Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Scanners / Scanner Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-16-2016   #41
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
I love this setup and I'm very jealous - but it required quite a bit of construction work, and some specialized bits-and-pieces, so it's effectively disqualified from the thread.

But if you want you could do a kickstarter with a ready-made model which we could all buy
Not really that much specialised bits. Enlargers can be had for a bit of spare change if you don't just get them if you take the time to go get them. Whatever the result of this thread, you will always have to do something yourself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #42
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
Not really that much specialised bits. Enlargers can be had for a bit of spare change if you don't just get them if you take the time to go get them. Whatever the result of this thread, you will always have to do something yourself.
The idea is to come up with a generic setup, so that anyone reading the thread in the future can put together the optimum selection of parts by buying them off eBay, Amazon and maybe even their local flea market, and then attaching them together in a way that doesn't mess up the original intention in some unforeseen way.

I think many of the contributions to the thread so far have provided a lot of those answers: I like the thought of re-using Durst enlarger stands together with a camera-holding adapter, for instance, because not only does this involve no metalworking, it also recycles currently unwanted film-photographic equipment in the service of a new wave of film interest.

NEW EDIT: anyone following the thread from the start will see that one contributor has removed all of their posts and also some of my answers. I'm re-editing so that the entire thread makes more sense.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #43
Jason Sprenger
Registered User
 
Jason Sprenger is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 436
Given the constraints, a new title for the thread to something other than "definitive" seems to be in order.

Might I suggest "Constructing a low-cost DSLR film scanning setup".

In this way, folks looking to exceed flat-bed scanner results with copy stands and dedicated macro lenses won't confuse the setup definitive for your purpose with the ones definitive for their purpose.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #44
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Sprenger View Post
Given the constraints, a new title for the thread to something other than "definitive" seems to be in order.

Might I suggest "Constructing a low-cost DSLR film scanning setup".

In this way, folks looking to exceed flat-bed scanner results with copy stands and dedicated macro lenses won't confuse the setup definitive for your purpose with the ones definitive for their purpose.
NEW EDIT: anyone following the thread from the start will see that one contributor has removed all of their posts and also some of my answers. I'm re-editing so that the entire thread makes more sense.

Cost isn't supposed to be a factor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #45
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
I think this thread would be great if people could post 100% crops of their scans in the center and in the corners, so we can more accurately know what each persons' setup is capable of.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #46
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃıɹq looɟɹəʇƃıɹq
 
philipus's Avatar
 
philipus is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: '(,,,,)°l°
Posts: 1,029
What would be the best way to scan larger format film? Taking the example of 120 film, would it be to simply move the frame and shoot, say, four quadrants? Would the rig need to accommodate somehow precisely how these frames are shot to facilitate the stitching process in post?

I'm very much considering a digitizing setup for the future but would like it to deal very well with larger film formats too.

br
Philip
__________________
philipus.com

Camera position: In general as shown in Fig. H and J, but according to requirements other positions are also possible or more practical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #47
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,259
Personally, I'm trying to get scans that will provide inkjet-printed results either replicate, at the minimum, or improve on what I used to be able to do with silver. That's the only process I compare with. It that regard I've been completely satisfied with camera scanning. For me it has nothing to do with ultimate resolution and wall-size prints that I never will need to make, and everything to do with tonality and adequate sharpness for the job I intend to do.

Isn't that how it's supposed to be???
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #48
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by SayCheese View Post
....With an iPad as my backlight, i get exposure times of 0,5s at f/8 and Iso 100....Klaus
I see there are lightbox apps for the iPad. The surface does not seem very bright to me, but this solution is recommended across the web. Klaus, are you satisfied with this approach? Anyone else lighting this way?

John
__________________
tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #49
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
Sorry to see that this thread has fizzled out, as it could be the basis for a practical scanning solution — and the scanning issue certainly is an impediment for many that are considering coming back to shoot film.

A question: what dMax would this type of negative-copying solution have? I'm interested in a dMax of 4.2, which is that of the old Imacon Precision II/III.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2016   #50
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,259
When I shoot my B&W negs, they hardly fill half the histogram, so there's plenty of room for more contrast. I don't know what that means in terms of dMax.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2016   #51
SayCheese
Registered User
 
SayCheese's Avatar
 
SayCheese is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kiel, Germany
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwolf View Post
I see there are lightbox apps for the iPad. The surface does not seem very bright to me, but this solution is recommended across the web. Klaus, are you satisfied with this approach? Anyone else lighting this way?



John


Well, it works, somehow. But it's not the best way to do it, IMHO. First, you've got to turn the display to max. brightness and Auto-Luminance to "off". Then, you've got to maintain some distance between the iPad and the negative. Otherwise, you're going to see the dotmatrix of the display in the scans, even with a "retina" equiped device. Using a 90mm lens at f/8, 3-4cm are enough.
But anyway, the exposure times are way to long. I'm considering a lightpad or a speedlight for the next rebuild of my scanning setup.
K
__________________
--
It's only 135, but i like it.
flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/isayclick/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2016   #52
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by calebarchie View Post
Histograms mean little. Dmax and density range has got to do with the bit-depth of the A/D converter for the chip. A density range of 4.2 requires a 14-bit capable camera sensor.
Histograms mean a lot if they indicate that only the tiniest amount of the camera's dynamic range is being used.
__________________
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Mostly 35mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton
Large format: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton
What? You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2016   #53
quejai
Registered User
 
quejai is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 118
Try to use a brighter light source, that should widen the dynamic range seen by your dslr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2016   #54
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
Here is an article on digitalizing negatives using a camera versus scanning. It's undated but seems to have been written in 2014 or later:

https://luminous-landscape.com/artic...raScanning.pdf

One of the authors (Mark Segal) wrote an interesting Epson V850 review, comparing it to well-known film scanners. Looks like there are a good number of issues that need to be dealt with in digitalizing negatives with a camera, including how to invert B&W negatives to positives, how to deal with color negative film and how to deal with vibration. Another issue that I saw in an article on the BEOON is dust landing on the negative. Looks like digitalizing with a camera has a lot of issues that need to be dealt with that I had not realized, and therefore looks more complicated than I thought.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2016   #55
etn
Registered User
 
etn is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Team,

thank you for this interesting thread.
I have been reading this forum for quite a while, even registered, but hardly posted anything.
I am mostly a medium format shooter, although I have a Zeiss Ikon ZI which I use from time to time.

Here is my experience with DSLR scanning. Remember, I only express my opinions based on my
experience. Your experience and therefore your opinions may vary. Disclaimer: do not flame me
if you disagree

General considerations
DSLR scanning seems to be a valid method - have a look at this video, even pros use it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD12e8Gb_Jw

Obviously, those guys use a rig whose price is way above what mere mortals like us can afford.
But this convinced me that DSLR scanning, even if it does not reach the quality of Hasselblad X1
or drum scanning, is still a valid method - at least from some use: social media, small-size printing, etc.
In the rare occurrences when I want to print big I have the film scanned on a Hasselblad scanner.

Hardware
The ideal hardware is, in my opinion, a repro stand allowing to easily adjust the height of the camera
to maximize the usage of the sensor.

I have been successful with an LED light box from Kaiser, similar to this one:
http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/...ge.asp?nr=2450
(mine is an older model). Illumination is even. Do not use an iPad or a computer screen: you will
see the pixel structure on your scans!

I use a Nikon DSLR but I guess that anything can work here.
A flat field macro lens is a must. I use a Micro-Nikkon 60mm AF-D. Although I have owned mine for decades,
those are available used for a few hundred $/€. I use the camera in live view and autofocus on each scan
somewhere in the middle of the frame. I do an exposure bracketing from -2 to +2 EV and select
the best exposed frame in post. (Auto exposure with aperture-priority mode).
I use the lowest possible ISO (for maximum dynamic range) and the optimal aperture
of the lens e.g. f/8 or f/11. Under these conditions exposures range from 1/2s to a couple seconds
depending on the brightness of the scanned picture.

