, a copy camera approach with the Leica CL or SL > will net 24 Mpixels. For Minox film, to show an extreme, the scanner drops > way down to 2.2 Mpixels but both cameras can do nearly the same as they do > with 35mm film. > > - For 35mm strips, it's a toss up now as to whether a good copy camera > approach or a good film scanner approach produces the best results. The key > problem with a dedicated scanner approach is how much time it takes to do the > job; the key problem with the copy camera approach is the quality of the > configuration, the time for setup, and how repeatable the configuration is > from frame to frame. You don't want to have to refocus for every frame if > you're doing volumes of negs with a copy camera … this is where expensive > fixtures like the Negative Supply film carrier make very good sense despite > their price. (Since I have the Nikon LS-50 and I don't shoot 35mm all that > much, I give up on the time for 35mm and just use the film scanner. For > medium format, where I really need to have a better fixture and have worked a > dozen different fixtures already with only middling success/consistency, I've > got a pledge/pre-order in place to get their film carrier as soon as it gets > to market. It will be the right solution, finally; wish I could have produced > one myself!) > > - For me, the notion of scanning a whole roll of 35mm in one go and producing > a contact page of images to look at in a single scan is not particularly > useful. The variations in image density, etc, through a roll of film makes it > really tough to produce useable images that way that are consistently easy to > view and assess for further work. I did that for my Minox negs and found the > amount of time I had to put into adjusting each frame on the exposure to be a > bigger time sink than just capturing each frame was with a consistent setup. > For 35mm, when I want to produce a contact sheet, I simply scan the whole > roll with the film scanner or copy camera, and then use LR to adjust them > all, using a "similar exposure and content" batch approach to rough in the > adjustments very quickly, and assemble them into a grid print that I can put > out on standard letter paper if I want it for records keeping (can be kept > with the negatives…) and quick selection that way. I usually don't bother and > just keep them in LR electronically, since that's where I'm going to do the > bulk of my selection and such anyway. > > - ANY film/small print scanning will take a modest investment in equipment > and a modest—but probably larger—investment in time spent learning how to get > what you want out of it consistently and reliably. If you're going to use a > Micro-FourThirds based copy camera approach, I found the Pansonic-Leica > Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 lens was a godsend for this kind of work : > infinity to 1:1 magnification, all internal focusing, and near perfect > correction all the way through the range. The Olympus ZD 35 Macro and 50 > Macro lenses did very well too, adapted to mFT, albeit that the 35 Macro > needs a bit of rectilinear correction for copy work at this scale. (I haven't > used either the 30 or 60mm macro lenses available now.) For copying nominal > 35mm frames with mFT, you need about 1:2.1-2.3 magnification, depending on > just how much latitude you want in positioning the negatives to allow easy > framing in post process afterwards with minimal cropping loss. > > (I use the Leica CL body for this work nowadays, typically with the > Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 or Summicron-R 50mm f/2 lenses. Both produce > outstanding results and are not horrifically expensive if you want to try an > adapted macro lens solution. The ancient (1966 issue), ridiculously cheap > Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 that I picked up for $65 with its dedicated extension > tube is another brilliant performer for this work. Adapters to mFT are > inexpensive, even for good ones, and there are quite a few adapted lenses > like these that work very well.) > > I hope all that nets you some good ideas as to how to proceed with this > effort. There are a variety of ways of getting results and whichever one nets > you the balance of convenience, speed, and quality that suits your purpose > best is really something that only you can assess after trying a couple, IMO. > > best > G > > >> On Apr 10, 2020, at 5:56 AM, Bob Pdml <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Since the lockdown looks as though it might go on for a long time yet I have >> been thinking of scanning some of my old negs and slides. I have a Nikon >> LS-1000 which I haven’t used for years because it’s just a balls-ache. >> >> I’d come to the conclusion that a camera plus copy stand and a light table >> would be essential, and have been digging around looking for guidance. I >> found this excellent video which is so good i thought i’d share: >> https://youtu.be/FqD9SikzZq0 >> >> He’s not doing exactly what I want to do, but it does look like a good >> method for freshly-shot film. >> >> Most of my slides and negs are either cut in strips and sleeved, or mounted. >> My aim is mainly to catalogue what I have, shoot ‘contact prints’ on the >> light table so I can have a reasonable idea what is on each film, and do a >> higher quality scan only of selected individual frames. But I need an >> industrial process to get through so many films. >> >> I like the method shown in the video, and would adapt it so that I’d put a >> sleeved film strip on the lightbox, a glass sheet on top of that to keep it >> flat, and shoot. >> >> If anyone has any hints, tips, bright ideas or dire warnings, please share! >> >> B >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
