Slide copying & processing

[ms.fuentecilla]

Does anyone use Affinity Photo in the process of copying slides. I have an enormous archive, some professional, and printing on Cibachrome was always good and focused. Many of these I now want digitised and am using my Sony Alpha 24 megapixel camera with macro bellows and high quality enlarging lenses, the ones used for the Cibachromes. The results viewed on my screen do not appear to have good definition. Do sharp slides really produce sharp digitised copies or am I expecting too much? The copies are RAW images processed in AP.

Do others get soft results?

Michael

[NotMyFault]

Hi Michael,

Normally i would expect to get excellent results when using a recent digital camera to digitize analog films.

As you seem to be an experienced user, i want to avoid explaining what you already know. Sorry if i repeat something "basic".

I see two possible sources for your issues:

1. Issues while taking the photos (e.g. lighting, Camera settings e.g. ISO as low as possible, best aperture for sharpness depends on lens normally f4 to f8, focus method: manual preferred to avoid unintended focus shift, field curvature of lens, slides perfectly plane?, condition of slides, slide front/back flipped?, ensure shake free environment, use tripod, deactivate lens / in body stabilization while using tripod, use remote trigger or timer to avoid shake,  use "live view",  ...). Some Sony cameras may apply a forced noise reduction which could reduce sharpness.

2. Issues while processing the RAW files in Photo. First of all, Photo does not sharpen in develop persona by default, so i expect you need to apply some sharpening manually (unsharp mask, highpass, ...). If you have sufficient light to keep ISO at min (100), you could deactivate noise reduction in Photo which could introduce unwanted blur.

Could you upload example RAW and out-of-camera jpeg?

 

[John Rostron]

The best lens for this kind of work is one optimised for close-up work. An enlarging lens is optimised for prints much larger than the film (hence the name). Why not use a good macro lens?

However for the price of a good macro lens, you could buy a good film scanner. It would  have the advantage of a more convenient workflow as well as optimised software.

For my slide collection, I used Nikon scanners (currently a Coolscan LS50 )and both VueScan and SilverFast. At present the PlusTec scanners are well regarded.

John

 

[ms.fuentecilla]

Hello Faultless and John

Thank you for these helpful suggestions. To comment first on John's, scanning is a much slower process than photographing with a 24mp digital camera. It takes me about 5 seconds for each slide. And yes, indeed, probably the macro lens will ultimately prove the way to go. There is much comment available about using enlarger lenses but one can never be certain about the skills and demands.

Answering NotMyFault - a fail all pseudonym if there ever was one! Like it! - Indeed I use both Clarity and High Pass settings. There might be some curvature of the dia but the definition seems uniformly soft rather than variably so and I use the optimal aperture of the lenses (gained by testing). They are mounted on Pentax macro bellows (relic from my LX camera) with slide copying attachment on a tripod, therefore rigid.

I have been using Photo since its inception and whilst I don't explore some of its more exotic montage capabilities do exploit it fully for photographs and abstracts, for which it is very good. There is no body stabilization on my Sony A6300, so that is not an issue and ISO is indeed restricted to 100. 

Anyway, the outcome would seem to be the possibility that the originals are not good, though they were printed at A3 successfully for exhibition and that getting good results should be possible. I was beginning to doubt it! I shall look up the Nikon Coolscan LS50 and Plus Tech. Spanish marine mountain climate over a period of years destroyed my scanners and probably Netherlands weather will be more gentle. Out of camera files are rather large, at 24Mb. 

I shall try further and then return to this topic and your helpful remarks. Perhaps I can borrow a macro lens to try but I am not a member of any club here (they wanted a CV the equivalent of applying for a Civil Service Executive position!).

Again thank you both

Michael

[NotMyFault]

Even in case the originals are degraded, you could dramatically improve the image with Photo. I use a scanner (Epson 3170) for all kinds of positive/negative film. interestingly, the gain in quality was much higher for color vs. black and white images. 

If you could upload a RAW file you normally get lots of processed images by forum users as inspiration. 
 

BTW: Nikon launched a dedicated tool ES-2 (as add-on to their macro lenses) that dramatically simplifies the workflow and ensures even lighting. 