I realized that the lens is very sensitive to flare from light coming from outside the scanned frame.
I thus created a mask out of black cardboard. I also scan in a dimmed room to avoid light reflections
on the film.

Scanning glass-mounted slides is the easiest. I place them onto the light box, "black side" of the GEPE mount
facing up. This is the "anti-newton" side of the glass mount facing the screen when projecting the slides.
Scanned pics are left-right reversed but this is easily corrected in post.

Scanning unmounted film might be marginally trickier, you have to ensure film flatness.


Software / Post-processing
This is in my opinion the trickiest part of the game.

There is a special edition of Capture One which is dedicated (among others) to film scanning.
Dubbed "Capture One Cultural Heritage", it is the ideal software for this task with auto-crop,
auto-rotate, negative-to-positive conversion, etc.
It also costs $5000 so forget it. It would be great if Digital Transitions, the editor of the software,
would propose a reduced version without a few pro features for a few hundred $ maybe.
But if I were to fork out $5000, I'd rather put that money towards a Hasselblad X1.

Here is the workflow I use:
1) starting from the RAW files, I select the best exposed frame.
(in the future I plan to play with HDR. I am not there yet)
I use Capture One for this but here again, I guess any software will do.

2) For slides: crop, levels and curves adjustment, (left-right flip if necessary, see above).
Pretty straightforward. Do not forget to adjust the color temperature to the color temp of your light source!
(5300K in my case)

For BW negatives: similar process. Crop, invert using the levels tool, brightness/contrast/curves adjustment.
Quite straightforward too.

Color negatives: this is the tricky part. Color negative film has a color cast which cannot be removed
by just changing the color temperature.

The rest of the workflow description applies to color negatives only.

3) Export the best exposed frame from Capture One into a 16-bit TIFF. Ensure there is no clipping
in the histogram as this will have an influence on the color rendition.

4) I am developing a small Matlab script which does the following:
- open all TIFF files in a directory
- remove the color cast due to film die
- invert the picture
- perform histogram equalization
- save the resulting pictures as TIFF files.

The (commercial) Matlab software has great image processing functions. There are open-source alternatives (Scilab, Octave)
with similar functionality, so I guess it can be done with those too. My script is still under development but
it already brings usable results. Still a lot of work to be done here, and many ideas for improvement:
e.g. auto-crop/auto-rotate. Auto-detection of the color cast. Better automatic color correction etc.

5) A final adjustment is done in photoshop. The Auto Color feature does wonders here.


Hope this helps - let me know if you want further info!

Thanks
Etienne
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #56
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
Just received the Leitz BEOON stand from someone in Oz. Digitalizing this was is fast, of course; and the BEOON is smaller and lighter than I thought it would be — that makes it portable enough for me to take it on my nomadic trips to three continents each year. However, I right now, I'm using a Logan/flourescent light box. I find the focusing with the BEOON not that easy — does anyone know whether it would be easier with an LED light box?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #57
mikyor1
Registered User
 
mikyor1 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 68
My biggest question isn't the set up but how to remove that damn color cast. Drives me nuts getting color the way i want
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #58
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,637
I've read through the thread and my big question is how good can dslr scanning be? Can it match or exceed a Nikon 9000 and offer faster scanning, as well as providing security against the day the 9000 reaches its end of life?

Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #59
mikyor1
Registered User
 
mikyor1 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 68
^the detail results are great. There have been tests done vs drum scanners. The main issue is getting a good color profile. For color negatives. If there's not a easy plugging per emulsion, you'll be in post forever
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #60
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikyor1 View Post
My biggest question isn't the set up but how to remove that damn color cast. Drives me nuts getting color the way i want
Several methods of doing that are discussed at length in the article I linked in post #54 above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2016   #61
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojournerphoto View Post
I've read through the thread and my big question is how good can dslr scanning be? Can it match or exceed a Nikon 9000 and offer faster scanning, as well as providing security against the day the 9000 reaches its end of life?...
This is also discussed in the article I linked in post #58.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-26-2016   #62
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
This is also discussed in the article I linked in post #58.
Thanks, they seem to have got good.results. With a similar target to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2016   #63
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman View Post
Several methods of doing that are discussed at length in the article I linked in post #58 above.
Thanks for that article, which I'd missed.

