Camera Scanning Using Leitz BEOON Copy Stand

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After following the thread Revisiting 35mm Film Scanners I decided on "camera scanning" using the Leitz BEOON copy stand. My objective was to scan at a high resolution so that I would not have to rescan later if I wanted to make large prints — also the ideal solution would be portable, as I'm a nomad that moves between Asia, Europe and North America, so that I wouldn't end up with three scanners. 

 

In considering scanners, I rejected using equipment that was no longer produced and that required old operating systems. That eliminated the Nikon and Minolta scanners, as well as the Pakon scanner, which in any case was designed with a resolution suitable only for small prints. 

 

I also rejected using the Imacon Precsion III that I have, and which I can run with an old Mac, because it requires frequent service. It required servicing as soon as six months after I bought it some 15 years ago — and it continues to have problems. For this reason I wouldn’t buy the new Hasselblad scanners, even I was willing to send that much, because they use the same type of feed system and rollers and bets often have to be adjusted or replaced.

 

That left the either the Epson or the Plustek scanners. The problem with the Plustek scanners reportedly is that the dynamic range is as low as 3.6, and 4.0 can be achieved only by multi-scanning, which takes some 20-25 minutes per frame.

 

Then I tried the BEOON, at first with a DR-Summicron lens using the M9 and MM. I found that the dynamic range with this setup was substantially better than that of the Epson 800 and similar to that of the Imacon Precsion III. The maximum resolution on this Imacon in 6300 dpi: that of the BEOON setup is a little less, but I don’t find the difference compelling.

 

While the results with the BEOON/DR-Summicron combination was satisfactory, I then tried the Leitz Focotar 2 enlarging lens. Essentially, the DR-Summicron has some field curvature while the Focotar 2 does not.  In the corners the Focotar 2 san have slightly more sharpness; but the difference is so small that I haven’t needed to rescan any of of the final scans I had made with the DR-Summicron. 

 

With the DR-Summicron I used f/11, as specified in the BEOON Manual: I found that there was no deterioration from diffraction in going from f/8 to f/11 on this lens used as a macro on the BEOON. I tried out the Focotar 2 at f/5.6, f/8 and f/11, and found that f/5.6 and f/8 are virtually indistinguishable; the scan at f/11 may have very slightly less sharp grain than at f/5.6 and f/8. For the time being II'm scanning with the Focotar 2 at f/8. Focusing the BEOON is easier at f/2 on the DR-Summicron and requires more care with the Focotar 2 at f/4.5.

 

Here are some tips on using the BEOON:

 

1. Obviously, the lens should be focused at it's maximum aperture and then stopped down for "scanning."

 

2. I connect the M9 or MM with a USB cable to my Mac. That makes it much quicker to transfer the DNG files to the computer, since you don't have take off the bottom plate and remove the SD card.

 

3. I use the Image Capture app to download the DNG files to the Mac; then I open and invert the Images in Photoshop and then save TIFFs that I import into Lightroom.

 

4. I set the shutter at "A:" this gives a good flat image that is easy to process in Lightroom for the tonality and gradation that you want.

 

5. For 1:1 scanning of the full frame with the Focotar 2 use the BEOON B+C+D extension rings.

 

 

I haven't seen any difference in scans with the M9 vs those with the MM, but I've only digitalized Tri-X and l generally go for a high-contrast look. I'd be interested in learning what others have found. 

 

Here is an informative article on Camera Scanning, which includes discussion of how to deal with color negative film, something I have not yet tried.

 

Here is a scan with the BEOON/MM/Focotar 2 setup:

 

 

M6 | Summilux-35 ASPH-FLE | Tri-X @ISO 400 stand developed for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes

Chiang Mai

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited June 13, 2016 by Guest

[250swb]

 

That left the either the Epson or the Plustek scanners. The problem with the Plustek scanners reportedly is that the dynamic range is as low as 3.6, and 4.0 can be achieved only by multi-scanning, which takes some 20-25 minutes per frame.

 

 

 

I can tell you have never used a darkroom because you forget one crucial thing, just as any good photographer would adjust their film processing and paper grades to suit the light source of their enlarger so any user of a scanner will adjust their processing and post processing to suit the scanner. Besides which the picture you post using your copy stand has no dynamic range that I can see, the blacks are struggling to contain any definition or detail.

 

So if you scan you make the negative suit the DR of the scanner, obviously this would usually mean making it less contrasty and then you would also aim for a low contrast scan. You can then make it high contrast, if that is your thing, in post processing. A scanners software also has a curve that can be adjusted, a camera only has a histogram so there is no control over the crucial tones, only control over the extremities of light and dark.

