Ricoh
Well-known
Thanks Huss, is it done using a preset in NLP, or by other means?NLP with Metropolis:
Apologies for the follow on question.
Huss
Veteran
The preset, such that it is, is using the White Balance dropper in LightRoom on a piece of unexposed film (e.g between frames) before you start the conversion process. This is what is required by NLP for any film that you use. I save these as presets for every film type I use, so the next time I don't need to do that (even though it takes just a moment).
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I understand the theory, but a fair amount of people are using enlarging lenses instead of macro lenses and seem to prefer the results. Emile here has actually compared a Focotar-2 to a Leica 60 Elmarit-R and found the enlarging lens to yield better results. And the 60 Elmarit-R is an excellent Macro (even if I did think the Zeiss 50 Makro-Planar was better.)
I just find it odd that there are not a lot of actual comparison tests out there, maybe none, showing actual samples at magnifications which would correspond to, say a 24MP sensor, and a 45MP full frame sensor. Maybe those tests are out there and Google won’t pull them up. Maybe it doesn’t matter, maybe the limitations of film obviate the usefulness of lenses that are better, past a certain point. There are certainly some people saying that, based on what their preconceptions are, and theory, but if that’s been tested and proven, using a wide variety of optics, I haven’t found it.
I probably should not say this, because it will have the effect of trolling, which isn’t my intention, but I have satisfied myself, doing exhaustive testing, that my end scanning result files from 135 and 120 film, using a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and multi-exposure scans utilizing both software applications in the overpriced Silverfast Archive Suite, after having learned to use it, are better than anything I can achieve with a digital camera duplication using a copy stand, a Z7, and the Makro Planar. Maybe the Makro Planar is the problem, though I have my doubts. So, I am all set for smaller formats until the 9000 dies.
I am just looking for an optimum solution for digital duplication of 4x5 negs, because my digital rig is better than my (not the best) flatbed scanner and I don’t feel like getting a V850 just to do a few 4x5 negs, and I am guessing that the digital camera duping would be better than the best flatbed anyway.
Which is why I asked
Ricoh
Well-known
Oh I see, and thinking about it it seems the sensible way to offset the mask. Thanks for the really fast response, Huss.
Huss
Veteran
Larry, as you already have the Z7 and FTZ, "just" get the Nikon 60 2.8G. Use that instead of the Makro Planar.
I think you can rent one to see how it works out for you.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/photo/nikon/lenses/macro
I think you can rent one to see how it works out for you.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/photo/nikon/lenses/macro
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, Huss. That isn't off the table. Have you found that the AF always gets you to exactly where you want to get, in terms of focus on the negative? Though I guess with MF, once I get it set up, I rarely have to move anything anyway. I just haven't used AF for this. So far.
I appreciate the suggestion.
Huss
Veteran
The AF is perfect. Nails the focus on the grain in an instant. A real timesaver as before when I was doing it manually I was forever fine tuning the focus!
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I understand the theory, but a fair amount of people are using enlarging lenses instead of macro lenses and seem to prefer the results. ...
I am just looking for an optimum solution for digital duplication of 4x5 negs, because my digital rig is better than my (not the best) flatbed scanner and I don’t feel like getting a V850 just to do a few 4x5 negs, and I am guessing that the digital camera duping would be better than the best flatbed anyway.
Which is why I asked
Larry, I'm surprised that the Makro Planar is not performing for you.
The issue for testing is that almost nobody tests lenses at the magnifications we used for camera-scanning small formats or stitching larger formats. Good test site, including 1x, is coinimaging.com
Some enlarging lenses are excellent though 1x was not a requirement for enlarging. I'll mention the 50 f/2.8 El-Nikkor (old version, metal body, huge numerals, not the newer plastic body small numerals). Also the 80 f/4 Componon-S. Finally, the 75 f/4 APO Rodagon-D 1x copy lens. All these are first rate in my tests, roughly equal performance to the 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor.
