NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: richardHaw on May 09, 2016, 16:12:41
-
anybody knows the best workflow?
i tried using the 55mm on the D750 and I am not getting the results that i wanted. :o :o :o
film scanners on the other hand do not have much resolution,so...
-
I use an old Coolscan LS 4000 ED with Vuescan. It is slow, but has a nice DR and the 4000 ppi true optical resolution doesn't hurt either. LS 4000 ans LS 5000 units aren't too impossible to find used and they work well, for tabletop units.
-
anybody knows the best workflow?
i tried using the 55mm on the D750 and I am not getting the results that i wanted. :o :o :o
film scanners on the other hand do not have much resolution,so...
You can get OK results with copying via DSLR, particularly with slides and B&W negs.
Assuming you are copying small, 35mm-size originals, my experience is that the very best results are achieved with scanners. "Real" film scanners, not flatbeds intended for copying printed text.
Color neg film is harder to do, because of the orange mask that differs with the individual film stock and the processing batch.
Yes, scanners are slow.
-
I use an old Coolscan LS 4000 ED with Vuescan. It is slow, but has a nice DR and the 4000 ppi true optical resolution doesn't hurt either. LS 4000 ans LS 5000 units aren't too impossible to find used and they work well, for tabletop units.
Thanks! just did a price check and the coolscans cost a lot :o :o :o
-
You can get OK results with copying via DSLR, particularly with slides and B&W negs.
Assuming you are copying small, 35mm-size originals, my experience is that the very best results are achieved with scanners. "Real" film scanners, not flatbeds intended for copying printed text.
Color neg film is harder to do, because of the orange mask that differs with the individual film stock and the processing batch.
Yes, scanners are slow.
i did not get any results that match that of my index sheet :o :o :o the sharpness was off,etc (on a D750 with an ES-1)
-
If you use the bellows, PB-4, with a slide copy stand (dont remember the exact name) with a flash behind the slide or negativ, you might get better results?
-
i did not get any results that match that of my index sheet :o :o :o the sharpness was off,etc (on a D750 with an ES-1)
If you are using a 55 Micro-Nikkor, you should can sharp results with the ES-1. However: The ES-1 is difficult to work with, especially to focus. The best practice setup is one which allows the camera to be moved for focusing, which, as I recall, the ES-1 allows only through the sliding the nesting tubes, which is fiddly and imprecise....compared to a PS-4 slide copying stage attached to a PB-4 bellows, for example.
-
i have the PB-4 and the BR-2. maybe i can improvise.
one thing i failed to mention is that i am using crappy 400 superia hahaha
-
i have the PB-4 and the BR-2. maybe i can improvise.
Improvise, of course. You don't need the slide copy adapters, they just conveniently keep the film flat, keep your camera/lens square to the film, and keep light from reflecting off the front of the film. You can get by with doing all that yourself in a dark room with a smooth/pattern-less white diffusion of some sort such as white plexiglas and a flash.
Somewhere I have Epson V700 scans vs D800+105mm comparisons with slide film, if I remember correctly it was pretty close quality wise. I'd suggest running the negative film "scans" through scanning software to remove orange mask as opposed to trying color correct it manually.
-
Hello, Charlie. i am currently getting used to my ES-1 setup without bellows. now i need the complimentary colour for orange (blue) to counter the orange.
should I buy a blue filter or would a gel on the strobe do a better job? :o :o :o
-
try to locate a PS-4 film copy attachment for your PB-4.
Simple and easy to use. The bellows between lens and film is all important to maintain contrast in the reproduction.
Took a while to set up a good light balance behind the PS-4, but once that's done, copying each film is quick and easy to do.
I've used both the D300 and D800E on some test Kodak films I exposed just for the sake of testing it all, and there was no real advantage in resolution other than I could resize just a touch more if needed for the films I actually wanted to reproduce.
** the films I wanted to copy were old 50's Kodak slides when they first emigrated here. Turned out that all those films(mounted) were left in a musty corner of the house and they all developed mould! :'(
While it's nice to have rather large tiff files from a slide scanner, the real advantage in using a camera is the ability to capture the copy in raw format.
The ability to whitebalance "to taste" is worth the effort.
-
Thanks, Arthur!
are you referring to slides or strip film? The PS-4 looks like a slide copier. Is there anything for the PB-4 for use with strip film? Thanks again, Arthur. I do have the PB-4 and this also opens up another way for me to digitise my negatives :o :o :o
-
FWIW: I use a dedicated film scanner Reflecta RPS 10M. One big advantage is that it accepts to scan rolls of film automatically. I use VueScan to output "raws" (TIFFs actually), as negatives, which I then convert to positives in Photoshop using CFSystems' ColorPerfect plug-in.
I am attaching a couple examples of the final result.
-
Sorry, not sure if I can post more than one attachement per message.
-
The PS-4 has a slot for feeding film strips through.
-
Photo of a color negative with the D800, Sigma 150mm macro, and a flash
Original capture
and processed result in CNX2
-
Nice result. A kind of warm glow (with reds). Was it an old negative?
-
It is probably more cost effective to send slides or negatives out to be scanned than buying your own scanner unless the intent is to scan huge numbers of film images.
-
Nice result. A kind of warm glow (with reds). Was it an old negative?
taken around 1994, depends on what you call old :)
the post processing involves reversing the light curve and then fixing the white balance, which is problematic at least for me, so ... any color cast is subjective
-
Amando, the resulting image is better then what some of the dedicated negative scanner software does. Which programs did you use to find to this result? I never found a satisfying way to adjust white balance in Photoshop (using CS5)
-
Buddy, Armando stated that he used CNX2 and inverted the curve. I've done the same with negatives in Lightroom and while it works it should be noted that it can be a frustrating process. Since the image is a negative with an inverted curve all of the adjustment sliders work in reverse. The highlight slider changes the shadows of the image, black point slider changes the white point, etc. Not an intuitive process, but then I guess most scanning software is not very intuitive either.
I suppose you could invert the curve then process the photo out and re-import it to get 'normal' functionality of the program again.
-
Very nice indeed Armando - is it a 1:1 macro setup?
-
Hello, everybody! Thanks for the input!
I am getting comfortable with digitising my strip film with my camera. I may need to add a blue gel to my flash next time to help negate the orange hue which is hard to clean up in post :o :o :o
-
a little bit of progress :o :o :o
that's it. it's Tri-X or XP2 from now!
-
Looks like you are getting OK results...difficult with color neg film. The monochrome will be easier.
Also, if you are using ACR/Lightroom, some have stated that the tonality/color adjustment using curves works better in Process 2010 than the modern Process 2012. Seems that 2012 has behind-the-scenes adjustments happening that 2010 doesn't have.
-
Nice progress Richard
Very nice indeed Armando - is it a 1:1 macro setup?
Yes, or very close to 1:1 I used the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro
-
Sorry for the late reply, but yes .. film strips(what I had for my testing) .. and mounted singles too(my parent's slides).
The film strip method on the PS-4 copy attachment is easy and quick to use and takes a few seconds(10-30 or so) just to line up the frame nicely.
I have a slide scanner option in my V370 which has a 4 slide attachment that clips into the lid.
It takes more time to do a considerable(say a 24 exposure) batch lot on the scanner than it takes to set up the PB-4+PS-4, configure the lighting, set exposure for the camera and then finally process those images from neg to colour.
I used the same process as Armando in CNX2, and created a batch process and applied it to the images.
From there as already said the annoyance of using opposing tweaks(brighten to darken and so on) on the colour images.
The only thing I don't have as yet is an appropriate 50-ish mm close up capable lens of semi decent quality that is a perfect fit for the PB-4.
In the end the only lens I had available to me to do my project was my Tamron 28-75/2.8! :p
It didn't do too badly tho and ultimate sharpness wasn't an issue(film grain was too coarse to see any more detail than the Tamron could resolve anyhow).
It just happened that I had a filter adapter needed to reduce the Tammy's 67mm thread down to 52mm to suit the bellows clip on the PS-4.
And the ability to zoom a little here and there for framing and focusing helped too.
Anyhow, it was all fun and interesting to play with .. and my biggest regret was the knowledge of the eventual loss of the old slides .. all thrown out due to mould.
