Is anyone doing slide duplication using the S?

[Arif]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will be grateful if you can share your set-up including lens and your advice/thoughts.

Thank you,
Arif

[Advertisement]

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

[John McMaster]

The 120mm macro is the obvious native choice, else an adapter (e.g. cheap Hasselblad V) and third party bellows/lens... You have not said what size transparencies, 35mm will be magnified (greater than 1:1) so would need bellows but a 10"x8" would be very different....

 

john

[Arif]

The 120mm macro is the obvious native choice, else an adapter (e.g. cheap Hasselblad V) and third party bellows/lens... You have not said what size transparencies, 35mm will be magnified (greater than 1:1) so would need bellows but a 10"x8" would be very different....

 

john

 

Thank you very much John.  Looking at archiving my 35 mm mainly and thought the scan time would be less versus renting a high end scanner.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Reproducing with the M9, the M240, the MM246 and the MM is my normal procedure for digitizing negs (B/W and color) and slides.

 

I use a light table (JUST or KAISER), the frames from an Epson Scanner (for holding the film) and a Novoflex reproduction column.

 

First, with the M9 and MM, I used a Visoflex 3 with a Elmar 65, later a bellows and a Focotar II 5.6/100 enlarging lens with the M240 and the MM246.

 

Masking the neg is of course necessary, but that can be easily done with pieces of black opaque cardboard. And the room must be dark, obviously :-).

 

The adjusting ('developing') of the files happens with LR, and is a very interesting experience: it's like enlarging, with exactly the same conceptual approach.

 

With the Leica S I would use this very same rig, but would invent a more solid way for fixing the column, because the S is much heavier.

 

I digitize only 6x9, 6x12, 4x5 and 8x10 films, because I don't have 35mm material from the film days, but there is nothing against employing this system with 35mm negs and slides. BTW: a friend of mine does stitching when he reproduces 4x5 negs: 4 files for each neg!

 

Advantages of this procedure: very quick capture time (I usually do a bracketing around f.11 and 1/15). With a scanner the scanning time can amount... minutes! This is the 1st reason for employing this approach.

 

[There is of course a time where it's impossible to save: the mounting of the film on the stage, and the retouching of dust and marks. But these times would be exactly the same with a scanner as the capturing device.]

 

I think, finally, that the output when I digitize by photographing is more 'photographic' then when I do it by scanning. In this point, which is very important, I am not alone: other photographers share this view with me. This is the 2nd reason for digitizing in this way.

 

Final thought: I would not rent a high end scanner, because I am not going to enlarge bigger than 100 x 150 cm, and this procedure gives enough quality for enlarging that big. As a way of example: two years ago I had a show in Madrid, and one picture was enlarged to 5 x 3 meters and placed on the outside, fixed to the wall. They used my file, made with the above described procedure (in those days the camera was a M9), and the quality was just fine. Later I will post a picture of this...

[Arif]

Dear Manolo,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer and share your knowledge. I think I understand your set-up and can try to duplicate it.  I will now check if there is a bellows system that I can use with the S-120.

 

Thank you very much again for your help,
Arif

[pgk]

BTW: a friend of mine does stitching when he reproduces 4x5 negs: 4 files for each neg!

I stitch 4 images when reproducing 35mm transparencies - the grain is resolved or at least is to some extent. I use a Canon EOS1DS Mk3 or Canon 5D Mk2 for this and an older type macro lens. Please note that near, internal focus (IF) macro lenses do not work as well when used at higher magnifications with extension tubes because they are not designed in a way that allows for this. I am not familiar with the S 120mm but if its IF then I'd go for something else like an earlier Zeiss macro design on a bellows to use with the S. Here's a link which explains: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/35319-i-love-my-m6/page-51 see posts 1011 & 1016.

[John McMaster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I will now check if there is a bellows system that I can use with the S-120.

 

There isn't, nothing connects with the S lenses other than an S camera (and eventually the SL adapter). Hasselblad or Mamiya bellows/tubes with a native lens and S adapter is the only way for bellows.