I find AF a PITA, slight variations in focus change the field of view. I prefer instead, even with AF lenses, to set the lens, then focus manually by moving the camera (on the copy stand).
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thank you, Colonel. It’s not that the Planar isn’t performing, it is. Best Short Macro I have ever used, for general use. I was just wondering if there was “better” for this application. I may be splitting hairs needlessly. Will take a look at the coinimaging site, thanks.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Simple test in my book... Check that you are seeing grain in all four corners at 1x.
I've done little experiments on my slides at 24, 50, up to 400 MPx. Beyond 24MPx, for my chromes, better resolution of grain but little or no increase in image detail. For your 4x5, I would be surprised if your 1x scans, stitched up to a large file, would have any shortcomings.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, you are probably right, I was just curious about options and looking for links to comparison results, but perhaps the limitations of film make that pointless in the real world.
Thanks for your input, here and above.
Thanks for your input, here and above.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I’ve been having issues with my setup for scanning 120 film (Nikon Z7 with the 60/2.8G and FTZ adapter). My trouble has been with my light source, among other things, and how to keep the film flat without resorting to using a piece of glass. I’ve tried the Lomography Digitaliza and am not happy with it (it’s kinda goofy actually, if I’m being honest) so I just ordered - you might laugh - an Omega 6x6 neg carrier. At least I know that will keep the film flat.
As far as my light source goes, I had been using a large Dracast LED 1000 video light for my 35mm stuff with the Nikon ES-2, and it works fine, but for the 120 stuff it doesn’t work as well. Reason is that I can see the bands of the LED bulbs, even with two Dracast diffusers and having the light set back about 6-8” or so. So I’ve ordered a large piece of translucent plexiglass to further dissipate the light. Hopefully that will work. I do have a small lightbox, but problem with laying the film directly on it is that any little scratches etc on the translucent surface of the lightbox then become part of the scan. and I have to make sure that everything is parallel to make sure it’s all in focus. Ah details details.
So all in all I’m not too happy with my current setup, at least for 120.
As far as my light source goes, I had been using a large Dracast LED 1000 video light for my 35mm stuff with the Nikon ES-2, and it works fine, but for the 120 stuff it doesn’t work as well. Reason is that I can see the bands of the LED bulbs, even with two Dracast diffusers and having the light set back about 6-8” or so. So I’ve ordered a large piece of translucent plexiglass to further dissipate the light. Hopefully that will work. I do have a small lightbox, but problem with laying the film directly on it is that any little scratches etc on the translucent surface of the lightbox then become part of the scan. and I have to make sure that everything is parallel to make sure it’s all in focus. Ah details details.
So all in all I’m not too happy with my current setup, at least for 120.
madNbad
Well-known
Take a look at the Skier Copybox, it includes an adjustable holder for 120.
madNbad
Well-known
Here the Copybox with both the 35 and 120 holders:
[/url]
IMG_1858
IMG_1857
IMG_1858
IMG_1857
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Nice concept - many thanks for the suggestion!
Huss
Veteran
That's unfortunate, I have not had any issues with film flatness using the Digitliza.
You can see from the pano shot I posted above, and this one I just shot yesterday:
Huss
Veteran
Fyi before I got the Digitliza I used old film holders from enlargers that I bought off ebay. I have them in every size you could imagine, from 6x9 down to 110 film! I then even used film holders for Hasselblad Flextite scanners. Still got all that stuff!
And prefer the Lomo products.
And prefer the Lomo products.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I was seeing some bands in my shots too..so I slowed down the shutter speed..and they disappeared.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
It may just be me - sometimes the Lomo works and sometimes it doesn’t. I found that I had particular issues with Fomapan film, maybe due to fact that it’s a bit thinner than other films, but still doesn’t seem like an ideal solution. Maybe once I get the light source issue squared away it might work better. As I say, may just be me.
Huss
Veteran
Some films are definitely harder to work with due to curl. Ilford Delta 400 has some nasty curl in 120 on its width. I found to mount it in the Digitiliza by putting it in back to front i.e on the concave side.