-
hey, guys!
been perfecting my workflow but it really is not easy
i am getting better result now as you can see from the picture but it is still nowhere near what I wanted :o :o :o
i am still using this setup mounted on any of my 55mm lenses and the D750. while the preparation is tedious, once you got the tripod set and the whole thing going, taking photos is very fast.
as was suggested, i fiddled my RGB curves following some tutorials from the net and now I am getting better results. they are far from perfect but at least they look better than what I had initially.
-
i have the PB-4 and the BR-2. maybe i can improvise. One thing i failed to mention is that i am using crappy 400 superia hahaha
The Fuji Superia 400 was a very good film. I did big prints up to one Meter on the longer side.
very great colors and nice grain structure. Loves to be overexposed by 1/3rd of a stop.
-
Hi, Frank!
The PS-4 is out of the budget for now :o :o :o
-
I will see. Have to collect the FM-2 from customs office NOW or it will hibernate there for the weekend...
it is rainy. My wife has the car and the office is on the other side of town. 30 Minutes to the place ... 30 minutes
from the place ... and my intensties are really in party mode currently.
Another adventure of Superfrank on his Superbike going 40km/h
Irony is: I have been there yesterday and could have collected it if I had only known
snail mail came today...
-
I will see. Have to collect the FM-2 from customs office NOW or it will hibernate there for the weekend...
it is rainy. My wife has the car and the office is on the other side of town. 30 Minutes to the place ... 30 minutes
from the place ... and my intensties are really in party mode currently.
Another adventure of Superfrank on his Superbike going 40km/h
Irony is: I have been there yesterday and could have collected it if I had only known
snail mail came today...
Hello, Frank. I hope that you got the package safely. I am going to hunt for a used PS-4 in the junk shops :o :o :o
-
Yep. Camera is there. Wonderful condition. Waiting for the diopter.
I guess I will use a tripod first. Nearly forgot how to shoot at 100 ISO and 400 ISO...
-
I just learned something new today. Kristina showed me a way that makes the use of the ES-1 slide copy attachment to create NEF's of color negatives a lot more user friendly. In particular the processing of the files to a usable color positive digital image.
I tried this method a few times and did a little write-up to explain the steps required.
processing of color negative NEF's (PDF) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uiavzf07eeuv1w/Process%20NEF%20color%20negatives.pdf?dl=0)
-
I have read, but not yet tested myself, that switching LR/ACR to Process 2010 greatly helps in the color adjusting phase of the operation using curves. Something about the hidden, pictorially-oriented processing in 2012 that the simpler, more primitive 2010 process does not have.
-
I just learned something new today. Kristina showed me a way that makes the use of the ES-1 slide copy attachment to create NEF's of color negatives a lot more user friendly. In particular the processing of the files to a usable color positive digital image.
I tried this method a few times and did a little write-up to explain the steps required.
processing of color negative NEF's (PDF) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uiavzf07eeuv1w/Process%20NEF%20color%20negatives.pdf?dl=0)
Thank you, 'Buddy'!
Actually I pondered for quite some time whether to purchase a scanner and the mentioned quality issues deterred me so far.
I'll look for the 55mm 3.5 Micro + PK-13 + ES-1.
Anything to consider with this choice of "hardware" components?
P.S. As an afterthought: Would the PK-13 + ES-1 combination work with the Zeiss 50 Makro Planar 2.0 (https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_slr/makroplanart250.pdf)?
Cheers,
Günther
-
You need to get the magnification as close to 1:1 as possible provided you are using an FX camera. For a DX camera, 1:2 will suffice. In the latter case, the slide film adapter might not provide enough working distance. Thus the FX approach is the easiest.
The pdf document contains sensible suggestions. However, I wondered why the TIF towards the end had to be 8-bit? Photoshop handles 16-bit files.
-
You need to get the magnification as close to 1:1 as possible provided you are using an FX camera. For a DX camera, 1:2 will suffice. In the latter case, the slide film adapter might not provide enough working distance. Thus the FX approach is the easiest.
The pdf document contains sensible suggestions. However, I wondered why the TIF towards the end had to be 8-bit? Photoshop handles 16-bit files.
Thanks for the elaboration! Yes, only FX cams here, so it would have to be 1:1, the Zeiss unable to reach 1:1 without "help". Just wondering whether the PK-13 would be suitable for that lens.
-
The PK-13 adds 27.5 mm of extension thus a Micro-Nikkor 55 mm gets precisely to 1:1.
As your Zeiss is a shorter focal length, you should be able to reach 1:1 with ease.
-
I just tried the ES-1+ZF50Makro+PK-13 combo, utilizing a 67mm to 52mm step-down ring between the ZF 50 and the ES-1. While the ZF 50/2 plus PK-13 works fine in normal use, apparently because of the deep nose cone of the 50/2 Makro, the ES-1 combo can't quite get to 1:1 on the slide, even with the sliding extension of the ES-1 fully collapsed.
Quick hand-held test of the D800/PK-13/ZF50Makro/ES-1 and a 35mm Ektachrome, reproduced full frame, no cropping, then a shot of a ruler at the lens extension used for the slide, but with the ES-1 removed:
-
The 'thin' lens equation assumes internodal space = 0. Obviously its predictions will be inaccurate otherwise.
Can you add a PK-11a or PK-12 to the PK-13?.
-
This is a very interesting thread. If I may ask a relaed question:
I've got an AF-S 60mm F/2.8 Micro on the D750 and would like to scan monochrome negatives.
What would be required as a Film Holder and Adapter to the lens?
I was also thinking of using a small light table instead of flash.
-
You need to get the magnification as close to 1:1 as possible provided you are using an FX camera. For a DX camera, 1:2 will suffice. In the latter case, the slide film adapter might not provide enough working distance. Thus the FX approach is the easiest.
The pdf document contains sensible suggestions. However, I wondered why the TIF towards the end had to be 8-bit? Photoshop handles 16-bit files.
Thank you for that advise. I was under the impression that Photoshop (still) handled imported files as 8 bit, which it did in the past. I'm still on Photoshop CS5, so the increased color depth might be an improvement in the newer versions of Photoshop (CS6 and CC). Either way, I added the note of caution because I noticed that as soon as I convert the file to a format Photoshop like sto deal with I lose a bit of the potential detail that could be raised from whites and blacks in a NEF file.
I'll look into the 8 bit vs. 16 bit thingy as soon as I digitize some more negatives. Have a stack here, so that should not take too long.
Pluton, the addition of a PK-11 should get you closer to 1:1 with that setup. Might be worth a try. I always try to leave a bit of the film frame visible to use that as reference to set the white balance, negating out the amber color ofthe carrier medium.
aerobat, the 60mm f2,8 AF-D micro Nikkor uses a 62mm filter thread. Just add a 62-52mm step down ring to mount the ES-1 as cheapest solution. Should run you around $30 for the ES-1 with step down ring.
With the ES-1 or bellows with slide reproduction unit you shouldn't have to worry too much about your light source. Since the negative does not move relative to the image sensor you will not experience motion blur even at long exposures. For the test shot I used 1/10th of a second at f5,6 (to minimize vignetting) and used the window as lightsource. The only criterium of interest is to keep the light temperature constant so your processing presets will need minimum tweaking between exposures. So really, any lightsource goes. 6000 Kelvin lightsources are easy to find and might be a good starting point.
-
Tried it with a PK-12 added to the PK-13, but the largest achievable size is identical with or without the added PK-12 lens extension. So, I'm sticking with my theory of the front filter ring of the Zeiss 50/2 being too far from the lens to yield 1:1 with the ES-1.
What my D800/Zeiss 50/2+ES-1 setup would need, in order to get to 1:1 on the slide, is not more lens extension between the lens and the body, but less extension between the ES-1's slide stage and the front of the lens. The 35mm color slide isn't close enough to the lens. Unfortunately, the ES-1's telescoping body tubes are already collapsed as short as they can be.
I have...and recommend...and normally would use... a PB-4/PS-4 duping setup that works well, utilizing an Apo Rodagon D 75mm f/4.0 M1:1.
-
I was also thinking of using a small light table instead of flash.
Using a flash for film duping seems to me the best option because the short flash duration eliminates any potential motion blur of a longer exposure and in general has a tendency to make things look a little sharper. Depending on the light source in the light table there could also be a flicker effect at certain exposures as well. But sure, you can use a light table instead, just take care to eliminate any light/reflection on the top side of the slide. I've used white acrylic/plexiglass sheets with a flash underneath to dupe slides, which is essentially a light table.
