Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A very short flash duration would eliminate any influence outside of having focused it right, ie vibration. With a LED light source you might need to go down to 1/20 or lower if you use extension tubes to go above 1:1. Try scanning a 35mm with a 105 - you need a lot of extension tubes and they swallow light so you really come into low shutter territory, especially if you go to apertures above 5.6 to ensure everything is perfectly in focus. Especially if your light source is not the brightest and your repro stand ist not the most stable ... I sometimes am at 1/10-1/20 when stitching and even that then is on the edge.Why would a flash help sharpness? Do longer exposures suffer from vibration? I can't see a *sharpness* advantage to flash otherwise.
Thanks,
Matt
Well, Hasselblad has its own bellows, but that would be V at both ends. Though adapters are usually not the limiting factor. B&H shows a V to Novoflex BALPRO adapter...I see no reason why it should not be possible although adapting the S, if such a mount exists, to a bellows like camera with an analogue era macro lens would be the cleanest solution. A SK and Rodenstock macro lens + bellows + S adapted somehow via the bridge of the V adapter. Is there a bridge from V to a bellows camera?
Well there you have it ... novoflex to 105 Rodenstock ...Well, Hasselblad has its own bellows, but that would be V at both ends. Though adapters are usually not the limiting factor. B&H shows a V to Novoflex BALPRO adapter...
As for flatbed scanners, I've had a lot of trouble with focus. The film carriers for the Epson 750 (ok, maybe not high end) didn't help. I have a Plustek scanner that could definitely use some calibration. Putting the film in upside down is often better, and I have to try it both ways. At least a camera I can focus myself!
Matt
Good lord! Novoflex Leica S bellows system. I'm sure a 105 Rodenstock conversion would be an inexpensive mod...Well there you have it ... novoflex to 105 Rodenstock ...
Oh, agreed. I was just surprised by its existence!Dont get T/S for film repro - make sure you get the straight bellows system where everything is 100% parallel...
Personally, my preference for flash compared to LED would be first with regard to color. LEDs that I've used produced very good results in terms of color and I have used them for video and still imaging. But for repro work, I haven't found an LED source that could equal strobes for consistently accurate color reproduction across the entire spectrum. LEDs, however, have improved rapidly and are now quite close to traditional still and motion picture light sources for color accuracy. Given the current demand, I have no doubt LEDs will continue their rapid evolution.Why would a flash help sharpness? Do longer exposures suffer from vibration? I can't see a *sharpness* advantage to flash otherwise.
Thanks,
Matt
I found a M645 bellows N401 for $500 CDN. Can connect a DF/DF+/XF to it. I'm guessing I should look for a 105 Rodenstock. I understand @Paul Spinnler is a fan of that lens.Good lord! Novoflex Leica S bellows system. I'm sure a 105 Rodenstock conversion would be an inexpensive mod...
I think Rob de Loë can answer your questions regarding this lens which is sold under a variety of nomenclatures and price points.Questions questions - Novoflex sells a Schneider APO-Digitar 90mm f/4.5 lens together with their bellows adapter. This is a lens I have not heard mentioned in macro contexts. Componon-S, sure. But not the APO-Digitar, which I would expect is meant for longer distances. Has anyone experience with this lens and macro?
It works well in practice, not just in theory. I use a Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 as a taking lens, and for close-up work. It's sold as enlarger lens, but my copy is one of the "industrial" designs in the Makro-Iris housing. Before I got it, it worked hard in a factory in Asia doing line scanning of printed circuit boards. You can also buy it as the APO Digitar 90/4.5 if you'd prefer to spend a lot more.
Lots of other enlarger lenses and their industrial variants would be excellent too. Keep in mind though that you need a way to focus them. It's inexpensive and easy to put together a focusing helicoid with tubes and mounts (depending on your camera system of course).
Kidding aside, I think his opinion is justified.I found a M645 bellows N401 for $500 CDN. Can connect a DF/DF+/XF to it. I'm guessing I should look for a 105 Rodenstock. I understand @Paul Spinnler is a fan of that lens.
I heard that too ... that it is still difficult to beat good flash systems. In that regard I was surprised to see that the Einstein flashes which are not that expensive have excellent CRI. Only thing speaking against doing a neg scanning station with flashes is that it makes the whole assembly bigger. You need to put the repro stand on a custom table and build film carrier system in the middle with a flash beneath it. This is bulkier than just a mid-sized Kaiser on the floor / on a table.Personally, my preference for flash compared to LED would be first with regard to color. LEDs that I've used produced very good results in terms of color and I have used them for video and still imaging. But for repro work, I haven't found an LED source that could equal strobes for consistently accurate color reproduction across the entire spectrum. LEDs, however, have improved rapidly and are now quite close to traditional still and motion picture light sources for color accuracy. Given the current demand, I have no doubt LEDs will continue their rapid evolution.
Well what can I say - it is a) completely CA free which is nice and b) it can go way beyond 1:1 with a floating lens system meaning you can do full frame 35mm one-shots with an IQ4 150, if you want ... which beats even the Flextight X5.I found a M645 bellows N401 for $500 CDN. Can connect a DF/DF+/XF to it. I'm guessing I should look for a 105 Rodenstock. I understand @Paul Spinnler is a fan of that lens.
So I'm shooting with an IQ3100 achromatic. All my film is BW too. CA isn't an issue, but am I really going to see a big difference between the 120 macro I have and the 90 you're recommending?Well what can I say - it is a) completely CA free which is nice and b) it can go way beyond 1:1 with a floating lens system meaning you can do full frame 35mm one-shots with an IQ4 150, if you want ... which beats even the Flextight X5.
What I gleaned from the other close up photography page which was shared earlier in this thread is that the best scanners from back in the day used effectively a Rodenstock 108 macro lens, so I would think this one is at least as good if not better than any other scanner lens ever used in the most high-end scanners. If you can live with the workflow and manual aspects of it, it is a good alternative ... if not THE current standard for neg. scan quality short of now scouring endless machine vision lens datasheets to find the highest resolution optic covering still P1 backs.
This doesn't answer your real question (how good is this lens in this application), but unless you're using a monochromatic light source, you'll get the same chromatic aberration, but in B&W - which will appear as blurring.So I'm shooting with an IQ3100 achromatic. All my film is BW too. CA isn't an issue, but am I really going to see a big difference between the 120 macro I have and the 90 you're recommending?
I'm not actually shooting this close. I just lowered to take the picture.
View attachment 195827
realistically I know how good the lens is. Way better than what I was doing before. Do I need the best??? No, I don't. I've done some smaller prints 11x17 from a 35mm from a little plustek and 16x20 prints from scans of 6x6 film. Prints looked good to me back then. Now I'll redo all that with this process. I'll definitely have better detailed prints as a result.This doesn't answer your real question (how good is this lens in this application), but unless you're using a monochromatic light source, you'll get the same chromatic aberration, but in B&W - which will appear as blurring.
M
The problem when discussing these is that there are a lot of variants of the 90/4.5, and they're not all documented. The three main types are the APO Componon HM 90/4.5 enlarger lens, the many APO Componon 90/4.5 in Makro-Iris industrial housing, and the APO Digitar 90/4.5, which comes in several housings but seems to have one optical formula (e.g., manual Copal, electronic shutters, shutterless iris mount that resembles an enlarger mount).Questions questions - Novoflex sells a Schneider APO-Digitar 90mm f/4.5 lens together with their bellows adapter. This is a lens I have not heard mentioned in macro contexts. Componon-S, sure. But not the APO-Digitar, which I would expect is meant for longer distances. Has anyone experience with this lens and macro?