jim0266
Established
Funny you should mention that. Last night I ran across a DSLR film scanning guide that suggested the same thing. I have not tried it yet, but I'm going to give that a try. The color balance on his C-41 scans were very nice.
______
Well-known
Let us know how that works out.
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
I found similar patterns with the grain in HP5 and my X Pro 1 (same sensor) with BEOON and an EL Nikkor 50/4 that are not there with my A7ii and no other changes. I suspect it has to do with X Trans as well.
With that having been said, the Fuji RAW files were much more amenable to post processing than the Sony files.
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
I ordinarily use a Photoshop invert/RGB curve clamping action that gets me pretty close, however....
I am sitting here at lunch and just tried the above suggestion.
I don't have a whole section of sprocketed negatives but using the edge of a frame - that is admittedly not completely unexposed as the sprockets would be - gave a really nice reversal of a few frames I made in Joshua Tree.
It appears that the hardest part of this process is dragging the black point to the top of the histogram and the white point to the bottom in Lightroom.
Thank you for the suggestion!
______
Well-known
Glad it worked. Now I am encouraged to begin the arduous process of scanning all my color negatives from the Dark Ages.
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
There are still adjustments to be made after the fact - the reversals are low contrast and require some further color adjustment - but for the amount of effort they provide a good starting point with a close approximation of proper white balance. Thanks again and good luck with the project!
I've no idea what you've tried, but I digitalize using a camera and then use MakeTIFF, a free program from ColorPerfect, to convert the file into a linear Tiff files; then I use ColorPerfect, running as a Photoshop plug-in, to remove the orange mask and invert the file into a positive image. ColorPerfect has a series of film presets, which I use, but I do final color correction and contrast and gradation adjustments in Lightroom. You can see a range of digitizations of my Porta 400 shots, including Portra 400 pushed 2 stops, in this RFF thread: Bullet proof Portra 400 – Pictures from Thailand
This above workflow and an alternative one are described in detail in this uselful article.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
fjolnir
Member
I ended up buying the X-Pro/35mm 1,4, once I get around to testing scanning with it I'll post a comparison to the a7.
Yeah, I do worry about that, but if it ends up not working well, I'll add a dedicated macro to the kit. I just wanted to have one multi-purpose lens if possible.
What I do is to put a bit of film base under the camera, and then add Cyan&Blue color correction filters on the light table under the film until I get a mostly grey tone (With the a7 I'd use live view on my computer inverted to make it easy to tell how much was needed)
Once I do that, most of the time a simple per-channel auto-levels will give a cast-free image. Occasionally a white balance shift is necessary.
Yeah, I do worry about that, but if it ends up not working well, I'll add a dedicated macro to the kit. I just wanted to have one multi-purpose lens if possible.
What I do is to put a bit of film base under the camera, and then add Cyan&Blue color correction filters on the light table under the film until I get a mostly grey tone (With the a7 I'd use live view on my computer inverted to make it easy to tell how much was needed)
Once I do that, most of the time a simple per-channel auto-levels will give a cast-free image. Occasionally a white balance shift is necessary.
You can see a useful specific comparison of camera digitalization to scanning, with fairly conservative conclusions, in the article I linked in post #27.
My own experience is with the Imacon Precision III scanner, some commercial scans with the Epson 800/850 scanners, and my current use of using a Leitz BEOON stand with a Focotar-2 enlarger lens with the M9 and M-Monochrom cameras to digitalize Tri-X and Portra 400 film.
The bottom line is that the Imacon Precision III has true optical resolution of 6300 dpi and a dMax of 4.2. My BEOON setup has resolution that is close enough to that and a dynamic range that I cannot distinguish from the Imacon; the Epson scanners have noticeable less resolution and dynamic range.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
The APO RODAGON D is one such lens, just to give OP an idea of what to look for
Lenses I know to be optimized for 1:1:
Olympus 80mm f/4 Macro (A bellows lens, some models allow a bit of touch-up focusing. The Olympus variable extension tube gives you some good options.)
And, the APO Rodagon 75mm f/4 D for 1:1. There is also an APO Rodagon D 75mm f/4.5 2x which is optimized for 1:2 in normal orientation and 2:1 when reversed. (1:2 means the subject is larger than the image, and vice versa.)
Enlarging lenses are optimized for 1:4 or maybe 1:8, depending on the lens and intended format. Reversed they do a good job at 3:1, 4:1, and more.
Your typical macro lens is optimized for 1:2 or 1:3 but many are good out to infinity 1:lots.