-
This is a very interesting thread. If I may ask a relaed question:
I've got an AF-S 60mm F/2.8 Micro on the D750 and would like to scan monochrome negatives.
What would be required as a Film Holder and Adapter to the lens?
I was also thinking of using a small light table instead of flash.
I tried and failed using a Nikon D300s and a 55/2.8 AIS and maybe an AF 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I was using a Nikon PB-4 with a Nikon PS-4 for copying. This setup should work with any Nikon FX DSLR. It's shameful but I haven't tried since buying a D800. I expect the biggest problem will be pre-dusting slides and spotting after copy. The PB-4 offers rear focus by moving the camera and the PS-4 was designed for the PB-4. The PS-4 should include facilities for film strips and mounted slides. I'd use something like a 500 watt lamp for focus and a speedlight for exposure.
I've used a dichroic color head for an enlarger as a light to copy from film to film. I think that would be better than a light table. I did that so long ago I remember almost nothing about it.
The light from a light table could be a bit spiky. Other problems are mentioned above. I'm assuming a florescent light source in the light table.
Just my 2 cents here...
Dave
-
I've used a dichroic color head for an enlarger as a light to copy from film to film. I think that would be better than a light table. I did that so long ago I remember almost nothing about it.
Dave
I bet that dichro head would make inverting the image easier. Dial in some yellow & magenta just like for wet printing and there should be a lot less of a cyan cast when you invert the resulting image in post-processing.
-
Alternatively, I wonder if you could work the inversion just like in the darkroom. Import the image. Make yellow & magenta filter layers on top of it. Then add a curves layer on top of that to do the inversion. Now you should be able to go back and adjust the yellow & magenta layers until you get good color balance. Another curves layer on top of all that to adjust contrast.
-
Alternatively, I wonder if you could work the inversion just like in the darkroom. Import the image. Make yellow & magenta filter layers on top of it. Then add a curves layer on top of that to do the inversion. Now you should be able to go back and adjust the yellow & magenta layers until you get good color balance. Another curves layer on top of all that to adjust contrast.
Gave this a try with a negative scan I had. Didn't work at all. Much better to invert, choose grey, white & black points. Only problem is, what do you do if there aren't any good neutral colors to choose??
-
Would the clear(unexposed) film outside the edge of the picture area work for a white balance?
-
Would the clear(unexposed) film outside the edge of the picture area work for a white balance?
That would only work if the lit source used for photographing the negative matched the inverted color temperature of the original lighting. For example, suppose I originally photographed a gray card in daylight. The card would have a color cast that reflected the daylight color temperature. The color cast is then inverted sine the film is color negative film. Now, I use a flash to illuminate the film for reproduction. Even if the flash exactly matches daylight, the image of the gray card on the negative is reversed, so even after I remove the orange color of the film, the image of the gray card will still have a different color cast than the color of the flash coming through a clear piece of film.
-
Yesterday I eventually manage to use the B/W developer I bought at least one year ago.
The film that had to be developed was exposed in 2008 and 2019, one was kept in the fridge the other in the basement garage, not heated.
I used ADOX chemicals, ATOMAL 49 and ADOFIX Plus, development time 8 min, suggestion was 7-9 min.
At least I got some images. I digitized them using my D800 and the PB4 bellow with the slide copying device. the optic was an old 55 mm f3.5.
I Lightroom I can reverse to positive B/W, but I get a lot of gain, and very hard gradient. I photographed the film base side, not emulsions side.
The film is Kodak 100TMAX.
Any suggestions to improve, I stil have 3 films left ;)
-
Might be worth trying HDR, three or five exposures with the D800, I have had great success with colour Kodachrome slides which were somewhat wide range and managed to recover both highlights and shadow details which were almost invisible in the slide, even plant names on labels which were almost illegible came up with sufficient contrast to read them easily after Lightroom had HDR'd the five exposures.
-
Thank you Robert, might be worth a try :)
-
It won't cost anything and it's easy. to do.
