Scanning with a digital camera

I got my lens and extension tube and things are not off to a great start. I have the Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro (1:2) and the Canon EF25 extension tube that gets me 1:1. Without the extension tube the sharpness is great, but with the tube the corners are abysmal.

This is a 100% crop without the extension tube:
Without EF25 by Scott Carr, on Flickr


And this is with the extension tube at the same aperture:
With EF25 by Scott Carr, on Flickr


I know extension tubes with normal lenses can cause some corner issues, but should it be this bad with a dedicated macro lens? Is it defective or is this just how it preforms?
 
Hi every one. I just want to share some of my digitized result by digital camera camera. For 120 negatives, because the negatives may be curved, it may be necessary to take several photos for focus stacking.

Setup: GFX100/ Nikon Printing-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 A

full size on flickr
135 negative film, 55Mp, converted by Negative Lab Pro
https://www.flickr.com/photos/186734762@N07/49491743217/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/186734762@N07/49495633752/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/186734762@N07/49495409586/in/dateposted-public/

645 BW negative film, 140Mp
https://www.flickr.com/photos/186734762@N07/49486917342/
 
This is a stable platform for 35mm film. And no worries about film flatness.


Untitled by Mike Novak, on Flickr

Sony A7ii with Minolta Auto Bellows II, Minolta slide copier, Minolta macro stand, and a good Minolta enlarger lens. $14 LED panel from Amazon for a light source. It works quite well.


Leica M3, Voigtlander Heliar 15/4.5, Kodak XX, D96 by Mike Novak, on Flickr

On the Sony, you can correct for color on C41 films by creating a custom white balance from the space between the frames, I suppose that this could be done with other cameras as well.
 
dmr said:
Sorry if this has been discussed before. I didn't feel like checking back all 17 pages.

Has anybody used this widget?

https://www.negative.supply/35mm
Click to expand...

Take a look at this thread: Camera Scan Basics, Questions Asked and Answered
Check out some of the video reviews, it’s very well made but has some limitations. Another option is the Skier Copy Box all. It’s both a light source and has holders for 135 film and mounted slides plus one for 120 film that is adjustable for format.
 
Emile de Leon said:
Get an enlarging lens..something that is actually made to be flat field.
Regular macro lenses may be better..or most likely worse..in this scenario..
Click to expand...

I've posted this before, but this is a scan using a Nikon 60 2.8G macro. Single shot at f11. You can see the corner crop shows full detail so this macro lens has a pretty flat field.
It helps to make sure the film is held flat. For 35mm panos I use the Lomo Digitiliza holder.



1:1 crop from left edge:


 
Testing out the Z7 with the ES-2 and the 60mm G lens.

All HP5


Mrs Driggs by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Brian by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Dave and Rusty by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Bumper by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

The first three look more grainy than I remember HP5 being (all shot around 1998), the last one is also HP5 and more along the lines of what I was hoping for (shot in about 1995). As well, I did try the 'Active D Lighting' at various settings and found that it didn't make any difference. I'm shooting at ISO 64 at about f/16, a big Dracast LED 1000 as my light source (set at 5000K). As well, the other thing I've found is that the upper edge of the frame can be a bit lighter than the rest of the frame.

Does anyone find that scanning this way accentuates grain? I tried shooting from both the base side and the emulsion side -- not sure if that makes any difference.
 
Make sure your sharpening settings are turned off. When I import RAW into LR, I notice that it Automatically applies sharpening.
To get rid of the corner lightening, experiment with different distances from your light source and try to make sure that you are parallel to the light source (does not have to be perfect just eyeball it as angling it can influence light intensity).
Also point it at the sky (daytime obviously) to see if there is a difference.

I scan with the emulsion side (matte) to the lens, as that supposedly is meant to be the way, but have not noticed much if any difference.
 
Huss said:
Make sure your sharpening settings are turned off. When I import RAW into LR, I notice that it Automatically applies sharpening.
To get rid of the corner lightening, experiment with different distances from your light source and try to make sure that you are parallel to the light source (does not have to be perfect just eyeball it as angling it can influence light intensity).
Also point it at the sky (daytime obviously) to see if there is a difference.

I scan with the emulsion side (matte) to the lens, as that supposedly is meant to be the way, but have not noticed much if any difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions -- I'll give that all a try.
 
Many thanks guys - all of this stuff is from 'back in the day' and I'm looking at much of it for the first time in many years.

This shot I'm looking at for the first time - I never printed it. My feeble attempt at 'street photography', circa 1994-1995, when I lived in Savannah.

On Tri-X.


Broughton Street by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Haven't looked at this neg since 1995, one of my professors down in Savannah (unfortunately a quick Google search revealed that he passed away in 2018). Tri-X again.


Pete by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


I have no idea why I was all over the place with film selection back then -- guess it must have been like searching for the perfect camera bag! This was TMax 400.


Curly by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Delta 400 again.


Dean and Crystal by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


HP5.


Quinn Chapel1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


The one change I did make as far as the scanning goes is that I took the soft box off the Dracast light. I think it's resulted in scans that are a bit more crisp (the third shot in particular). The first four here are scanned that way.
 
That is just fantastic Vince. I love that we are able to share your past experiences because you shot film and kept the negs.

I'm kinda all over the place with my film selection too. But I really like (seriously) Fuji C200 for color and bought so much of it at a great price after I saw how it came out. B&W I recently discovered Ortho film and am crazy about how it looks. I bought a bunch of Silberra Ortho off Bob here at RFF, not knowing what I was getting into but the price was right and I was curious.
I'm saving my color 400 and 800 stock for low light and special camera use.
 
Many thanks -- a couple of things I did notice about my scans, and I've since made a change. First, I had the ES-2 too close to the lens. Stupid me didn't realize that the unit could slide forward and back in the ring mount. So I pushed the unit a bit further away from the lens. That made the scans come out sharper, and I think that also cured that bright upper edge issue. Other thing I'm doing is setting the Picture Control to the mono setting (being that I'm shooting black and white negs right now). Finally, I'm finding that about f/16 is a good aperture setting.

I'm learning as I go, but making progress. We'll see how we get on when it comes to the 120 stuff -- I just got the Lomography 120 Digitaliza mount, gotta figure out how that's all going to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom