Negatives witha digital back?

[Egor]

Interpolation "may" be an issue, I dont really know. MS backs "may" be better at that sort of thing, but in my tests here using a H4D-200MS in ms mode, I really didnt see any difference. However, there is a seeable difference between the color sensitivity of the drum scanner vs ...anything else....period.

I think that stray light causes a lowering of contrast in general and that includes the shadows in highlight detail as well. Basically across the board, so it appears "softer"
Oil mount eliminates this glare and stray light issue, as well as equalizes refractive index for peaks and valleys in the emulsion (common referred to as scratches and dust), so the image is sharper, more contrasty, better color...blahblahblah..moire and newton rings are also solved, but not the main reason for oil mount.
The grain of film IS what we focus on and IS what we are scanning. I do not try to eliminate it, if I want smaller grain, I guess I tell the shooter to shoot larger format film?
I guess my lens may be off in that it appears soft, I will check against some other shots, but my gut says this is contrast problem. I was wrong once
I think your setup will work great and please post or let me know what you find out.

 

[dick]

...in my tests here using a H4D-200MS in ms mode, I really didnt see any difference. However, there is a seeable difference between the color sensitivity of the drum scanner vs ...anything else....period.

The attitude of many pros with high-end scanners is usually that trying to photograph transparencies is amateurs playing with toys, but I think that there is no more picture detail in an MF 120 slide than there is in a good 22Mpx MS digital capture, and, if we can solve the colour sensitivity issue, it should be cost-effective and productive.

As you have mentioned, this might be solvable with profiling - have you read the Hasselblad guide to fine art repro that they told me about yesterday?

I think that stray light causes a lowering of contrast in general and that includes the shadows in highlight detail as well. Basically across the board, so it appears "softer"

What does your histogram tell you about the contrast?

"dark field" lighting of transparencies would make the highlights appear black, but what are the differences in results produced with condenser or diffuser lighting? ...it would seem to me that soft, flat lighting would be best to not produce any modelling effect on the lumps of grain?

Oil mount eliminates this glare and stray light issue, as well as equalizes refractive index for peaks and valleys in the emulsion (common referred to as scratches and dust), so the image is sharper, more contrasty, better color...blahblahblah..moire and newton rings are also solved, but not the main reason for oil mount.

Oil mounting for MFD capture would, to some extent, negate any productivity advantages, but might be an interesting test? Oil would obviously be a great help with scratched or mouldy transparencies.

The grain of film IS what we focus on and IS what we are scanning. I do not try to eliminate it, if I want smaller grain, I guess I tell the shooter to shoot larger format film?

Do you not get jobs where the photo is not re-shootable (like my cat that succumbed to cancer a few years ago) and you have to do what you can with what is available?

I guess my lens may be off in that it appears soft, I will check against some other shots, but my gut says this is contrast problem. I was wrong once

If you can see the grain to focus on, then I would think that the res of your lens is not the problem.
Are you using ground glass MFDSLR focusing?
Could you check it with tethered focusing?
Can you see the grain in the digital photos?
Does the clarity function help the micro-contrast?

I will try to capture the grain and then reduce it in post processing - downsampling or scanning / photographing at lower res could eliminate grain, but getting the optimum picture detail without the grain could be a life's work!

I think your setup will work great and please post or let me know what you find out.

I am looking forward to having the time and energy to try it - we are busy with a concert my wife is putting on on the 8th, and they will be trying to get my heart to beat in sync on the 12th. ...In the mean time, if I can benefit from the somebody else's experience and experimentation...

 

[Egor]

The attitude of many pros with high-end scanners is usually that trying to photograph transparencies is amateurs playing with toys, but I think that there is no more picture detail in an MF 120 slide than there is in a good 22Mpx MS digital capture, and, if we can solve the colour sensitivity issue, it should be cost-effective and productive.

NO, I really want this to work! Technically, I need a non-invasive procedure for capturing negs and transparencies. These are not toys (mfd) to me and my studio. The age of drum scanners ended long ago, and soon the gear will start breaking down and be un-repairable. I will need a solution to offer my clients. I have been doing this for years with 35mm DSLR's like the Canon 1Ds and 5D2 to provide fast inexpensive captures of slide pages for organization and filing purposes. The potential has always been there for quality scanning using the new tech sensors.
Keep in mind that the image I show in my example is 35mm Fuji Velvia transparency. In my tests and experience, 35mm film has resolution of 20mp sensor, medium format film has the resolution of 60mp sensor and 4x5 film has the resolution of 200mp sensor. I have scanned 8x10 film for numerous magazine covers over the years and it's resolution is unparalleled by any sensor I have access to.
Essentially film grain is about 1/20000-in but scientists at Kodak could give a more accurate figure. The advantages of direct digital capture has many advantages other than resolution issues, as we all know

Do you not get jobs where the photo is not re-shootable (like my cat that succumbed to cancer a few years ago) and you have to do what you can with what is available?