I usually use an LED floodlight shining through the slide, I use a sheet of diffusing plastic, like ground glass, which I recover from a duff flat screen monitors, there are usually at least one in every monitor, to diffuse the edge lighting evenly across the entire screen. They make good diffusers for this job. Nothing wasted in this house! LOL
-
Might be worth trying HDR, three or five exposures with the D800, I have had great success with colour Kodachrome slides which were somewhat wide range and managed to recover both highlights and shadow details which were almost invisible in the slide, even plant names on labels which were almost illegible came up with sufficient contrast to read them easily after Lightroom had HDR'd the five exposures.
It's interesting, one of the supposed disadvantages of chromes was its limited dynamic range, modern digital sensors are thought to be much better. Yet here we have a modern sensor and HDR is still required to capture the full range of detail in a slide. Maybe the old stuff wasn't so bad after all? ::) :o
-
No Roland, you misunderstand, I think...
Because of the relatively narrow exposure range of exposure latitude of chromes, taking a bracketed series of exposures while copying the slide allows one to regain the range captured more realistically. I am struggling to explain it (I am not good on this technical exposure stuff) but shadow detail requires a long exposure to 'see' the shadow detail, the nicely exposed areas respond as expected but the bright areas, like sky and brightly lit parts of the original need much shorter exposures to help recover the details there.
I began to realise this when I was copying some of my fathers slides taken with a Zeiss Contaflex, with no meter and working by guesswork he had quite a few slides which he had rejected but kept in a separate box, I worked through these first, working on the assumption that I would develop my technique with the difficult ones, the better exposed ones would be a doddle.
On some slides I had to feel my way using a wide series of manual exposures to finding an optimum exposure for the slide. Examining the exposures in the computer, I began to realise that the longer exposures were revealing (hitherto) invisible shadow detail and the shorter exposures were revealing much better detail in the bright areas, allowing texture and shades to be shown which didn't appear in the mid range exposures. By combining some of the longer, middle and shorter exposures in the Lightroom HDR process, I was able to create a single, very acceptable image from a slide with poor shadow detail and relatively blown out sky. I tend to make quite a few bracketed exposures and choose just some of them for the HDR set, deleting the ones where no advantage is seen. I have also found turning down my illuminating light helps reveal a better range in the bright areas but poor colour saturation eventually calls a halt there.
Hope that makes it clearer, I still don't completely understasnd it. LOL
Edited for clarity.
-
It's interesting, one of the supposed disadvantages of chromes was its limited dynamic range, modern digital sensors are thought to be much better. Yet here we have a modern sensor and HDR is still required to capture the full range of detail in a slide. Maybe the old stuff wasn't so bad after all? ::) :o
The chromes had limited dynamic range, but made high contrast output of it. That is why you need high dynamic range for digitising the film. This is just a result of the limitation of the chromes, not anything else.
-
No Roland, you misunderstand, I think...
Because of the relatively narrow exposure range of exposure latitude of chromes, taking a bracketed series of exposures while copying the slide allows one to regain the range captured more realistically. I am struggling to explain it (I am not good on this technical exposure stuff) but shadow detail requires a long exposure to 'see' the shadow detail, the nicely exposed areas respond as expected but the bright areas, like sky and brightly lit parts of the original need much shorter exposures to help recover the details there.
I began to realise this when I was copying some of my fathers slides taken with a Zeiss Contaflex, with no meter and working by guesswork he had quite a few slides which he had rejected but kept in a separate box, I worked through these first, working on the assumption that I would develop my technique with the difficult ones, the better exposed ones would be a doddle.
On some slides I had to feel my way using a wide series of manual exposures to finding an optimum exposure for the slide. Examining the exposures in the computer, I began to realise that the longer exposures were revealing (hitherto) invisible shadow detail and the shorter exposures were revealing much better detail in the bright areas, allowing texture and shades to be shown which didn't appear in the mid range exposures. By combining some of the longer, middle and shorter exposures in the Lightroom HDR process, I was able to create a single, very acceptable image from a slide with poor shadow detail and relatively blown out sky. I tend to make quite a few bracketed exposures and choose just some of them for the HDR set, deleting the ones where no advantage is seen. I have also found turning down my illuminating light helps reveal a better range in the bright areas but poor colour saturation eventually calls a halt there.
Hope that makes it clearer, I still don't completely understasnd it. LOL
Edited for clarity.
I would like to see some shots of your setup, including the illuminating light that you are able to turn down.
-
Not sure if I have any of my current setup, it's very basic, D800 mounted conventionaly onto my PB4 Bellows, atop my heavy surveyers tripod, AIS micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 with the slide copy attachment in it''s normal configuration. This allows me to get 1:1 or better, so I can actually crop if I want to but I seldom do. The illumination is a 10 Watt LED floodlight about 2 feet away, screwed to a plank of wood on top of a filing cabinet. I tape the diffusing plastic screen to the plank about 6 inches away from the lamp. To turn the light down I add pieces of toilet tissue draped over the LED floodlamp, two pieces usually get the job done, the LED floodlamp is very cool so there is no risk of fire. It's all very basic, I used to be an avid fan of Blue Peter, a kids teatime TV show where they did projects with bits of paper and glue, they always had the next stage of the project ready under the desk and would pull it out announcy this was "one they made earlier"!. It became a catch phrase at school.LOL
I have also focus stacked with a particularly difficult slide which was curled, I took a couple of shots focused differently and the result was an improvement, getting both areas of the slide in focus. I have tried taking the slide out of the cardboard holder and mounting it free in the negative carrier, but once buckled or curled they are hard to get straight. Maybe a glass carrier?
I will dig out some images made with this setup so you may see the results.
-
Not sure if I have any of my current setup, it's very basic, D800 mounted conventionaly onto my PB4 Bellows, atop my heavy surveyers tripod, AIS micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 with the slide copy attachment in it''s normal configuration. This allows me to get 1:1 or better, so I can actually crop if I want to but I seldom do. The illumination is a 10 Watt LED floodlight about 2 feet away, screwed to a plank of wood on top of a filing cabinet. I tape the diffusing plastic screen to the plank about 6 inches away from the lamp. To turn the light down I add pieces of toilet tissue draped over the LED floodlamp, two pieces usually get the job done, the LED floodlamp is very cool so there is no risk of fire. It's all very basic, I used to be an avid fan of Blue Peter, a kids teatime TV show where they did projects with bits of paper and glue, they always had the next stage of the project ready under the desk and would pull it out announcy this was "one they made earlier"!. It became a catch phrase at school.LOL
I have also focus stacked with a particularly difficult slide which was curled, I took a couple of shots focused differently and the result was an improvement, getting both areas of the slide in focus. I have tried taking the slide out of the cardboard holder and mounting it free in the negative carrier, but once buckled or curled they are hard to get straight. Maybe a glass carrier?
I will dig out some images made with this setup so you may see the results.
Thanks, Robert. That pretty well explains your setup, minus the color temp pf the LED lamp. ;)
-
Double post error.
-
Thanks, Robert. That pretty well explains your setup, minus the color temp pf the LED lamp. ;)
Good point Carl, sorry, I had intended to mention that...
It's just an 'off the shelf' lamp I don't know the colour temperature but I did try using flash, which I have in the past, bouncing it off a white board but I found it too harsh despite trying the trick with the toilet paper! LOL
I compared the images when I started the copying and decided to go with the LED, it's warmer, there may well be gaps in the spectrum but frankly the results look good enough for me. Anyone who has seen them on my computer has been amazed what I have managed to extract from what were effectively rejected slides. In fact I have used one of the images my father took back in 1965 and was in the reject box as my 'wallpaper' for my iPhone. It's comforting to carry that with me and to help remember my times with him and his extreme scepticism about computers.
-
No Roland, you misunderstand, I think...
Thanks, that makes good sense.
I think the explanation is that the latitude for the correct exposure of a slide is very narrow, you have to get it correct when you press the shutter. You can't adjust the brightness in post (unless the slide is scanned). With negatives it is possible to adjust exposure errors when printing, and with digital images it is easy to adjust in post processing.