 

john

[Arif]

I stitch 4 images when reproducing 35mm transparencies - the grain is resolved or at least is to some extent. I use a Canon EOS1DS Mk3 or Canon 5D Mk2 for this and an older type macro lens. Please note that near, internal focus (IF) macro lenses do not work as well when used at higher magnifications with extension tubes because they are not designed in a way that allows for this. I am not familiar with the S 120mm but if its IF then I'd go for something else like an earlier Zeiss macro design on a bellows to use with the S. Here's a link which explains: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/35319-i-love-my-m6/page-51 see posts 1011 & 1016.

 

Thank you very much Paul.  Very helpful and I really like your underwater work.

[Arif]

 

I will now check if there is a bellows system that I can use with the S-120.

 

There isn't, nothing connects with the S lenses other than an S camera (and eventually the SL adapter). Hasselblad or Mamiya bellows/tubes with a native lens and S adapter is the only way for bellows.

 

john

 

Thank you John.  I found this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1213189-REG/novoflex_bp1_90_les_balpro_1_bellows_set.html but will not work with the 120 and your suggestion seems much more attractive from a price perspective. 

[pgk]

Hasselblad or Mamiya bellows/tubes with a native lens and S adapter is the only way for bellows.

 

 

The Contax 645 macro lens I had was extremely good and I suspect could be adapted too. If not, then the Hasselbad macro lens is also very good and can be bought for relatively little these days as can a Hasselbad bellows unit. Either would produce excellent results I would think. Alternatively it would be possible to use a high quality enlarging lens on a bellows - its just a matter of adapting a bellows unit to the S I would think and surely that is possible?

[Manolo Laguillo]

Dear Manolo,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer and share your knowledge. I think I understand your set-up and can try to duplicate it.  I will now check if there is a bellows system that I can use with the S-120.

 

Thank you very much again for your help,

Arif

 you are welcome!

[Manolo Laguillo]

In the Novoflex web page I've found this bellows and lens for Leica (S or M)

 

http://www.novoflex.com/de/produkte/makrofotografie--blitztechnik/balgengeraete/universal-balgengeraete-fuer-leica-neu/

[Arif]

Thank you very much Manolo and Paul.  I really appreciate your kind advice.

[menos I M6]

Ari, I have done some extensive digitizing of negatives (135 and 120) with digital cameras (mostly with Nikon DSLRs and later with a S2).

 

The key points have been mentioned in this thread already:

- good light table

- good negative support (good film holders are best)

- good camera support (ideally a report stand for easy alignment but a heavy tripod does as well)

- a suitable macro lens (certain macro lenses are better suited at small flat object reproduction than others, so has the Nikkor 60/2.8 AF-D lower distortion than it's later followup AF-S lens, hence the older sample was what I specifically bought for that purpose back then - for the Leica S my preferred macro lens is the Contax 645 120/4, an exceptional lens indeed

- remote release + MLU

- photoshop to deal with inversion, cropping, color matching / alternatively the excellent scanning software VueScan can deal with this very task as well (you choose your camera RAW files as input and use the VueScan software to invert and color match the film scans (even to a digital target)

 

Here is why I do not use this method any longer but scan my film now 100% with dedicated film scanners:

 

- time spend for scanning is NOT how long a scanner scans per frame but actually how much time YOU spent to setup to scan one frame

I spend less time, scanning one roll of 135 film at a really good quality (resolution, but especially contrast range) with my Konica Minolta 5400 scanners than setting up each frame with a DSLR and walking through the (mostly manual) process of preparing the files until they are ready for Lightroom.

With the Minolta scanners I prepare the entire roll, loading 4 film strips into film holders (I just bought another sample of the same scanner just to get a 5th film holder to further easy setup time), so I setup film for scanning only twice per roll (taking about 30sec per film holder).

I have setup Vuescan for a fully automatic run - the scanner spits out finished film holders (6 frames) and inserting a fresh film holder automatically triggers the scan of the next 6 frames (I saved setup profiles specific to scanner, film type and film frame size to save that work and only adjust further when scanning specific frames to improve certain things I didn't get during the batch scan).

I use the watched folder function in Lightroom to automatically import newly arriving scans and while scanning do work in Lightroom (be it on the roll just arriving or other things).

 

I do not spend my time "scanning film" while actually scanning film ;-)

 

With the DSLR method I was occupied during the entire process from frame 00 to frame 37 and spend much less unproductive time on the actual setup then working on my negatives.

