Lens for PB4 slide and negative copying.

[Seapy]

Back in 2006 I asked Bjørn Rørslett which lens he advised me to use for the PB4, using a D1 to copy slides and negatives.  He kindly suggested a Nikkor 28mm CRC version which focuses down to 200mm.

At the time I couldn't find one I could afford, so I improvised a way of using the PB4 as a copy stand with my D1 and Nikkor micro 60mm f2.8.  It worked well enough but I found the 2.4Mp from the D1 a little bit lacking. So although I did copy some of my slides and negatives I soon realised it might be better to wait for a better sensor.  I have had my D3 for a while now and thought it's about time I resumed the copying.  Also I could do with some of the images I have on slides at rather better than 2.4 Mp!

This is the setup I used back in 2006:    The spotty white board was used to bounce flash to illuminate the slide (or negative).



I no longer have the 60 micro, replaced by the MF Nikkor micro 55mm f2.8 AI.  I have adapted the above arrangement to use with the D3 and the 55 micro but that's using the lens mounted directly on the D3.

There are alignment issues which I have dealt with but I just feel that it would be nice to use the PB4 as intended.  I have tried using the D300S and an EL105mm enlarging  lens but the field of view is way too small and focusing is impossible if I pull the camera back to enlarge the field of view.

I am getting somewhat confused and frustrated.  I realise the goalposts have moved somewhat with FX, I would be happy to use either camera but I just don't know where to turn to find a lens which will give me the field of view I need for copying 35mm slides and negatives and achieve focus.  Perhaps it's the D300S with the 28CRC which Bjørn originally suggested, or possibly use a shorter EL lens like the EL50mm? 

It seems the only way of mounting the D3 on the PB4 bellows is by adding extension tubes which further complicates things, focal lengthwise. 

[Jack Dahlgren]

I use a DF on the same device with the 55mm micro Nikkor.
Due to the grip I usually have to rack the rear mount all the way back and then it is easiest if I rotate the rear mount by 90 degrees (to portrait orientation.) before fitting the body to the mount.

Not sure of what interference there might be with D3, but since you are handy you may find someway to allow the back mount to rotate to an inverted position that would allow clearance for the grip.

[pluton]

This may not exactly answer your questions, but I have used this setup with success.
In order, from camera body to slide/negative end:
Camera, PB-4 bellows, Fotodiox(cheap) M42-Nikon F adapter, Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D M1:1 f/4 lens, 40.5-49 step-up ring, 49-52 step up ring, Nikon K5 tube, Nikon PS-4 slide/negative copy attachment.  Focus, once the general lineup is achieved, is by racking the camera body in and out on the rear(camera end) standard of the PB-4. 
I suspect, but do not know for sure, that the D3 with the short extension tube (made necessary by the D3 battery compartment bulge) would still work on this setup.

[Bent Hjarbo]

I use the above setup, but with a55mm f3.5 and a Df instead of my D800, seems the result is ok, and the files smaller.

[Bill De Jager]

I haven't tried this approach to digitizing slides yet but I expect to at some point.  I'm wondering about focus - how much of an issue is there with the slide not being flat?  Is there value in doing a little bit of focus stacking to get a composite image that's sharper edge to edge?

[Bent Hjarbo]

I use f8

[pluton]

I haven't tried this approach to digitizing slides yet but I expect to at some point.  I'm wondering about focus - how much of an issue is there will the slide not being flat?  Is there value in doing a little bit of focus stacking to get a composite image that's sharper edge to edge?

Slide flatness would seem to be the ever-present bug in the system...any system that attempts to copy the slides while still in their mounts.  The optimum aperture of the Apo-Rodagon 1:1 lens is said to be f/5.6, but I use it at f/8 because of the flatness issue. 
Most Micro-Nikkors seem to max out at f/8, but decline in performance at smaller stops.
I hadn't thought of focus stacking. Sounds like more work...
In my experience, even with the fairly rigid setup on the bellows + PS-4, the operation is fiddly and prone to the constant possibility that the slides will be knocked off of center and rotated slightly due to the available mechanical play in the setup.
The old fashioned Bowens Illumitran, Honeywell Repronar or Beseler Slide Copier remain in my mind as the ultimate slide copying accessories.

[Seapy]

As far as I can tell I need a PK3 and a PK1, 35.5mm extension to fit the D3 on the PB4 bellows.  I can get the D300S on OK by rotating the mount 90º to Portrait then back to landscape.  Unless there is some other trick I can use to mount the D3?

The 55 on the D3 won't focus back enough with the extension tubes in place and I can see no way of avoiding them.

I now have the D3 mounted as the photo above shows with the 55 micro and a PK3 extension tube, the lens is focused at maximum close focus. It nearly fills the screen with a 35mm negative but not cropping at all.  A slight crop might have been good.

I will try with the PK1 extension tube as well.  That gives me the ability to crop enough for most needs.

So what I need is a lens which will allow the D3 to fit the bellows, fill the frame with a 35mm negative, be able to crop slightly and of course focus at that distance.

As I see it I am wanting to reproduce at 1:1 using the bellows and 35.5mm of extension tubes.

This is one place a small FX body would be far better (easier) than the D3.

[David H. Hartman]

What is the need to crop? Cropping can be done in post.

Dave Hartman

[Bill De Jager]

Thanks, Pluton. I have the equipment but for now there are higher priorities.  At some point I'll give the PB4 and PS4 a chance and see how tolerant and patient I can manage to be.

[Seapy]

What is the need to crop? Cropping can be done in post.

Dave Hartman

Good point David, for minor trimming that's expected, however I do want to maximise pixels on the image.  Many slides are poor at the edges anyway, also back in the day, it was more difficult to tight frame many exposures, given most were taken with a 50mm lens.  One couldn't always zoom with one's feet.

Once set up I feel the camera copy method is viable speed wise, I can copy as fast as I can slide the film in.  The time consuming bit is sorting through the thousands of negatives deciding what to copy, then trying to remember when and sometimes where, it was taken!

As for sharpness the focus indicator is pretty good, once I get properly set up I will tether shoot straight to the Mac. That allows me to adjust exposure without touching the camera.  If a copy comes up out of focus I can see it immediately and re-take the copy.

[Hugh_3170]

I agree with cropping and adjustings things like tilt being easier in post production.

An alternative approach is here BTW:

https://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/articles/tech/ill-never-scan-a-negative-again-ever-r240/   

[Macro_Cosmos]

Creative! I looked at the photo and was like "wait... wut?" Made me giggle a bit.  Good luck with your project!

[Seapy]

I agree with cropping and adjustings things like tilt being easier in post production.

An alternative approach is here BTW:

https://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/articles/tech/ill-never-scan-a-negative-again-ever-r240/

I missed this post!

Many thanks for this link, I have ordered an LED light panel.

It's far quicker and easier to lay the negatives out on a flat panel and photograph them using a copy stand (old enlarger!)  The subsequent discussion about fastidious laser aiming and suchlike left me cold but the basic idea of using an LED light panel seems to me to be a winner.  I am a bit concerned about light scatter from the panel but I think a black cardboard cover with a suitable aperture should deal with that.

This seems to be an excuse for me to progress my green slate photo slab, about 60Kg slab of polished green slate I propose to make into a copy stand which *should* be vibration proof.

[richardHaw]

anybody tried a reversed 20/3.5?