Camera scanning film (w/ tether)

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 28.5.2022 um 01:50 schrieb pippy:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

As it happens this snap of 'No. 26 Wentworth Street London E1' (and the whole roll) was shot on Tri-X back in 1985 on my M2 with the 35mm f3.5 Summaron / Yellow Filter...

I'm impressed from the quality that you got with TRI-X. No grain and sharp. Can you tell us how this was exposed and developed?

Normally I use my scanner for digitizing. But I made some tests with my M 240 that worked quite well also. Here an example in the german forum. With the scanner I mostly scan the negatives with about 7.3 megapixels. Sometimes with 17.3 mp. So the M 240 with it's 24 mp should be enough.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, fotomas said:

I'm impressed from the quality that you got with TRI-X. No grain and sharp. Can you tell us how this was exposed and developed?...

Ah! Apologies for the brain-fart; I made a mistake.

When I was shooting 'those' images I needed to change rolls. I've just double-checked and THAT one was shot on FP4. THIS one was shot on Tri-X;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Partly my confusion was because THIS image was 'scanned' using my DSLR whereas the other (obviously as it is shown in the post) was shot on the Monochrom and, post-prod, they were put into different folders. In order to level-up the playing field for comparison purposes I will need to 'scan' THIS negative using the same rig as used for the other as it's impossible to evaluate differences otherwise.

The films would have been exposed at 100ASA and 320ASA respectively. Notes on their negative sheets show they were processed in D76 diluted 1+5 for 17 mins @ 21 celsius. Camera was the M2 and although I had/have a Leicameter for it I'm pretty sure the exposure required would have been assessed using a Weston Euromaster; I didn't often like the bulk of the meter atop the body.

Apologies for the confusion / mix-up once more!

FWIW the reason I started to go down the 'scanning' route is that a few weeks ago I was in the same part of London and was amazed to see that many of the buildings which I had photographed back in 1985 - the one pictured here included - had been scheduled for demolition yet they were still standing! This is the Project to which I have alluded in this thread.

I went back to see how many of these sites I could find and, within one short walk / four streets, no fewer than nine out of the original eleven were extant. This is the 'duplicate' image I snapped the other week of the above building;

'Wentworth Dwellings' had a fairly notorious existence including being the spot where the first evidence of the fourth victim of 'Jack the Ripper' was discovered. The name-change was done in part to disassociate the place from its colourful past.

Philip.

Edited May 29, 2022 by pippy

[bdolzani]

Wow I changed my notification settings and didn't see all these responses! I just scanned a roll this morning in fact and re-set it up to show my setup. I'm happy with it, I was just wondering if a tether would save even a few more minutes. I'll just keep it as-is.

Here's mine:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bdolzani]

Cardboard to block the light

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bdolzani]

I've shot so much less film this year, only a few rolls which is an extreme change in character for me. I'm awaiting a 246 today so we'll see how much film I keep shooting. At least I'm affirming my commitment to B&W.  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pippy]

Nice clean set-up.

As it happens I've been doing some more tests with the Visoflex III using both the MM and the MD and a few different lens choices t see what works best for me.. So far it seems that any difference in IQ between the bodies is so slight as to be unimportant. It could be that the lack of a Bayer Array in the Monnochrom makes up for any possible IQ loss to the larger sensor of the MD. It could also be that the CCD v's CMOS technology plays a part. I simply don't know but the Bottom Line AFAIC is that it makes such little difference which camera is used as to be of no importance whatsoever in terms of my requirements.

What DID surprise me slightly is that of all the lenses which I tried the clear winner was the 75mm f2.5 Summarit. No field-curvature; no barrel/pincushion distortion and great edge-definition. Lens(es) were set to f11 and min. focus. Cameras were set to Base ISO and 'Auto' shutter speed. I also made comparisons when converting the DNGs in post-prod as far as whether 'Auto' or 'Default' setting worked best and was slightly surprised to discover 'Auto' always provided more malleable 'virtual negatives' which were then further treated in Photoshop. Works well for me.

I've dug out my old light-box viewer to use as the light-source so the next task will be to work out a less Steam-Punk shooting rig!...

Philip.

[bdolzani]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, pippy said:

Nice clean set-up.