As usual from LuLa, a very thorough discussion of several techniques, but I'm baffled why they don't discuss using ColorPerfect for the final color conversion? Especially as they use MakeTiff (ColorPerfect's 'sister' application) for creating linear tiff files.

I asked the developer of Iridient Raw Dev about outputting linear tiffs from that application (Mac-only) and apparently that's supported. Together with that application's support for Olympus Pen F's stitched sensor-shift Raws, I'm really wondering whether this may be the best way to go for DSLR scanning at the moment?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2016   #64
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
I've spent the greater part of two days trying to make good "scans" with a BEOON that I bought from someone in Oz. It looks good: spotless with no scratches. The BEOON is a simple and effective solution for camera digitalization — and can be inexpensive if you get a good deal. It's small, solid and solves the problem of having the sensor plane parallel to the plane of the negative or transparency being digitalized.

However, using an M-Monohrom, and trying two 50mm lenses (Summilux-50 pre-ASPH and the DR Summicron) and, following the Leitz instructions in setting the lens at f/11 and the focus at infinity, I've found it extremely difficult to hit focus as well as negatives that were scanned for me on an Epson V800 at a small lab in Chiang Mai. My feeling is that the BEOON would work much better for someone using a camera with live view.

As I can't spend more time on this, I'll probably decide to sell the BEOON, at the same low price at which I bought it. I'm not about to buy a a variety of the Sony A7 just to use with the BEOON.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #65
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
To bring this up to date: I figured out the problem with my focusing: I was stupidly setting the lens to f/11, which is the aperture the BEOON manual states should be used for copying; but, of course, the lens should be set to it's maximum aperture (f/2 for the DR Summicron) for focusing, and then stopped down — that gives perfect focus every time.

Incidentally, I find that the BEOON/MM/DR-Summicron gives substantially more dynamic range than the scan I have that was done with the Epson V800.

Still another problem, though: I found that, in the lower-left corner, there is an long, narrow, empty triangle, which I have to crop out. On LUF, someone found the same problem and stated that he could clearly see that it's due to the camera being not quite well aligned with the mask that frames the slide being copied.

That is likely to be the reason: I found that, while the BEOON I bought looks prefect, there is slight play when the camera is mounted — the tiniest amount of movement (minuscule rotation), clockwise and counter-clockwise. However, when I took two pictures at the extremes of this play, the cutoff triangle got larger in one direction of rotation, but it still remained, smaller, at the other direction of rotation.

I wonder whether there is any solution to this? If there's no solution, then it's clear that the BEOON is best when used with a camera that has live view.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-13-2016   #66
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Having been a long-time member here, I feel that I should share my DSLR setup...

First of all, here is a picture, click it to see a larger version:


Here are three more links to more pictures:
http://sonic.net/~drtebi/forums/rang...m/R0015534.jpg
http://sonic.net/~drtebi/forums/rang...m/R0015526.jpg
http://sonic.net/~drtebi/forums/rang...m/R0015528.jpg

I will try to keep it short, here the "strategy" I applied to this project:

Scanner (Camera & Lens):
Nikon D810. For the price and resolution it seemed the best choice at the time (2015). Lots of lens options available.
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-D Micro lens. Really great macro lens, especially for the (used) price.

Hardware
I am a sucker for the "business & industrial" section of eBay. There are many great deals to be found for super-solid hardware that can be used to build a stand.

The rod and base is a "Newport 14" Rod with 370 Clamp and 8x8x1" Platform". I believe this equipment is used in laser/optical test labs. It's very heavy and solid. I made a simple adapter plate out of aluminum that is screwed to the clamp, and on the other side I mounted a "Manfrotto Bogen camera tripod quick release clamp & 030-14 hexagonal plate". The clamp can be adjusted in height, just enough for a 6x7 1/4 (when I stitch 4 images).

The lightbox is a box found at our "Building Resources" place. More on that later.

The lightbox sits on a non-brandname X Y Table with 2" Adjustable Travel into either X/Y direction.

Light
This is where I went a bit off the beaten path. While many use light pads or LEDs of some sort, I decided to use Solux MR16 True Daylight halogen bulb (4700K). This decision was made after reading through a post on the landscape photography forum where the importance of CRI is heavily discussed. It convinced me, and I am getting fantastic colors (much better than my Minolta MF film scanner).

The difficulty however is, to diffuse the light correctly. I ordered a sample pack of diffusion panels from Acrylite, and played around until I had it fairly even. It was OK for slides, not so for negatives. However, I later learned how to completely compensate for the error through software, which is described here. I do pretty much the same with the PhotoShop alternative "PhotoLine". It takes quite a few extra steps, but I can do it pretty fast now.

Software
For "one-shot" scans, meaning I shoot a digital picture of the entire frame, I use PhotoLine to open the images and apply the light source adjustment technique

Then I use the ColorPerfect plugin to convert the image to a positive. I have tried many many other methods for the negative to positive conversion, and while it sometimes worked, I never got consistent results. ColorPerfect is the only software that works for me, every time.

Nevertheless, once I have the ColorPerfect converted image, I go back into Linux and run the free LightZone program (also available for Mac/Windows) for final editing. I love the workflow of this program, and am very happy with the results.

Examples
Rather then fill this post with large images, please take a look at these images on Flickr, which are all in "4K" resolution, so plenty to explore:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi...57653529648714
Those were all one-shot scans from Fuji Reala 100 film, shot with a Plaubel makina 670.

Here is a one-shot DSLR scan from a Provia 100F slide, same camera:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/19044135543/

I will follow up with a couple of links to full-size images, and also of 2×2 scans and how I stitch them...
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

DSLR Scans
Old 06-14-2016   #67
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
DSLR Scans

As promised, here a follow-up with full-size picture links and a description of my stitching method.

I start by taking four shots of a medium format negative or slide with the setup pictured in my previous post, but the camera moved in closer to the light table. The four shots are from the bottom left and right, then from the top left and right, with a slight overlapping.

I use the XY table to move the lightbox (which is mounted to the XY table) into the appropriate positions. After some experimentation, I realized that the stitching program actually works better when the overlapping is small, rather then large. I would estimate about 10% overlap works well, if not even less.


Further it is important to put the camera into manual mode. All four images need to be exposed exactly the same. If possible, I let the camera use autofocus, which in some situations is difficult (e.g. if there is only sky).

Otherwise the camera settings are: Aperture of 6.3, Kelvin white balance of 4700K (which corresponds to my halogen light bulb), matrix metering, 64 ISO, Image Quality is RAW, and the Image Area is set to 5:4, which works best for 4 "tiles".

The stitching program I use is called "Image Compositor". It's a free program, from Microsoft. I have tried the praised Hugin stitching program, but found it to be overly complicated; I had difficulties getting good results. Image Compositor on the other hand is extremely simple and straight-forward, with only a few setup options. Of the 20 stitches or so that I have made, there were only one or two where the stitching did not work. I highly recommend the program. Unfortunately it works only on Windows (I run Windows from within Linux... cumbersome, but works).

The one caveat with Image Compositor however is, that it does not stitch RAW files. Thus I have to convert the original scans to TIFF files first. It is best to simply open each negative in a RAW editor, and save the negative as a TIFF; in other words, it has not worked for me to convert the negative to a positive before stitching.

Once the TIFF files have been created, I open Image Compositor, click on "New Panorama from Images", import the four TIFF files, and let it do its magic. Then I export the stitched file as a TIFF. That's it, there are no other settings necessary.

Next I use PhotoLine to open the stitched image and convert it to a positive with ColorPerfect.

My final edits are then all done with LightZone.

I am very pleased with the results, although I wish the stitching could be done with RAW files—the colors of my one-shot images usually turn out better than the stitched images.

Examples
Here a few examples. All are in full-size, JPGs with "high quality", converted from the original TIFF file. They are not sharpened, only minor level adjustments have been made, and most have their dust specks removed.

Click on any of the small images to see the full-size image. The small images look blurry, not sure why... I promise the big ones don't!

These are all big files, so be prepared for that...


A creek in Nevada near Capitol Reef. Shot with Plaubel Makina 670 on Fuji Provia 100F, 4x1 DSLR Scan:



An occupied house in Berlin. If you look very closely, you can see a bit of a stitching error in the center of the image, right on the corner window of the first floor, 4x1 DSLR Scan:


Zeche Bochum, Germany. Once a steel factory, now a museum. I am from that area... Shot with Fujica GW670 on Ilford FP4 Plus, 4x1 DSLR Scan:



And finally a one-shot image, not a stitch. A San Francisco Victorian near Buena Vista Park. Shot with Fujica GW670 on Fuji Reala 100, one-time DSLR Scan:




I hope this helped some of you who are investigating the DSLR scanning route. In my opinion, it is totally worth it.

Please don't hesitate to ask questions or critizise my setup. I am always looking for improvements.

And please share your own experience and DSLR scans.
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2016   #68
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Thanks so much for the excellent posts! Exactly what I hoped for when I started the thread. And really interesting to take a close look at the large images - get a much better idea of what's possible with this sort of setup.

I don't have an enormous amount to comment on just yet - I'm curious about the micro-adjustments you can make with the clamps and base - but otherwise I have a couple questions about the images, which are really detailed and nice.

1. I noticed there's some texture in the sky of the Berlin image - it's most visible at the extreme left side. Is this something that's showing through from the light-table underneath? Could it be avoided by a diffusing glass of some sort, or by increasing the distance under the negative?
2. The Berlin image also has some chromatic aberration where the building meets the sky. Do you think that's from the original shot? (poss a stupid question).

Very, very nice and detailed explanation of your setup! Thanks for sharing!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2016   #69
blacksquare
Registered User
 
blacksquare is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 19
DrTebi: for what purposes you need such big "scans"?
I abandoned this method when I realized that I need scans only for preview and web presentation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2016   #70
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,997
"Well, if you use a enlarger column and base board, chances are that they came with a free enlarger head - a very high quality light source for exactly the right purpose."

That's pretty much the long and the short of it. This is not a scan vs enlarger argument either, it's just that if someone wants to make things simple and get fantastic results, use that enlarger to make beautiful fiber prints. If you're not making prints for some odd reason, and only doing web posting, any low line scanner will work fine. I used a $40 Epson 2450 flatbed for many, many years before I went totally darkroom. From 4x5 down to 6 x 4.5 they're incredibly good, and even 35mm negs can be used very effectively for digital web sourcing or printing. There are lots of existing examples on the web of high quality scans from this old scanner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2016   #71
Nowhereman
-
 
Nowhereman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 232
While admiring DrTebi's setup, my solution is to use an essentially "off-the-shelf" setup, the sturdy Leitz BEOON copy stand for M-Mount cameras (pictured in post# 21 above). 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 annually 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 M-Monochrom. 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 (i.e., looks like very close to 4.2 dynamic range). The maximum resolution on this Imacon is 6300 dpi and takes 15 minutes per scan: the resolution 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 is no deterioration from diffraction in going from f/8 to f/11 with this lens when used as a macro on the BEOON. Then, I tried 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 I'm scanning with the Focotar 2 at f/8. Focusing the BEOON is easier at f/2 with 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 set the M-Monochrom or M9 to "Mass Storage USB Connection), and connect the camera with a USB cable to the Mac: this shows the SD card on the Mac desktop; then I simply drag the DNG files to a folder, and open and invert the Images in Photoshop; then save positive TIFF images 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.

Below are two Tri-X pictures at ISO400 with stand development in 100:1 Rodinal for one hour. "scanned" with the Focortar 2.




Chiang Mai





Chiang Mai


_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-14-2016   #72
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksquare View Post
DrTebi: for what purposes you need such big "scans"?
I abandoned this method when I realized that I need scans only for preview and web presentation.
I've been testing slightly bigger prints and would like to have the possibility of some very large prints in the future. I'd say that's the main use-case for this sort of setup - or at least one of them.
Others may also have other needs - I think it's a mistake to assume that everyone has the same end result in mind.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2016   #73
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
I've been testing slightly bigger prints and would like to have the possibility of some very large prints in the future. I'd say that's the main use-case for this sort of setup - or at least one of them.
Others may also have other needs - I think it's a mistake to assume that everyone has the same end result in mind.
Yes, that is exactly one answer to the question why I scan at such high resolution.

But the other reason is, that I have a "4K" monitor since a few years now. It's actually the first one that was ever produced, an old IBM T221, a dinosaur today, but with an amazing 3840 x 2400 resolution. At that resolution you will definitely see the differences. I resize and sharpen the scans to fit this resolution, which gives me great on-screen images.

But even on the "Retina" screen of a Macbook a higher resolution makes a difference.

I really recommend any photographer to at least try out a high resolution screen to look at your photos, you will be amazed... (maybe just bring a USB stick to an apple store and try it there ☺).

And higher resolution screens have started to come to the market already, like the 5K screen (5120×2880) of the iMac or Dell monitor.

I have made many many comparisons of one-shot and 2×2 stitches, and I concluded that it is in most cases really worth it to scan at such a high resolution, even if you will "only" look at the final images on a 4K screen. My D810 does a much better job capturing detail in the stitched images... it seems to me, that the 36 MP are not enough to get out everything from a medium format slide or negative (considering all other factors that may influence resolution).
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2016   #74
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Thanks so much for the excellent posts! Exactly what I hoped for when I started the thread. And really interesting to take a close look at the large images - get a much better idea of what's possible with this sort of setup.

I don't have an enormous amount to comment on just yet - I'm curious about the micro-adjustments you can make with the clamps and base - but otherwise I have a couple questions about the images, which are really detailed and nice.

1. I noticed there's some texture in the sky of the Berlin image - it's most visible at the extreme left side. Is this something that's showing through from the light-table underneath? Could it be avoided by a diffusing glass of some sort, or by increasing the distance under the negative?
2. The Berlin image also has some chromatic aberration where the building meets the sky. Do you think that's from the original shot? (poss a stupid question).

Very, very nice and detailed explanation of your setup! Thanks for sharing!
Well, you have caught me!

The Berlin image has not been "dusted". But I thought I upload it as is, to give you an idea of how much dust will show up.

I probably did not put a lot of effort into dusting the slide before the scanning either. But let me assure you that you can never get rid of all dust before scanning. Removing dust spots in post-processing is after all the most time-consuming part of the DSLR scanning.

Regarding the chromatic aberration, I believe this was an earlier scan, where I did not apply the light source adjustment yet. Here is the same image but scanned with my Minolta Dimage Multi Pro:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/8524444038

The sky does look a lot better there... well, it's a learning curve, I am sure my setup could still benefit from many improvements!
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2016   #75
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
I noticed there's some texture in the sky of the Berlin image - it's most visible at the extreme left side.
I just realized you were not talking about the dust... I am not sure where the texture that you see on the left side is coming from. As I mentioned before, it was an earlier scan; I also believe that this slide was already mounted, so it could actually be a reflection from the edge of the slide mount.

I have not noticed this problem in other scans of mine, so I don't think it is a "typical" problem with DSLR scanning, but was rather a "beginners error" on my part.
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2016   #76
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTebi View Post
I just realized you were not talking about the dust... I am not sure where the texture that you see on the left side is coming from. As I mentioned before, it was an earlier scan; I also believe that this slide was already mounted, so it could actually be a reflection from the edge of the slide mount.

I have not noticed this problem in other scans of mine, so I don't think it is a "typical" problem with DSLR scanning, but was rather a "beginners error" on my part.
Cool. I hope you didn't interpret my questions as criticisms! I really like the quality of the captures, and the amount of detail is stunning. I just want to isolate the strengths and weaknesses of the technique compared to conventional film-scanning.

Thanks again for the detailed and really informative posts!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2016   #77
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Cool. I hope you didn't interpret my questions as criticisms! I really like the quality of the captures, and the amount of detail is stunning. I just want to isolate the strengths and weaknesses of the technique compared to conventional film-scanning.

Thanks again for the detailed and really informative posts!
I interpreted it as constructive criticism, which I appreciate very much, how else can I learn what I need to improve...

I have done another scan today and paid attention to that texture problem—it did not re-appear. I assume it was a reflection from the slide mount.

By the way, you also asked about the micro adjustment dials. These allow me to move the lightbox (on which the negative or slide is mounted) from right to left, and forward/backward, or X Y as they say in the fine mechanic world. When I do a stitched scan, 2×2 images, I use those dials to move the lightbox into position. The numbers on the dials help me to remember previous positions.

For example, I start at the bottom left of the image, take a shot, and remember the X position. Then I move the lightbox via the dials to the bottom right, and take another shot. Now I move it to the Top right position, take another shot, and finally I move it to the top left position, dialing the X position to the same number as it was in the first shot. I hope that makes sense...

It doesn't have to be perfect, the Image Composite Editor does a really good job of aligning the shots, even if they are a little off. Great program for the price (free).
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-22-2016   #78
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 733
Off to look for dead enlargers - any brands work better than others for this?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2016   #79
DrTebi
Slide Lover
 
DrTebi's Avatar
 
DrTebi is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
Off to look for dead enlargers - any brands work better than others for this?
Personally, I prefer my setup with the Lab equipment. I believe it is much sturdier than an enlarger. It will also, in most cases, take up less space.

Check the industrial section on eBay, then dig down to
Electrical & Test Equipment -> Test, Measurement & Inspection

The rod and clamp I am using is currently available:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Newport-14-R...0AAOSw-7RVEtgL

This will require a bit of DIY work, since you need to find a way to attach the camera to the clamp. I simply used an aluminum plate (which you can find on eBay or at a hardware store), about 4 x 2 x 1/4 inch, drilled some holes into it and mounted the clamp on one side, and a tripod mount on the other. It's incredibly sturdy, and heavy as hell... with the camera it weighs just over 25 pounds. This will help you with any vibration problems, which is critical, since you may not be able to shoot with a shutter speed higher than 1/15 or so.

My rod is mounted to a "bread board table", which is another aluminum plate, which has pre-drilled and tapped holes. The rod simply screws into any hole on the table. These are also available on eBay, it takes a bit of hunting to find one for a good price though. To start with, you could also just use a sturdy wooden board, or a big fat cutting board or something like that.

After that is set up, all you would need is a light table. Mine is probably too complicated ☺ A simple small light pad should do the trick as well.

If you want to take it a step further, search for an "X-Y Table", also on eBay, there are often used ones for good prices available. With that, you can mount your light pad onto the X-Y table and take several shots of your negative and stitch it together with a software, like the free "Image Composite Editor" that I use (assuming 6x6 or bigger, for 35mm you would need more than 1:1 magnification).

It's a bit of work, a lot of experimentation, but a lot of fun and you will be surprised by the possibilities...
__________________
My current favorites:
Fuji GW670III, Plaubel Makina 670, Konica Hexar RF,
Konica Hexar AF, Yashica Electro 35 GSN.
Mamiya ZM Quartz with lots of lenses for my SLR satisfaction.
Ricoh GXR with the A12 modules for the instant gratification.
Pentax K-1 with the 50mm f/2.8 Macro for DSLR scans

All my favorite analog images are on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2016   #80
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 758
For what it's worth:

http://www.mfphotography.ca/michael-...digital-camera
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.