[ms.fuentecilla]

Thank you for your further interest Not My Fault. I have experimented further and obviously have obtained clean images processing in Photo. Using RAW the flexibility is considerable and the results impressive. What I remain unable to resolve, without access to a scanner currently is whether the soft definition is the fault of the original or the lens used for copying. I do use both the clarity and high pass filters. I have read that enlarger lenses have very high definition capabilities but John (above) challenges this.

I shall look up the Nikon tool. Maybe it will work also with Sony lenses or Nikon lenses with Sony/Pentax adaptors. The equipment I am using with adaptors is high quality Pentax original and in perfect condition, like the rest of my Pentax LX gear. It looks as though the Nikon ES-2 could be used on any macro lens.

Now that Covid restrictions here have eased it becomes possible for me to travel down to a friend in the south and experiment with her slide scanner, with which they are very pleased. That should at least resolve issues related to definition. My Epson packed up due to the humidity and heat of Almeria, but I read that is also rather time consuming. Is that correct?

Although copying with a digital camera should give optimal results and is very fast, the post processing with no infra red spotting available is time consuming, even with the superb inpainting brush of Photo.

It has become necessary to dispose of many of the slides - they fill two large office cupboards 2 metres high - but we would like to have the best of them available as high quality digital copies which require fractional space.

I am very appreciative of the advice being given. It is an interesting quest!

This work is currently somewhat intermittent due to the need for rehearsals with related practice.

[NotMyFault]

Thank you for your follow up post.

Both methods, Scanning and Photography, have their pros and cons. I found an interesting blog (in german only, hope the usual online translators will help) of someone who seems to have lots of firsthand experience with both: https://www.photoinfos.com/Fotolabor/Repro/Repros.htm

He too advocates to prefer DSLR against scanners, based on speed (overall workflow) and quality. Sounds very reasonable even if i have to disagree with some of his statements (.e.g. recommending  usage of outdated OS is irresponsible for me). Scanning a single picture from film roll with required high dpi takes ages (10s of minutes), so investing into a repro workbench definitely pays pack as capture speed will be only limited by your ability to swap dia frames / film rolls. 

Looking forward to hear more about your big scanning adventure, and which method proofed to be optimal for you.

[MikeTO]

It's hard to find good information on scanning photos. I'm an amateur when it comes to photography but I've inherited thousands of film negatives and am slowly scanning them in.

When I bought my slide and film scanner a couple of years ago I found the market didn't present a lot of choices because this isn't something most people do or care about. I quickly discovered that the plentiful $99 scanners should be avoided. Flatbeds work but are slow and not the best quality. Good film scanners are expensive but there are some mid-range models from Nikon and Plustek. I wasn't sure if I was really going to scan thousands of negatives, the idea was daunting, so I went with the Plustek OpticFilm 135. Now that I've scanned a couple of thousand photos I wish I'd gone with the 8100. It wasn't much more expensive but offers double the resolution or twice the speed at the same resolution. It also comes with better software but I didn't care about that, I can process the photos in photo editing software instead.

I am satisfied with the quality of the 135 - I did some tests of scanning prints with my flatbed versus scanning the negatives with the flatbed versus scanning negatives with the Plustek 135. There was a dramatic difference in scanning negatives versus prints, it was night and day different. Also I had forgotten how much was cropped off of old prints. The Plustek 135 was also markedly better than my very good flatbed.

So yes, I recommend buying a film and slide scanner if you can afford it.

[John Rostron]

On 6/23/2021 at 9:00 PM, ms.fuentecilla said:

. I have read that enlarger lenses have very high definition capabilities but John (above) challenges this.

My implication was not that enlarger lenses lack definition, but that they are not optimised  for 1:1 work in the way that macro lenses are.

John

[Old Bruce]

Just my opinion here.

Be aware that using any average enlarger lens on a camera to specifically copy slides or negatives would be not as good as using a well designed macro lens. This is because enlarger lenses take something small, the negative, and make something large, the print. You would strictly speaking need to reverse any extremely well designed enlarger lenses to take advantage of the superior design because it is taking a slightly curved field of focus from the negative ( they are never ever flat) and giving a flat field of focus at the print size. So the threaded end needs to face the negative.

A macro lens takes something small, the negative, and makes it the same size, the sensor.

Back in the day people used to use process lenses, from the printing industry, to copy flat work, paintings mostly.