So what's the practical difference of a 1:1 optimized lens for SLR scanning? Most any lens, racked out really far to 1:1, will give reasonable sharpness in the center, macro lenses and enlarging lenses will do quite well. The difference will be in the edges and corners.
So, suppose you are shooting an insect. Soft borders won't be a big concern. But, if you are copying a stamp, a slide, or SLR-scanning a negative, might be a greater concern.
A different case: An ordinary macro lens, on APS or full frame SLR, will do a great job SLR-scanning of medium format film. But, then again, you might want to come in to 1:1 and stitch.
Good shooting!
jim0266
Established
Using the instructions and PS action from this tutorial made some of the nicest color conversions from C-41 yet.
fjolnir
Member
So, Just tested the new setup. Aaand.. it's not even close
Fuji + XF35mm f1.4 vs Sony + 50mm f2.8 Macro
I'll post an updated comparison once I get an appropriate lens for the job.
If anyone can recommend a 0.6x+ magnficiation(on APS-C) lens that would be sharp all the way to the corners on a Fuji, it would be very much appreciated.
Fuji + XF35mm f1.4 vs Sony + 50mm f2.8 Macro
I'll post an updated comparison once I get an appropriate lens for the job.
If anyone can recommend a 0.6x+ magnficiation(on APS-C) lens that would be sharp all the way to the corners on a Fuji, it would be very much appreciated.
Wupjak
A Mythical Beast
Indeed. I think I've found my preferred workflow. The results are what I had hoped for when I started shooting c-41 film again. Thanks for linking. I'm sold on this method.
I'd like to compare the method you link with what I do using ColorPerfect. However, the method of determining the "optimum exposure" is not clear; can you elucidate. What I mean a very dense slide would require a very different exposure to a very thin slide to get the histogram to the right. (I use auto-exposure, which results in a low-contrast scans that works well with ColorPerfect.)
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Your magnification is close to 1:2. You were happier with the Sony macro lens.
From this, the next thing to try would be any major brand macro lens with an adapter. These are optimized for 1:3 or 1:4, but should look pretty good. Stop down a couple of stops to f/5.6 or f/8. The Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 would do a great job. This will, of course, be manual focus. I don't know what AF macro lenses exist for the Fuji.
I'm not at all surprised the the Sony macro lens does better than the Fuji 35 f/1.4 for this application; you are using that Fuji lens way out of it's comfort zone.
mani
Well-known
Well I know this is an academic question now, as the OP decided to go for the Fuji, but I've been wondering for quite a while why the high-resolution mode on the Olympus Pen hasn't become the standard solution for DSLR film-scanning?
Articles like this seem to suggest that the 80-megapixel RAW scans simply blow away the detail of even full-frame 35mm digital cameras - the images at ISO 200 show unbelievably microscopic texture.
A Pen with a good quality, manual focus OM macro lens should be the ideal setup? I may be missing something?
Articles like this seem to suggest that the 80-megapixel RAW scans simply blow away the detail of even full-frame 35mm digital cameras - the images at ISO 200 show unbelievably microscopic texture.
A Pen with a good quality, manual focus OM macro lens should be the ideal setup? I may be missing something?
charjohncarter
Veteran
I used a DSLR APS-C and a 50mm Macro (Pentax lens) for a few years. It worked great, the Macro lens was absolutely a must. I even rigged it so I could use it with 120. I got tired of running with the SD card from one room to my computer but it worked better than my scanner.
Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr
Untitled by John Carter, on Flickrfjolnir
Member
So, I went and got an XF 60mm Macro. With the extension tube, the results are not significantly better than from the 35, completely unusable. I also tried using it with a Raynox DCR-150, which gave better results, but still not nearly as good as from the Sony Macro.
Next up: Trying a EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8. If that doesn't work I'll probably just get a Plustek and accept slow scanning times.
- Fuji + XF35mm f1.4 + MCEX-16
- Fuji + XF60mm (0.5x magnification)
- Fuji + XF60mm + Raynox DCR-150
- Sony + 50mm f2.8 Macro
Next up: Trying a EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8. If that doesn't work I'll probably just get a Plustek and accept slow scanning times.
fjolnir
Member
Ok, tried the Nikkor. It's close, but not quite there. Had to put it on backwards with some duct tape to even get close to decent results..
I'm testing an El-Nikkor 75mm f4 next, supposedly it's sharper at lower magnifications, and better in the corners.
I'm testing an El-Nikkor 75mm f4 next, supposedly it's sharper at lower magnifications, and better in the corners.
Jockos
Well-known
At what aperture did you use the Nikkor?