There are other advantages of a dedicated scanner over the DSLR method (namely dynamic range due to the ability of multi-exposure scanning, better file quality for film types with heavy dyed film bases and the ease of dealing with color film through scanning software rather then doing this work manually).

 

This argument of course does not solve the lack of readily available current professional, affordable film scanners.

Best bet nowadays really is to buy a high end Konica/Nikon film scanner or rent an equivalent or even a Imacon/Hasselblad for a large job.

 

If I had to scan a lot of 135 film and would have the choice of buying a macro lens and needed support OR a VueScan copy and a second hand Konica Minolta 5400 I would no doubt choose the latter for ease and quality.

[pgk]

This argument of course does not solve the lack of readily available current professional, affordable film scanners.

 

If I had to scan a lot of 135 film and would have the choice of buying a macro lens and needed support OR a VueScan copy and a second hand Konica Minolta 5400 I would no doubt choose the latter for ease and quality.

 

The first problem is unlikely to go away unfortunately.

 

FWIW I have not duplicated negatives, only transparencies - and since its always individual transparencies on a bit of an ad hoc basis I would still go for the camera option. If you have a lot of negatives ALL of which need scanning then a scanner is much more time effective as you say. I suppose its horses for courses and the lack of new scanners and support will eventually force the issue I suppose.

[menos I M6]

The first problem is unlikely to go away unfortunately.

 

FWIW I have not duplicated negatives, only transparencies - and since its always individual transparencies on a bit of an ad hoc basis I would still go for the camera option. If you have a lot of negatives ALL of which need scanning then a scanner is much more time effective as you say. I suppose its horses for courses and the lack of new scanners and support will eventually force the issue I suppose.

 

Yes, the negative vs slide film question is a very important one to consider. In a nutshell - dealing with negative film is a lot easier when scanning traditionally, which was a big decision maker for me, as I prefer negative film if shooting color film.

I foresee my stock of Konica scanners will last me for a while to push the decision to shell out the big scanner money further ahead of me.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Ari, I have done some extensive digitizing of negatives (135 and 120) with digital cameras (mostly with Nikon DSLRs and later with a S2).

 

The key points have been mentioned in this thread already:

- good light table

- good negative support (good film holders are best)

- good camera support (ideally a report stand for easy alignment but a heavy tripod does as well)

- a suitable macro lens (certain macro lenses are better suited at small flat object reproduction than others, so has the Nikkor 60/2.8 AF-D lower distortion than it's later followup AF-S lens, hence the older sample was what I specifically bought for that purpose back then - for the Leica S my preferred macro lens is the Contax 645 120/4, an exceptional lens indeed

- remote release + MLU

- photoshop to deal with inversion, cropping, color matching / alternatively the excellent scanning software VueScan can deal with this very task as well (you choose your camera RAW files as input and use the VueScan software to invert and color match the film scans (even to a digital target)

 

Here is why I do not use this method any longer but scan my film now 100% with dedicated film scanners:

 

- time spend for scanning is NOT how long a scanner scans per frame but actually how much time YOU spent to setup to scan one frame

I spend less time, scanning one roll of 135 film at a really good quality (resolution, but especially contrast range) with my Konica Minolta 5400 scanners than setting up each frame with a DSLR and walking through the (mostly manual) process of preparing the files until they are ready for Lightroom.

With the Minolta scanners I prepare the entire roll, loading 4 film strips into film holders (I just bought another sample of the same scanner just to get a 5th film holder to further easy setup time), so I setup film for scanning only twice per roll (taking about 30sec per film holder).

I have setup Vuescan for a fully automatic run - the scanner spits out finished film holders (6 frames) and inserting a fresh film holder automatically triggers the scan of the next 6 frames (I saved setup profiles specific to scanner, film type and film frame size to save that work and only adjust further when scanning specific frames to improve certain things I didn't get during the batch scan).

I use the watched folder function in Lightroom to automatically import newly arriving scans and while scanning do work in Lightroom (be it on the roll just arriving or other things).

 

I do not spend my time "scanning film" while actually scanning film ;-)

 

With the DSLR method I was occupied during the entire process from frame 00 to frame 37 and spend much less unproductive time on the actual setup then working on my negatives.