[h_d]

2 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Back in the day people used to use process lenses

And drum scanners...

[R C-R]

5 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

So the threaded end needs to face the negative.

Nikon used to make adaptors for this, one for each end of the lens. They were known as "Reverse Macro Adapters" & "Rear Lens Protection Rings."

When I was in Tokyo a million years ago I visited the worlds largest Nikon store in hopes of finding better than US prices for Nikon cameras & lenses. No luck with that but they stocked just about every Nikon accessory there was so I picked up a pair of these for my old Nikon. I think I paid the equivalent of $20 US for both, probably the least I ever spent on any Nikon product.

[Old Bruce]

13 hours ago, R C-R said:

When I was in Tokyo a million years ago I visited the worlds largest Nikon store

I would have loved to see the extremes in the lenses, the big 6mm fisheye and the 2000mm mirror lenses. I used to have the reverse macro, I put the close up lenses ( the ones that screwed onto the filter thread of any lens), slapped that on the bellows and had a pretty useless rig. Currently I am using my old Nikon glass on my Canon with  some mount adapters. Full on manual aperture control as well as focus. Love it.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

I would have loved to see the extremes in the lenses, the big 6mm fisheye and the 2000mm mirror lenses.

The Tokyo store did not stock either of those lenses -- both were special order items made one at a time, & only a few of either one was ever made. In NYC at Rockefeller Center there used to be "Nikon House" -- not a store but a showroom to promote Nikon products. There were display cases for both of those lenses, but on each of the two times I visited the place, there was a placard in the 6mm fisheye case explaining that the lens was on loan to a scientific expedition, I think to the South Pole.

I asked about that one & was told that not only was it super-expensive, it took 2 years to slowly cool the glass to prevent it from cracking!

[David in Яuislip]

20 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The Tokyo store did not stock either of those lenses

Never mind,  one of them is available in Westminster https://shop.graysofwestminster.co.uk/product/6mm-f-5-6-fisheye-nikkor/

It's no good to me as I don't have a full frame Nikon body however I have ordered a 3.5mm Meike which has the same angle of view, it'll probably be just as good 🙂

[Old Bruce]

Someone makes a digital back which will fit the old Nikon F so score one of those, an old F and .... oh crap I looked at the lens's price. Oh double crap, that 30,000 is GB £ .

[David in Яuislip]

26 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Oh double crap, that 30,000 is GB £

Yes and no discount for bulk buying as they only have one. I'd willingly trade my car but it's only worth about 1/3

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, David in Яuislip said:

It's no good to me as I don't have a full frame Nikon body however I have ordered a 3.5mm Meike which has the same angle of view, it'll probably be just as good 🙂

Have to wonder how Meike managed to make such a compact 220° f2.8 fisheye lens, at least compared to the Nikon monster weighing over 5 kilograms.

[David in Яuislip]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

Have to wonder how Meike managed to make such a compact 220° f2.8 fisheye lens, at least compared to the Nikon monster weighing over 5 kilograms.

Well it should arrive next Thursday so I will know shortly after that. I expect the results to be iffy but I'm a sucker for cheap fisheyes

[Graham L Furlonger]

This is my solution, Scanning 4x5 negatives with a Nikon D600 and a home designed / manufactured scanning plate using a commercially available A4 light table.

produces huge files in excess of 240mb from RAW Nikon or Canon files

The scanner produces 20 titles with appropriate overlap run from an Arduino and stepper motors.

The accuracy is outstanding.

 

A few observations that I found in improving the results;

Always focus on the grain side (Matt side of the neg)

At 1:1 ratio lens on FX Digital I use an aperture of f5.6 or f8, further than f8 causes aperture blade diffraction.

Use the most stable tripod / support you have.

Ensure that the plane of focus is parallel to the camera sensor.

Focus using high magnification of Live view (on DSLR's this normally ensures mirror lock up which reduces vibration)

I use Affinity Photo Panorama function to knit the 20 tiles together and generally this does a good job, but can get confused on areas of bland sky.

I had to adjust the timer facility to ensure that any vibration has ceased prior to taking each shot and moving the light table.

If you are interested I can send you via we-transfer a 240mb sized image.

Good luck.

Regards

Graham L Furlonger

 

[MikeTO]

@Graham L Furlonger Wow, that is quite the undertaking!