 

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest]

You assume too much: I have extensive darkroom experience, both wth B&W and Cibachrome color. Also, I've used an Imacon Precision 3 with a 4.2 dMax — essentially by making low contrast scans to capture the maximum range of the negative and adjusting in PS for the desired gradation and tonal range, the way one does in the darkroom. The image that you castigate was digitalized with the M9: if you simply use autoexposure, you usually get a low contrast "scan" that you can then adjust (this time in LR) to get the look you want — in this case compressing the blacks, which is what I wanted to reflect the emphasize bright, and harsh tropical light.

 

Besides, what you say about shooting the negative with the scanner and processing in mind: while this is indeed a useful technique, the implication that the dynamic range of the scanner does not matter much is misleading: there is a great difference in scan quality between a scanner that has a dynamic range of 3.6 (Plustek) and one that has 4.2 (Imacon Precision 3) — the difference being about 1½ stops. Using the M9 or MM on the BEOON gives a dynamic range close that of the Imacon, although I haven't measured precisely. 

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[EoinC]

You can further extend the dynamic range with the M9 by doing a really basic HDR in LR > PS with 2 shots of the negative. This is using that technique with an A7R + MP-E 65mm on RPX-25 (forgive the extremely dirty negative - I was just playing with the set-up)...

A001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

...and a 5x magnification from the centre...

A002 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

Edited June 20, 2016 by EoinC

[Guest]

Eoin - interesting, although for my own photography my interest in dynamic range is to get good mid-tone range as well as highlight definition within an overall high contrast Tri-X image, with shadows often crushed.

 

Also, I was hoping someone using the BEOON would chime in on the differences in results with the M9 and MM: as stated in the original posting, I haven't seen much difference — but, then, I haven't tried a comparison using a brick wall. 

 

 

CORRECTION to post #1

​3. I use the Image Capture app to download the DNG files to the Mac; then I open and invert the Images in Photoshop and then save TIFFs that I import into Lightroom.

The above is based on using of the PTP option for USB Connection. I've found that it's better to use the "Mass storage" option: this doesn't require to use the Image Capture app on the Mac — instead, more simply, you see the SD card in the Finder and can simply drag the DNG files to your computer .

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest

[EoinC]

Understood, Mitch. This is with Tri-X. Not the look you are after, but it gives a fair bit to work with in post-processing. I'll see if I can find something with higher contrast.

 

I have a M246, but haven't used it yet for digitising. I might give it a try in the weekend, although the A7R makes macro shooting easy by remote to an iPad.

A010 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The BEOON works well with a Leica SL + M Adapter T as well, and the Leica SL app on iPad/iPhone/etc nets the same easy ability to control what you're doing and see what you've done. I've used the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 set to f/11 as well as a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI (with adapter of course) set to f/8 with the setup. Both work very well; the latter has incredible detail resolution and a very flat field. It's a bit bulky but does fit in the BEOON, and the focusing mount on the Micro-Nikkor allows for very very precise focus adjustment. 

[oldwino]

I'm considering going this route and am looking for a BEOON. What light source are you all using? Light box or flash or..?

[ramarren]

I use a medium-sized, flat panel light box. 

[Guest]

I'm using an old Logan Desk Top Lightbox that has a fluorescent tube: that is fine for B&W but for color I'd like to get an LED light box. However, so far I haven't found a specification of color temperature on the LED light box I've seen online. Presumably it would be good to get one with 6500K. Any suggestions?

 

_______________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[ramarren]

My flat panel lightbox is so old I don't think the company exists anymore, but it is color balanced for photographic work like a Solux task light. I believe that is 5400°K. 

 

There are bunches of LED light boxes available at B&H now, at double the size for less than half what I paid for this one... 

[philipus]

I have a Huion light table (a tracing table I believe) which, according to the online specs is 6000-7000k. I don't use it (yet) for digitizing so I can't comment on whether it would be good for that. Having read the BEEON thread over at RFF (which is where I heard of this brand) I believe some are happy with it. I use mine instead of a lightbox.

 

 

I'm using an old Logan Desk Top Lightbox that has a fluorescent tube: that is fine for B&W but for color I'd like to get an LED light box. However, so far I haven't found a specification of color temperature on the LED light box I've seen online. Presumably it would be good to get one with 6500K. Any suggestions?

 

_______________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine