Edge to edge sharp L macro lens

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It's counterintuitive, but all lenses have the same theoretical depth of field at 1:1. Depth of field is based on magnification. This makes sense when you consider that a wide angle has lower magnification than a telephoto, and therefore more depth of field.

In other words, the focal length of a macro lens should be selected based on working distance. The angle of view doesn't matter if you are copying flat art.

Thank you! I appreciate the knowledge and correction.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

15 hours ago, SrMi said:

Thanks for the clarification with the lenses.

However, I believe 20MP is plenty of resolution for a 35mm negative, though you can use HR mode for scanning. For example, the V850 has an effective resolution of 2300ppi (3200x2100 pixels, 6.7MP) when set at 4800ppi and using Epson's scan software (link).

I am not sure I believe all that. Not that I discount it completely, but I think there are so many variables at play that it is difficult to establish any hard and fast rules. Also, the Epson flatbeds are particularly ill-suited to 35mm film. Their results for 35mm are not good, and they only really seem to come into their own for 4x5. My primary scanner for my lab is a Hasselblad X5, which bends the film such that it is more or less perfectly flat as it passes the CCD line. It is also using a purpose built Rodenstock APO lens designed for flat field 1 to 1 work. The max resolution of this scanner is 8000dpi for 35mm film. In my tests, the practical limit of information in a 35mm negative is around 4000-5000 dpi, depending on the film stock, excluding technical films like TechPan or Adox CMSII. So if you have a Neopan Acros, TMax 100 or Delta 100, Pan F etc. I have found this to be the case both on the X5 and 646, as well as the Eversmart Supreme, which is similarly regarded as one of the best scanners ever made. Those films are maxing out around 4000-5000 dpi. At 5000 dpi, that means 33.5megapixels. Not all of that is "resolution", but that is closer to what is required to get everything out of the film. After that you are just increasing the size of the file, without resolving anything more...not even the grain. In any system you are unlikely to get 100% fidelity, so in most cases you need a higher capture resolution than that to maximize the results. I am not talking here about 33.5 megapixels being required to get a decent scan, only to say that you can extract a lot more information out of film than 6.7mp. Film itself is also rather tricky to pin down as having a single "resolution". In other words, a film might no longer be able to reveal more information on a contrast based test chart (i.e. you can no longer distinguish between two lines in a line pair per mm test), but it might show additional tonal information. Unlike digital, films loss of information is gradual, and there is information to be had for a while longer than there is in digital where the file simply stops resolving. Determining an actual usable extinction resolution is a matter of taste and also of the quality of the reproduction system.

Long story short, as someone who has scanned professionally for fifteen years with Imacon and Hasselblad scanners, as well as used drum scanners, Eversmart Supreme scanners, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, Epson V850 and also the SL2 with macro lenses, I would say that the worst results from 35mm have been from the Epson, and the second worst from the SL2. Dedicated film scanners are still better if you have a decent scanner and good technique. The reason for this is more that it is extremely difficult to truly maximize the image quality you get out of a camera based scan. Usually the biggest problems are film flatness, vibration, flare, lens quality and being perfectly plane-parallel. Camera based scanning has advantages in speed and color/dynamic range in certain cases, but getting them to equal the resolution of a dedicated film scanner is very difficult if that scanner has been well designed. Perfecting the removal of the orange mask is also tricky, even with a program like Color Perfect or Negative Lab Pro. The biggest problem with the Epsons are their terrible negative carriers, cheap build and low quality optics with no AF capabilities. They are not the worst thing you can use to scan, but they are really a consumer product that do not belong in the position they currently have in a lot of professional/semi-professional photographers' studios. They are there because they are the only practical option right now, as most pro scanners are decades old at this point and do not work on modern computers. Camera based scanning has an exponential quality curve. That is that it is very easy to get results good enough for the web or small prints, but the greater the resolution requirement, the more and more difficult it gets. Even with extremely good equipment and pixel shift up to 187mp, I still have not beaten the results I get out of the X5...

[SrMi]

48 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure I believe all that. Not that I discount it completely, but I think there are so many variables at play that it is difficult to establish any hard and fast rules. Also, the Epson flatbeds are particularly ill-suited to 35mm film. Their results for 35mm are not good, and they only really seem to come into their own for 4x5. My primary scanner for my lab is a Hasselblad X5, which bends the film such that it is more or less perfectly flat as it passes the CCD line. It is also using a purpose built Rodenstock APO lens designed for flat field 1 to 1 work. The max resolution of this scanner is 8000dpi for 35mm film. In my tests, the practical limit of information in a 35mm negative is around 4000-5000 dpi, depending on the film stock, excluding technical films like TechPan or Adox CMSII. So if you have a Neopan Acros, TMax 100 or Delta 100, Pan F etc. I have found this to be the case both on the X5 and 646, as well as the Eversmart Supreme, which is similarly regarded as one of the best scanners ever made. Those films are maxing out around 4000-5000 dpi. At 5000 dpi, that means 33.5megapixels. Not all of that is "resolution", but that is closer to what is required to get everything out of the film. After that you are just increasing the size of the file, without resolving anything more...not even the grain. In any system you are unlikely to get 100% fidelity, so in most cases you need a higher capture resolution than that to maximize the results. I am not talking here about 33.5 megapixels being required to get a decent scan, only to say that you can extract a lot more information out of film than 6.7mp. Film itself is also rather tricky to pin down as having a single "resolution". In other words, a film might no longer be able to reveal more information on a contrast based test chart (i.e. you can no longer distinguish between two lines in a line pair per mm test), but it might show additional tonal information. Unlike digital, films loss of information is gradual, and there is information to be had for a while longer than there is in digital where the file simply stops resolving. Determining an actual usable extinction resolution is a matter of taste and also of the quality of the reproduction system.

Long story short, as someone who has scanned professionally for fifteen years with Imacon and Hasselblad scanners, as well as used drum scanners, Eversmart Supreme scanners, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, Epson V850 and also the SL2 with macro lenses, I would say that the worst results from 35mm have been from the Epson, and the second worst from the SL2. Dedicated film scanners are still better if you have a decent scanner and good technique. The reason for this is more that it is extremely difficult to truly maximize the image quality you get out of a camera based scan. Usually the biggest problems are film flatness, vibration, flare, lens quality and being perfectly plane-parallel. Camera based scanning has advantages in speed and color/dynamic range in certain cases, but getting them to equal the resolution of a dedicated film scanner is very difficult if that scanner has been well designed. Perfecting the removal of the orange mask is also tricky, even with a program like Color Perfect or Negative Lab Pro. The biggest problem with the Epsons are their terrible negative carriers, cheap build and low quality optics with no AF capabilities. They are not the worst thing you can use to scan, but they are really a consumer product that do not belong in the position they currently have in a lot of professional/semi-professional photographers' studios. They are there because they are the only practical option right now, as most pro scanners are decades old at this point and do not work on modern computers. Camera based scanning has an exponential quality curve. That is that it is very easy to get results good enough for the web or small prints, but the greater the resolution requirement, the more and more difficult it gets. Even with extremely good equipment and pixel shift up to 187mp, I still have not beaten the results I get out of the X5...

Thank you for the very detailed and helpful answer. It is a pity that one cannot buy a good new scanner any longer. I am using V850 mainly for my 6x6 negatives. The results are OK but could be better. The only practical alternative is scanning with a camera. 

[Stuart Richardson]

53 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Thank you for the very detailed and helpful answer. It is a pity that one cannot buy a good new scanner any longer. I am using V850 mainly for my 6x6 negatives. The results are OK but could be better. The only practical alternative is scanning with a camera. 

I agree, and I sympathize! My hope is that someone will either introduce a new pro scanner, or a much better plug and play solution for camera based scans. Negative  Supply has made a good start, but it is still a tricky issue. One of the biggest issues is that single line scanners still have an advantage in that they can use their full resolution for whatever length the film is, whereas single capture is always limited to the area of the sensor. This is why scanbacks for 4x5 could output 400+ megapixels 20 years ago. While it might not be important for 35mm, it gets harder and harder to extract all the resolution out of the film as the format size goes up. 47mp for 35mm is going to give you great results, but 47mp for 4x5 or 8x10 and you are leaving tons of resolution on the table vs a good scanner. 
Anyway, sorry if I have taken this off topic! 

[hansvons]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:49 AM, hirohhhh said:

I noticed that the negatives are not perfectly sharp edge to edge, even when shooting F11, and making sure that the film is perfectly parallel (tested with mirror and levels on both surface and the camera).

I have the same issue when using an Elmarit 60mm R Macro lens with a 5mm macro extension. The corners are soft, even at f 8-11. I pulled back the camera a tad, roughly to an S35mm crop, which provides me approx 4K of resolution with the SL2-S. Now, the corners are sharp. For ISO 400, B&W negatives, 4K resolution fits snugly. If I were shooting with modern Kodak cine stock, I'd like more resolution. 

I was on the fence about buying the Laowa 90mm macro. But now, that's off the table

[hansvons]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

but I think there are so many variables at play that it is difficult to establish any hard and fast rules

Agree. I find scanning negs with a camera ok. But it means that some editing work has to be done. One is sharp grain, which pays into overall sharpness and resolution. I use C1 for conversion to positive and all other editings, but I do the sharpening with Topaz Gigapixel, which is initially meant to blow up low-resolution images. But you can set magnifying to 1. Thus, the application tries to amplify the resolution without magnifying the image. The result is for my eyes close to what I get with a ten years old drum scanner, even better in the end, as I have a flexible DNG and not a baked-in Tiff file. YMMV vary, of course, as Stuart pointed up elaborately. 

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure I believe all that. Not that I discount it completely, but I think there are so many variables at play that it is difficult to establish any hard and fast rules. Also, the Epson flatbeds are particularly ill-suited to 35mm film. Their results for 35mm are not good, and they only really seem to come into their own for 4x5. My primary scanner for my lab is a Hasselblad X5, which bends the film such that it is more or less perfectly flat as it passes the CCD line. It is also using a purpose built Rodenstock APO lens designed for flat field 1 to 1 work. The max resolution of this scanner is 8000dpi for 35mm film. In my tests, the practical limit of information in a 35mm negative is around 4000-5000 dpi, depending on the film stock, excluding technical films like TechPan or Adox CMSII. So if you have a Neopan Acros, TMax 100 or Delta 100, Pan F etc. I have found this to be the case both on the X5 and 646, as well as the Eversmart Supreme, which is similarly regarded as one of the best scanners ever made. Those films are maxing out around 4000-5000 dpi. At 5000 dpi, that means 33.5megapixels. Not all of that is "resolution", but that is closer to what is required to get everything out of the film. After that you are just increasing the size of the file, without resolving anything more...not even the grain. In any system you are unlikely to get 100% fidelity, so in most cases you need a higher capture resolution than that to maximize the results. I am not talking here about 33.5 megapixels being required to get a decent scan, only to say that you can extract a lot more information out of film than 6.7mp. Film itself is also rather tricky to pin down as having a single "resolution". In other words, a film might no longer be able to reveal more information on a contrast based test chart (i.e. you can no longer distinguish between two lines in a line pair per mm test), but it might show additional tonal information. Unlike digital, films loss of information is gradual, and there is information to be had for a while longer than there is in digital where the file simply stops resolving. Determining an actual usable extinction resolution is a matter of taste and also of the quality of the reproduction system.

Long story short, as someone who has scanned professionally for fifteen years with Imacon and Hasselblad scanners, as well as used drum scanners, Eversmart Supreme scanners, Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, Epson V850 and also the SL2 with macro lenses, I would say that the worst results from 35mm have been from the Epson, and the second worst from the SL2. Dedicated film scanners are still better if you have a decent scanner and good technique. The reason for this is more that it is extremely difficult to truly maximize the image quality you get out of a camera based scan. Usually the biggest problems are film flatness, vibration, flare, lens quality and being perfectly plane-parallel. Camera based scanning has advantages in speed and color/dynamic range in certain cases, but getting them to equal the resolution of a dedicated film scanner is very difficult if that scanner has been well designed. Perfecting the removal of the orange mask is also tricky, even with a program like Color Perfect or Negative Lab Pro. The biggest problem with the Epsons are their terrible negative carriers, cheap build and low quality optics with no AF capabilities. They are not the worst thing you can use to scan, but they are really a consumer product that do not belong in the position they currently have in a lot of professional/semi-professional photographers' studios. They are there because they are the only practical option right now, as most pro scanners are decades old at this point and do not work on modern computers. Camera based scanning has an exponential quality curve. That is that it is very easy to get results good enough for the web or small prints, but the greater the resolution requirement, the more and more difficult it gets. Even with extremely good equipment and pixel shift up to 187mp, I still have not beaten the results I get out of the X5...

I'd love to see the comparison. I see where my setup with SL2 in multishot lacks, but I'd say I'm at 90-95% there. I believe that dedicated scanner can gain that 5-10%, but what I would know, I never used that scanner, so would really, really love to see the comparison of the same negative scanned with SL2 in Multishot and X5 or Imacon or any other dedicated scanner.

Edited January 28, 2023 by hirohhhh

[Stuart Richardson]

14 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

I'd love to see the comparison. I see where my setup with SL2 in multishot lacks, but I'd say I'm at 90-95% there. I believe that dedicated scanner can gain that 5-10%, but what I would know, I never used that scanner, so would really, really love to see the comparison of the same negative scanned with SL2 in Multishot and X5 or Imacon or any other dedicated scanner.

I will try to dig something up. The challenge right now is that my X5 is broken and waiting for a motherboard replacement, but I will see if I can find one I have already scanned at full resolution. I rarely shoot 35mm, so it might have to be medium format.

[Stuart Richardson]

In the past days I decided to bite the bullet and get the Sigma 105mm. It was available here at a reasonable price, and I do not have any 1 to 1 macro lenses, so I decided to get it. In my limited testing so far, I think it is exceptional. I find very little difference between it and the Leica 120mm APO Macro Summarit S, other than the Leica being slightly faster, slightly longer, and slightly different in color reproduction. I do think the Leica is ever so slightly more pleasing, but it is not something that would be identifiable other then very minutely in a side by side comparison. For those looking for a macro lens for the SL2, I would have no reservations recommending the Sigma. It is also quite a convenient size and weight, at least compared to the Leica.

Anyway, I do not have my X5 back yet, and I could not find a negative at home that I had already scanned on the X5 (it has been out for 2 months now), so I just left the X5 out of this test. So I tested a piece of 6x7 on the Leica SL2 with multishift using the Leica Macro, Sigma Macro and Epson V850 at 6400dpi. I edited and sharpened the files (mostly the Epson, as it needs it so badly), and I am including them here. The overall impression is fairly similar, and in scouring them at 100%, the Sigma is the sharpest, but the Leica is slightly better in the corners. I think this is just as likely to be focus related as optically...for me it is a wash. The Epson is markedly softer than either camera scan, and this is I think due to the much inferior lenses it uses, and probably the mirror and platen glass. It is also probably due to the lack of focus. This was made using a glass holder that was tested and had the optimum height chosen. But it was not using a betterscan holder or wet mounting, etc.

For the film, I used a wooden Ries tripod with an arca cube, used the Kaiser light table, and shot at f5.6 with manual focus, multishot mode and the electronic shutter, with stabilization off (I know it is not used in multishot). For a film holder I used the X5 6x17 film holder and I made a cutout mask using a cardboard box to mask off as much of the lightbox as possible. I aligned the film and camera with a versalab parallel darkroom alignment laser.

The files are below:

Leica full image

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!

Sigma Full Image

Epson Full image

Leica crop

 

Sigma Crop

Scanner Crop

 

Once I get my X5 back, I will scan this film and update it. Overall I think the film came out best with the camera scans, but the camera scans do show a bit elevated shadows, which is likely from flare. I think this would be better if I did it in a completely dark room. I did it in fairly dim room in the afternoon, but it was not completely dark.

Anyway, I think the X5 would do slightly better, primarily because of the film transport mechanism which would keep the film 100% flat and in the plane of focus. But I guess we will see! I did not test 35mm...I think the SL2 would do better than the Epson there as well, but I think the X5 would walk away with that one, since it can keep things so flat and also scan at 8000dpi.

In order to view these, you will probably need to click through, as I suspect the embed will not give enough clarity to really tell much of a difference.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[Photoworks]

thanks for the test and the crops. I like shots of old cars like this.

Leica and sigma lenses are very nice from you images.
Sure the Epson looks much softer and the character or interpolation. It will probably do better at optical resolution, but then it is a much smaller file.

Looking at the 3 images together, I think the Leica has less contrast, what has some benefit in the smooth tone in shadows. The epson has color shift in the dark area and looses quickly in the shadows( something that I never liked about the Epson)

Probably it is processing colors settings.

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!

[SrMi]

13 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In the past days I decided to bite the bullet and get the Sigma 105mm. It was available here at a reasonable price, and I do not have any 1 to 1 macro lenses, so I decided to get it. In my limited testing so far, I think it is exceptional. I find very little difference between it and the Leica 120mm APO Macro Summarit S, other than the Leica being slightly faster, slightly longer, and slightly different in color reproduction. I do think the Leica is ever so slightly more pleasing, but it is not something that would be identifiable other then very minutely in a side by side comparison. For those looking for a macro lens for the SL2, I would have no reservations recommending the Sigma. It is also quite a convenient size and weight, at least compared to the Leica.

Anyway, I do not have my X5 back yet, and I could not find a negative at home that I had already scanned on the X5 (it has been out for 2 months now), so I just left the X5 out of this test. So I tested a piece of 6x7 on the Leica SL2 with multishift using the Leica Macro, Sigma Macro and Epson V850 at 6400dpi. I edited and sharpened the files (mostly the Epson, as it needs it so badly), and I am including them here. The overall impression is fairly similar, and in scouring them at 100%, the Sigma is the sharpest, but the Leica is slightly better in the corners. I think this is just as likely to be focus related as optically...for me it is a wash. The Epson is markedly softer than either camera scan, and this is I think due to the much inferior lenses it uses, and probably the mirror and platen glass. It is also probably due to the lack of focus. This was made using a glass holder that was tested and had the optimum height chosen. But it was not using a betterscan holder or wet mounting, etc.

For the film, I used a wooden Ries tripod with an arca cube, used the Kaiser light table, and shot at f5.6 with manual focus, multishot mode and the electronic shutter, with stabilization off (I know it is not used in multishot). For a film holder I used the X5 6x17 film holder and I made a cutout mask using a cardboard box to mask off as much of the lightbox as possible. I aligned the film and camera with a versalab parallel darkroom alignment laser.

The files are below:

Leica full image

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!

Sigma Full Image

Epson Full image

Leica crop

 

Sigma Crop

Scanner Crop

 

Once I get my X5 back, I will scan this film and update it. Overall I think the film came out best with the camera scans, but the camera scans do show a bit elevated shadows, which is likely from flare. I think this would be better if I did it in a completely dark room. I did it in fairly dim room in the afternoon, but it was not completely dark.

Anyway, I think the X5 would do slightly better, primarily because of the film transport mechanism which would keep the film 100% flat and in the plane of focus. But I guess we will see! I did not test 35mm...I think the SL2 would do better than the Epson there as well, but I think the X5 would walk away with that one, since it can keep things so flat and also scan at 8000dpi.

In order to view these, you will probably need to click through, as I suspect the embed will not give enough clarity to really tell much of a difference.

Which software did you use for Epson, Epson’s or Silverfast? AFAIK Silverfast produces better results.

Edited February 2, 2023 by SrMi

[hirohhhh]

Even from these compressed screenshots, you can clearly tell that camera scans are superior to the Epson, primarily sharpness and contrast. Can't see any difference between Leica and Sigma, but can't wait to see the performance of the X5!

[Stuart Richardson]

If you look at the black borders of the film, you can see that the camera based shots have a less black border. This is likely from flare in the optical system, or from the room lighting. This is an area where scanners are usually better, because they have a purpose built construction, whereas my setup was balancing a light box on a stool with a tripod over it in my home studio. Improving this is very possible, just requires that much more effort. Scanners are compact and efficient in this respect. This flare may be one of the things contributing to the extra shadow detail in the camera scans. I am not sure...but I think it is more likely just the SL2 has a much better sensor than the Epson. I don't mean to be too mean to the Epson...I would be kinder if they did not call it "Perfection" and "Pro" and market it as a pro scanner, which it clearly isn't. There are very simple things they could have done to make it superb, that they just did not bother to do. Most importantly, give it a focusing lens... I am sure they would have had little trouble making it into an XY scanner like the Kodak and Eversmart scanners, which if they did, would have meant vastly superior scan quality. I also would have preferred they make film holders that don't feel so incredibly cheap and flimsy, or even just making film holders that take a full 3 frame strip of 6x7. I teach scanning and printing at a local photography school where they use the Epsons, and invariably every single film holder is broken in some way. Anyway, I digress.

I will say color differences are a factor of that fact that I spent only about 5 or 10 minutes trying to match the scans. The Epson needed the most work. This was an easier test for the cameras though, as this is slide film, not color negative, so there was no color transformation required. As for the software, I used EpsonScan, which is what I normally use. I have not bothered yet with SilverFast or Vuescan, as the Epson is really solely an 8x10 and reflective scanner for me. For all my complaining, any of these photos would do very well in a small to medium sized print, and they would do well enough in large print (over 60x90cm), though you would see the differences. For most end users, this quality is more than enough. I work as an exhibition printer, however, so the better I can do, the better the shows look, so it is more important for me to push the envelope, especially as some works wind up in collections of the major museums or displayed internationally etc. I am still not at the point where I would trust either of these methods for that...especially for larger film like 4x5, where the camera method is more disadvantaged.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you look at the black borders of the film, you can see that the camera based shots have a less black border. This is likely from flare in the optical system, or from the room lighting. This is an area where scanners are usually better, because they have a purpose built construction, whereas my setup was balancing a light box on a stool with a tripod over it in my home studio. Improving this is very possible, just requires that much more effort. Scanners are compact and efficient in this respect. This flare may be one of the things contributing to the extra shadow detail in the camera scans. I am not sure...but I think it is more likely just the SL2 has a much better sensor than the Epson. I don't mean to be too mean to the Epson...I would be kinder if they did not call it "Perfection" and "Pro" and market it as a pro scanner, which it clearly isn't. There are very simple things they could have done to make it superb, that they just did not bother to do. Most importantly, give it a focusing lens... I am sure they would have had little trouble making it into an XY scanner like the Kodak and Eversmart scanners, which if they did, would have meant vastly superior scan quality. I also would have preferred they make film holders that don't feel so incredibly cheap and flimsy, or even just making film holders that take a full 3 frame strip of 6x7. I teach scanning and printing at a local photography school where they use the Epsons, and invariably every single film holder is broken in some way. Anyway, I digress.

I will say color differences are a factor of that fact that I spent only about 5 or 10 minutes trying to match the scans. The Epson needed the most work. This was an easier test for the cameras though, as this is slide film, not color negative, so there was no color transformation required. As for the software, I used EpsonScan, which is what I normally use. I have not bothered yet with SilverFast or Vuescan, as the Epson is really solely an 8x10 and reflective scanner for me. For all my complaining, any of these photos would do very well in a small to medium sized print, and they would do well enough in large print (over 60x90cm), though you would see the differences. For most end users, this quality is more than enough. I work as an exhibition printer, however, so the better I can do, the better the shows look, so it is more important for me to push the envelope, especially as some works wind up in collections of the major museums or displayed internationally etc. I am still not at the point where I would trust either of these methods for that...especially for larger film like 4x5, where the camera method is more disadvantaged.

Negative Supply is offering hoods to prevent the flare from room lighting:

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!

[hirohhhh]

9 hours ago, SrMi said:

Negative Supply is offering hoods to prevent the flare from room lighting:

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!

I have this identical setup, but didn't get the hood because it's released quite recently I'd say. Do you find it's worth?

[SrMi]

44 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

I have this identical setup, but didn't get the hood because it's released quite recently I'd say. Do you find it's worth?

I have no experience with it. However, I will probably get it.

[Stuart Richardson]

The hoods look like a good idea for that setup. If I used a Negative Supply setup, I would consider it. The price for the basic seems fair, but 99 dollars for 120...well, without seeing how it attaches, it does seem like kind of a lot. I can't help but thinking you could do something more or less the same by buying a 2L bottle of soda and cutting off the top and bottom and painting it black. Or really use any sort of light tight tube. It need not be 100% light tight...just good enough. I do not begrudge Negative Supply their money though...they seem to work hard to make everything high quality and it is just a few people providing quite a good product, so I would definitely lean towards supporting them. If I did not rely mainly on the X5, I would probably get their 8x10 setup, but at a few thousand dollars it is just too expensive for my needs right now.

I think the camera scanning product I am truly waiting for is something to automatically do stitching. That would solve the resolution problem for larger formats like 4x5 and 8x10, and then we could probably finally let go of the old pro flatbeds and drum scanners. Stitching based on the photoshop algorithms has not really worked well for me with film scanning...typically if there is an area of sky the programs get confused. If there was a dedicated program and a standardized stitching amount, I am sure it would work much better. I think that is what Kodak did with the Eversmart line in the 90s, so clearly it is technically possible, just no one seems to have done it with modern tech (other than a few very skilled DIYers).

[Photoworks]

I use flash instead of the Lightbox , no problem with the strongest window light or artificial. 1/250 f13 ISO 100

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The hoods look like a good idea for that setup. If I used a Negative Supply setup, I would consider it. The price for the basic seems fair, but 99 dollars for 120...well, without seeing how it attaches, it does seem like kind of a lot. I can't help but thinking you could do something more or less the same by buying a 2L bottle of soda and cutting off the top and bottom and painting it black. Or really use any sort of light tight tube. It need not be 100% light tight...just good enough. I do not begrudge Negative Supply their money though...they seem to work hard to make everything high quality and it is just a few people providing quite a good product, so I would definitely lean towards supporting them. If I did not rely mainly on the X5, I would probably get their 8x10 setup, but at a few thousand dollars it is just too expensive for my needs right now.

I think the camera scanning product I am truly waiting for is something to automatically do stitching. That would solve the resolution problem for larger formats like 4x5 and 8x10, and then we could probably finally let go of the old pro flatbeds and drum scanners. Stitching based on the photoshop algorithms has not really worked well for me with film scanning...typically if there is an area of sky the programs get confused. If there was a dedicated program and a standardized stitching amount, I am sure it would work much better. I think that is what Kodak did with the Eversmart line in the 90s, so clearly it is technically possible, just no one seems to have done it with modern tech (other than a few very skilled DIYers).

Which stitching program are you using?

I could imagine that focus bracketing could help with film flatness issues.

[hirohhhh]

10 hours ago, Photoworks said:

I use flash instead of the Lightbox , no problem with the strongest window light or artificial. 1/250 f13 ISO 100

Flash on the bottom of the negative? No flaring issues?