Thanks Paul, that looks as though it’s worth considering. B
> On 11 Apr 2020, at 19:35, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Epson 850 Pro offers extremely high resolution, “glass” film holders and > fine focus adjustment by means of the film holders. I’ve tried numerous > dedicated film scanners, including most of Nikon’s. The only one Ive used > that outperformed the 850 Pro was a Hasselblad Imacon scanner. But at about > 8k it’s too rich for my blood. The Epson 850 Pro isn’t exactly cheap. I think > it goes for about $1100. > > Paul > >> On Apr 11, 2020, at 1:50 PM, Bob Pdml <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > > -- > 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.