As it happens I've been doing some more tests with the Visoflex III using both the MM and the MD and a few different lens choices t see what works best for me.. So far it seems that any difference in IQ between the bodies is so slight as to be unimportant. It could be that the lack of a Bayer Array in the Monnochrom makes up for any possible IQ loss to the larger sensor of the MD. It could also be that the CCD v's CMOS technology plays a part. I simply don't know but the Bottom Line AFAIC is that it makes such little difference which camera is used as to be of no importance whatsoever in terms of my requirements.

What DID surprise me slightly is that of all the lenses which I tried the clear winner was the 75mm f2.5 Summarit. No field-curvature; no barrel/pincushion distortion and great edge-definition. Lens(es) were set to f11 and min. focus. Cameras were set to Base ISO and 'Auto' shutter speed. I also made comparisons when converting the DNGs in post-prod as far as whether 'Auto' or 'Default' setting worked best and was slightly surprised to discover 'Auto' always provided more malleable 'virtual negatives' which were then further treated in Photoshop. Works well for me.

I've dug out my old light-box viewer to use as the light-source so the next task will be to work out a less Steam-Punk shooting rig!...

Philip.

Thanks Pippy. And no kidding, the 75 was best, and not being macro? And also, I'm best able to use about 1.1:1 ratio, can't seem to get to literally 1:1. Focus is always a little off, between zooming out a hair and raising/lowering the copy arm if I try for pure 1:1. No complaints about 1.1:1 though!

[pippy]

7 hours ago, bdolzani said:

...And no kidding, the 75 was best, and not being macro? And also, I'm best able to use about 1.1:1 ratio, can't seem to get to literally 1:1. Focus is always a little off, between zooming out a hair and raising/lowering the copy arm if I try for pure 1:1...

Hi bdolzani. Yes; it might be that this is one area where Peter Karbe's occasionally maligned 'clinical' lenses are the perfect optical design!

The 65mm f3.5 Elmar was designed primarily for use with the Visoflex - and, it follows, for close-up work - but it was designed over 60 years ago so perhaps there were limitations in lens-design and/or glass formulae back then which aren't an issue nowadays?

According to the Wiki entry the 65mm/Viso set-up gets down to 1:2.4. It would be possible to get down to 1:1.12 were I to acquire the OTRPO/16471 extension tube. I might pick one of the latter up out of interest.

The 75mm I'm using is the original version of this Summarit and focusses down to 0.9m. When mounted on to the Visoflex can get down to approx. 1:1.3 ratio. The newer version focusses down to 0.7m and might allow for 1:1 reproduction; I can't say as I've never tried. I did have a look at using a 90mm instead but mine all have a 1m min. focus and the result is that magnification with these lenses is lower than it is with the 75.

One advantage I've noticed with the Summarit over the Elmar is that there seems to be better control over fine-focussing. The Elmar / Viso III pairing can work from 1:2.4 all the way to infinity(!) but this means even fairly small changes of the focus-barrel alters focus quite noticeably whereas the focus mechanism of the Summarit changes plane of focus by far smaller increments. As the Viso turns the M into an SLR focus-acccuracy with the 75 is a relatively simple matter despite the notoriously mediocre ground-glass screen of the Viso.

To get back to a point raised in your OP...

I've tried (again) using the M Monochrom 'tethered' but, in my situation, the whole process start-to-finish is actually slower this way mainly due to the tethering software I have available to me (M9 Tether). I can understand that if there is an issue with dust on the neg. some time might be saved if this is noticed at the shooting stage but IMX it's quicker to shoot everything and simply clean-up any of the image(s) which need a bit of spotting in post-prod.

I'm still learning new stuff day by day!...

Philip.

[bdolzani]

@pippy yea sometimes too much tech is slower. If it's not instantaneous then there's no advantage.

For some strange reason all my scans of the roll yesterday were black. Don't know why. So I re-shot it last night, worked, took about 15 minutes for one 24 frame roll.

No complaints :-).

cheers and have fun with your Viso experiments! 

brian

[charlesphoto99]

Here's my setup, Nikon D850 (picked up used for about $1500) with a recent model Tokina 100mm macro (highly reviewed), Kaiser copy stand, Negative Supply holder, skier light box, and Lightroom with Negative Lab Pro. I tried the M10M with the Tokina, but any small image quality increases the M10M had over the D850 were entirely wiped away by ease of use of the Nikon compared to the M. With the Nikon I'm able to leave it setup as is indefinitely, the Tokina auto focus works a treat on neg curl (plus the lens now has creep due to being stored pointing down), ability to shoot to a server so as not having to mess with cards, use of mouse to trigger camera while tethered, ability to change battery without removing from stand, etc.  

I could see the SL2 with a 100mm APO R with it's optical 1:1 extender as possibly taking it to the next level, but $$ wise almost getting into used Imacon territory at that point, and a dedicated scanner, whilst slower in operation, still stands above camera scanning, esp when it comes to the amount of post. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[charlesphoto99]

FYI, the Skier box is about 3X the light output of the Kaiser light panel seen on the left. I'm able to shoot at iso 64, f18 (which seems optimal on the Tokina after some testing) and an average of 1/60, plus or minus a stop depending on the neg. With tethering in LR, one can control the shutter speed of the D850 with the mouse, making it easy to bracket if wanted. 

[bdolzani]

13 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

FYI, the Skier box is about 3X the light output of the Kaiser light panel seen on the left. I'm able to shoot at iso 64, f18 (which seems optimal on the Tokina after some testing) and an average of 1/60, plus or minus a stop depending on the neg. With tethering in LR, one can control the shutter speed of the D850 with the mouse, making it easy to bracket if wanted. 

Very cool setup, thanks for sharing! I too ponder about just getting a Nikon DSLR in the $7-800 range (D750, etc) to match the Macro AF lens and just keep it set up, barring any random use with my Nikon 80-400mm for birds.(right now I only have an F100 film body).

Couple questions:

So you have the lens touching the film holder? I have about 6 inches between my lens and the neg.

The Negative Supply Holder: I see they range from $99 to $329 - yours looks like the higher priced model. That's pretty expensive. But it seems better than my Digitaliza which you cannot run a whole roll through. I tried, it was very tight and the dust that gathered on the negs while falling off the side of my table was unbearable. I ended up cutting them into 6 frames and using it normally. 

Is yours a 120 holder? 

PS: In my re-shoot last night I used the new M246. Had to shoot at 320 ISO which brought the shutter down to 1/6. Which is pretty slow, however I'm using a cable release. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by bdolzani

[Stuart Richardson]

Just a quick note regarding people struggling with grain, from earlier in the thread. One thing I would look into would be the light source. Traditionally the reason that optical prints can have less apparent grain is because they are using a highly diffused light source. This minimizes shadows on the grain, which accentuates its appearance. A condensor enlarger or a point light source enlarger have direct light, which causes the appearance of greater grain. Many scanners have diffused light sources which means they have lower grain than more direct sources. I realize most will be using either a flash with a diffuser or a light table (all of which are diffused), but you might benefit from additional diffusion...at least if you are struggling with grain. That said, 35mm film is a very grainy medium to begin with, especially with 400 speed and higher film. We just are not used to it anymore as digital is so grainless...

[charlesphoto99]

5 hours ago, bdolzani said:

Very cool setup, thanks for sharing! I too ponder about just getting a Nikon DSLR in the $7-800 range (D750, etc) to match the Macro AF lens and just keep it set up, barring any random use with my Nikon 80-400mm for birds.(right now I only have an F100 film body).

Couple questions:

So you have the lens touching the film holder? I have about 6 inches between my lens and the neg.

The Negative Supply Holder: I see they range from $99 to $329 - yours looks like the higher priced model. That's pretty expensive. But it seems better than my Digitaliza which you cannot run a whole roll through. I tried, it was very tight and the dust that gathered on the negs while falling off the side of my table was unbearable. I ended up cutting them into 6 frames and using it normally. 

Is yours a 120 holder? 

PS: In my re-shoot last night I used the new M246. Had to shoot at 320 ISO which brought the shutter down to 1/6. Which is pretty slow, however I'm using a cable release. 

Sorry, busy scanning and printing! To answer your questions - the hood is not hitting the holder - that's just a cheap plastic hood I bought to ward off stray room light. It just sits loose between the holder and camera lens hood. Yes, it is the higher priced 35mm Negative Supply holder and works very well. I couldn't stomach the cost of their 120 holder, so tried one of their 'Basic' models and it stunk. For 120 I use the metal holder that came with the Skier box and it works fine. I suppose one could use an old enlarger holder of your choice, which are a dime a dozen on eBay or Craigslist. But the Neg Supply 35 holder is really well built and designed, and it is important to get a bit of height off the light box. I no longer shoot film, so haven't tried it with uncut but the winder works well for strips. I would imagine their $600 120 holder is equally well built but stay away from the basic model. 

[250swb]

6 hours ago, bdolzani said:

 

The Negative Supply Holder: I see they range from $99 to $329 - yours looks like the higher priced model. That's pretty expensive. But it seems better than my Digitaliza which you cannot run a whole roll through. I tried, it was very tight and the dust that gathered on the negs while falling off the side of my table was unbearable. I ended up cutting them into 6 frames and using it normally. 

 

Yes, cut the film into six frame lengths, so the lengths fit into a standard negative sheet. Have a can of compressed air to blow dust off. As for negative holders anybody who has had a darkroom will see the problem and see the solution. If not you can use a neg holder from an enlarger, or a scanner, or a Lomo Digtaliza, or make you own. You are only looking at keeping the negative flat and within a frame on your light tablet. The $99 to $329 range seems to me it should come with a butler that does it for you while ironing your socks.

Edited June 1, 2022 by 250swb

[charlesphoto99]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

The $99 to $329 range seems to me it should come with a butler that does it for you while ironing your socks.

Or have a red dot on it...

[Stuart Richardson]

Depending on how much you scan, a well designed holder is worth paying for. That goes double for a light source...

I am very tempted by the Negative Supply 8x10 light box (the biggest format I shoot), but it really is extremely pricey...I don't begrudge them it, but I am not quite there yet. For smaller formats I use my Flextight holders, but since I have the machine that goes with them, I only use camera based scanning for 8x10 or special tasks where the Hasselblad does not work well.  You can find versions from China on eBay, and they probably work just as well. If I were looking for a cheap film holder and did not already have a suitable one from an enlarger or scanner, I would pick one of those up, as they do a good job, especially for smaller formats. The magnetic material and lack of glass makes it quite easy, and if you shoot a bit stopped down, any curvature in the film is unlikely to be too problematic.

Regarding resolution, I would say that 16mp is a bit low for 35mm, if you want to get everything out of it...especially with a small sensor camera. But 24mp should be ok if you are at or near 1 to 1. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Camera based scanning is really great at getting fast, easy, good results if you get it tuned well. Just getting an image and conversion that will serve well on the web and do well in small to medium prints is not that difficult, especially for 35mm. Getting everything out of a 6x7cm frame, let alone 4x5 or 8x10 is quite a bit more difficult. In my testing, I would say that 3200dpi in the Hasselblad X5 can still outdo what I can get using the SL2 in a high resolution setup with the 120mm APO Macro S. That requires a bit of cropping, but even with 187mp in multishot mode, the X5 does a somewhat better scan. Multishot mode is not a true 187mp...I would estimate more like 80mp or so of true resolution instead of 47mp. I think to equal and surpass 6x7 and 4x5, the game really starts at 100+ megapixels. This is a different game than comparing the "resolution" of a film photo to a digital photo. A high resolution camera like the SL2 is likely to outresolve a 6x7 film photo, but that film photo has a lot of extra color and tonal information beyond the detail that it resolves, and that is where the high end scanners and higher megapixel bodies come into play. I am not a particular expert in the technical side of these issues, but I have been a scanning tech and printer for more than ten years now, having done a lot of scanning and very large mural printing from film scans done with all manner of techniques. The best film scans I have seen are still drum scans and scans from the Kodak Eversmart and iQ scanners, but the Hasslelblad and Imacon Scanners are a close second. I have yet to quite outdo them with camera scanning, but I suspect that the next gen of high resolution MF cameras will do it. I have not had a chance to use the GFX 100 for this work. It may well be there already with the right lens and light source...

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[charlesphoto99]

The Negative Supply stuff is made for production - if it's worth your time it's worth the cost. Otherwise plenty of perfect DIY and other brand solutions out there. 

[charlesphoto99]

The saddest gear day of my life was a couple of years ago when my Imacon 646 went bust, with no motherboard replacements in existence. They're not a Heidelberg, but you could do high quality work with them, and even sometimes even better if the drum scanner operator is poor. But man, that old tech is only getting older, and I shiver at gambling with another used Imacon, esp at the prices they're going for. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

I use an Essential Film Holder for 35mm scanning, which incorporates a diffuser layer, which therefore sits above the Kaiser Slimlite diffuser glass. It ought to be diffuse enough but I'll experiment further.