There are other advantages of a dedicated scanner over the DSLR method (namely dynamic range due to the ability of multi-exposure scanning, better file quality for film types with heavy dyed film bases and the ease of dealing with color film through scanning software rather then doing this work manually).

 

This argument of course does not solve the lack of readily available current professional, affordable film scanners.

Best bet nowadays really is to buy a high end Konica/Nikon film scanner or rent an equivalent or even a Imacon/Hasselblad for a large job.

 

If I had to scan a lot of 135 film and would have the choice of buying a macro lens and needed support OR a VueScan copy and a second hand Konica Minolta 5400 I would no doubt choose the latter for ease and quality.

 

I agree with you, Menos: for digitizing 35 mm film, a scanner can be better than the 'repro method'.

I use this 'repro method' for 8x10, 4x5 and 120, and with these formats it is really much quicker, and even better in the end result.

[hoppyman]

 

I will now check if there is a bellows system that I can use with the S-120.

 

There isn't, nothing connects with the S lenses other than an S camera (and eventually the SL adapter). Hasselblad or Mamiya bellows/tubes with a native lens and S adapter is the only way for bellows.

 

john

 

Well the APO Macro 120 will go down to a reproduction ration of 1:2 of course. I haven't got around to trying any close up subjects with it. I have one photographer acquaintance who uses the system for museum quality images of antique coins for example. It would be interesting to experiment if the right support setup and illumination source were available.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[menos I M6]

There is no practical way currently to adapt bellows or extension tubes to Leica S lenses.

 

The easiest route for people who need further macro capabilities with the S currently is to adapt legacy lenses to the Leica S which by themselves support bellows and extension tubes.

 

The best performers are well known, the Carl Zeiss 120/4 APO-Makro likely the highest performing option next to Leica's own 120mm S lens.

These are among the most expensive options though (considering the Contax adapter, price for the lens itself and still high prices for accessories).

 

Other options are Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Pentax 67 etc …

I can report that the Contax 120/4 + Contax extension tubes is a marvelous piece of kit if more than 1:1 is needed (with full aperture function and EXIF data support by the S body).

 

 

Again, if 35mm film is the culprit to scan, a first rate Konica Minolta 5400 goes currently for less than half the cost for a Carl Zeiss 120/4 APO alone ;-) (not considering support, repro stand, lighting and fiddle time, not to mention a 1500 EUR adapter to even use the lens).

Even a (mediocre) Plustek 35mm scanner does the job admirably and can be had for the same lowly 200-400 EUR budget brand new with warranty.

[Manolo Laguillo]

There is no practical way currently to adapt bellows or extension tubes to Leica S lenses.

 

The easiest route for people who need further macro capabilities with the S currently is to adapt legacy lenses to the Leica S which by themselves support bellows and extension tubes.

 

The best performers are well known, the Carl Zeiss 120/4 APO-Makro likely the highest performing option next to Leica's own 120mm S lens.

These are among the most expensive options though (considering the Contax adapter, price for the lens itself and still high prices for accessories).

 

Other options are Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Pentax 67 etc …

I can report that the Contax 120/4 + Contax extension tubes is a marvelous piece of kit if more than 1:1 is needed (with full aperture function and EXIF data support by the S body).

 

 

Again, if 35mm film is the culprit to scan, a first rate Konica Minolta 5400 goes currently for less than half the cost for a Carl Zeiss 120/4 APO alone ;-) (not considering support, repro stand, lighting and fiddle time, not to mention a 1500 EUR adapter to even use the lens).

Even a (mediocre) Plustek 35mm scanner does the job admirably and can be had for the same lowly 200-400 EUR budget brand new with warranty.

 

That's common sense, Dirk, and a very good reasoning.

 

I would not reproduce my negs with the Leica S, never

 

I do it with the MM246, for which many options of doing macro exist (from the old Elmar 3.5/65, the one made for the Visoflex, to the 90 Macro, or a bellows + Focotar II 100). Being a much smaller and lighter camera than the S, the problems of supporting it are (more) easily to overcome.

 

If I would need more resolution with the MM246, then I would go the stitching route instead of using the S.