However the dynamic range of slides is probably greater than most give credit for. Slides generally have high contrast (which is what makes them so vibrant) so mid-tones quickly become dense or washed out. However the response into highlights and shadows is not linear. Deep shadows which appear near black can still contain a lot of detail. And although care must be taken not to over-expose slides, it takes a lot for them to be washed out completely. I have beautiful sunset slides where the sun is a distinct disk against the sky, while a similar image with a digital camera would render the sky around the sun as completely washed out. Digital sensors, with their more linear response are good at separating tones in the mid range, but once they max out, or are near black, there is little you can do, except to use multiple exposures and HDR techniques.
-
Thanks for explaining that Roland, it definitely increases my understanding of the issue, I sort of stumbled on the HDR technique by accident while hunting for an optimum exposure.
OK, I finally found the energy. I had shingles a few weeks ago, the symptoms have gone but my energy is still sorely missing.
I have gone through some of the images I made from the slides as described above.
This is a good example set of five exposures which I ran through Lightroom HDR process last Christmas Eve. In the median exposure the flower parts are blown to nothing and the shadow area is devoid of any detail.
The first image is the median, two darker, two lighter, all at f/2.8, the exposure varied by shutter speed, ISO200, the median was 1/13th sec. using D800.
The final image is of course the HDR compo of the first five.
Starting with the median exposure.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601975221_d8e66dc8f7_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48602111287_bf632c007c_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601975541_8d429309ca_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601975471_ff7cfcd533_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48602110997_cc6dea7c33_o.jpg)
This is the HDR version:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601975671_7df31f73a7_o.jpg)
Finally the image I have as my iPhone background... a 5 exposure HDR, not the sharpest but I like it and considering it was taken in 1965 as a chrome slide I think it marvellous.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48602104156_7be2d77166_o.jpg)
Thanks for looking.
-
Nice examples.
I assume the 5 exposures are all a stop apart: -2, -1, 0 +1, +2
I wonder if you could achieve the same with two exposures: -2, +2
Wouldn't there be enough overlap between the two to fill in the mid-tones, or does the HDR software need images close together? It might save you some effort.
Also curious why you shot them at f/2.8, wouldn't f/8 or f/11 be better? Wide open does not give you much DoF if the film is not perfectly flat, and you'll get some mechanical vignetting. Sharpness is usually better stopped down too.
I have a lot of slides I would like to digitise some day, so am interested to see what works...
-
Thank you Roland.
1/5 Sec, 1/8 Sec, 1/13 Sec, 1/20 Sec and 1/30 Sec.
I think that is 1/3 stop intervals? I did try different increments, I found mostly five exposures gave best results, occasionally seven, seldom three
I feel my way to the correct exposure for each slide, checking the histogram and looking at the image to see when there is no advantage in going further. For really dark slides I move the lamp closer, to help recover brights I attenuate the lamp with tissue.
I feel the exposures are long enough, I don't really want to move from base ISO to give the sensor its best chance of capturing the maximum range. I suppose I could go to ISO 400 and close the iris one stop but the Nikkor micro performs very well at f/2.8 I don't notice vignetting, in a sense my main aim is to recover the detail lost in the darks and lights, the well exposed parts look after themselves. I am sure my technique can be improved upon but most of these slides were rejected anyway, some in the box are either suffering other defects or simply of no interest. There are 1019 images in the folder, they produced 206 final images, a box full, more or less.
The effort required to take three, five or seven exposures is little different, set the camera to rapid shutter repeat and hold the remote release down, Lightroom takes only a few minutes to create the HDR, in Lightroom I found a way to batch process, setting up maybe 5 sets of images, went to make a cup of tea, returning to find them all done. The latest Lightroom has made this even easier now. The only downside is storage of the large files. Once processed, the originals could be dumped. I doubt I will revisit the processing, it's as good as it's going to get. The images are not so important to justify more time but as I mentioned, I evolved a technique which will be useful when I get to the better slides, yes I will try closing the lens a little and increasing the ISO, maybe also a more powerful lamp with a better spectrum. I may even try to use the flash again, in a different way, I will experiment with various aspects when I revisit the project later this year.
-
I can recommend using the Negative Lab plugin for Lightroom when you scan with a camera. It worked very well for me, especially with a good film (and good light). IMHO it works better than just using PS's feature or mirroring the tone curve. The developer recommends shooting with ETTR and setting the white balance on the film strip outside the frame.
-
Thank you Peter, I will look, at that.