Yes, but I do not attempt to eliminate film grain. I actually celebrate it.
The only time I try to eliminate the building blocks of an image is when I am doing a "re-screen" scan of a previously printed piece that the client needs new plates for or simply has lost all files related to the printed piece. In those cases, I have the ability to do copy-dot scanning of original film, or rescreen scanning of 4-color offset pieces. This technique eliminates the moire and rosettes of standard offset lithography only, not the same as film grain.

In any case, all very interesting stuff, but off topic for simple thread question about using MFD to shoot negs, I gather?

 

[wentbackward]

Very useful thread. Doug and Egor, very valuable contributions, thanks for sharing!

 

[EH21]

Egor,
Thanks for the sample images. I've been 'scanning' my 6x6 and 4x5 negatives now with both the AFi-ii 12 and also a CF-528 microstep back. I sometimes use a light table and other times my bowens illumitran (check ebay - about $125). With either back, I'm doing better than what you have with your Aptus, and while I read you focused carefully, I wonder if it was really well focused? I find I have to use the live view function connected to a computer to really know if i'm focused or not. Also I use different lenses - 90mm Rollei APO macro - which is quite amazing and also a 80mm schneider makkro-symmar industrial lens. Good lenses make a difference here. I find the multishot back is crisper but of course the AFi-ii 12 is much faster.
The issue I have with both backs is getting the right color for color work, however I need to try the color filter suggested earlier in the thread. Mostly I shoot black and white so I haven't bothered to much.

Eric

 

[dick]

Egor,
I find I have to use the live view function connected to a computer to really know if i'm focused or not. Also I use different lenses - 90mm Rollei APO macro - which is quite amazing and also a 80mm schneider makkro-symmar industrial lens. Good lenses make a difference here. I find the multishot back is crisper but of course the AFi-ii 12 is much faster.

Yes, I think this is what is needed for ultimate quality:

Live view focusing
"proper" macro lenses optimised ONLY for the magnification range you are using
Multishot

The issue I have with both backs is getting the right color for color work, however I need to try the color filter suggested earlier in the thread. Mostly I shoot black and white so I haven't bothered to much.

Eric

I think the secret might be to use the right colour temperature light source...
¿transparencies were made for viewing with a tungsten-lit projector?
¿Normal florescent light has no green?
¿Proper photo macro LEDs start at £1K?
¿Standard LED flood light might work, but might need filtering?
I have a special daylight luminary, but I do not know if it would be the right light source?
I know you can filter in post with digital, but why not get it right in camera?
Filtering the light source would be better than filtering between the slide and the lens?
Using a colour enlarger as the light source would let you use any colour you wanted?

 

[Egor]

Eric, yes, maybe so. I will check focus again as I have found live view on mfd to be practically useless. I had the lens focused on the tranny, but have noticed out of focus problems elsewhere as well. Not sure what's goin on there, perhaps lens like Dick suggested, but the Mamiya 120mm AF seems pretty sharp at other times.
I like that Bowens illumitran. That's a good call!

 

[dick]

...perhaps lens like Dick suggested, but the Mamiya 120mm AF seems pretty sharp at other times.
I like that Bowens illumitran. That's a good call!

Does the lens ever look sharp at around 1:1 or higher magnification?

 

[Egor]

Dick, not sure, it's 5am here and once I get in the studio and take care of the profit making portion of my day, I will start checking such things. I haven't done much 1:1 work with it other than this copy project. Other uses are large art repro, and some tabletop with "hit/miss results; and yesterday it shot one 48x36 that was blurry for no apparent reason, then I locked mirror up and tried again 1sec F 11 exp) and it appeared pretty good. With the trannies I am using strobes so shutter speed is a comfortable 1/125, so that shouldn't be an issue. Really wish I had live view like on the Canons, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[EH21]

The live view on the Leaf AFi-ii 12 is quite good - certainly fine for focusing. Live view with the Hasselblad CF 528 is not as good, but also plenty fine for focusing. You really only have to do it once per session with something like the illumitran as it's not moving.

I also use a Kaiser exe.cutive:HF copy stand... weird name but it has a lighted base that has some kind of high frequency 40k hz ballast that cycles so fast that digital capture devices don't see the flicker. I found mine on ebay for $300 and it's what I use most. I set up a box on top of it and put another sheet of thick white plexi to have a double layer diffusion. I am using this more now since I can also do the contact sheet sets. The microstep and mulitshots work fine with the light.

Probably the mamiya 120 is good enough and careful focus will get you closer to the drum scan. I would really like to see. But a good lens for this would be a rodenstock apo rodagon enlarging lens or really any good enlarging lens if you have one handy and have a way to fit this to your camera. Since I use Rollei this is a no brainer - they made a behind the lens shutter adapter with m39 threads. It's a leaf shutter inside a helicoid thread mount. Perfect for this application and gets me very close to the right magnification for 6x6 or 35mm 'scan' work.

I am using an aperture of about f/13 mostly on the AFi-ii 12, and I'll go a bit further to f/16 with the CF 528 since it is less affected by diffraction.

I guess the only issues I have really are getting back to the film look with black and white by finding the right curves.

Color is a separate issue way beyond just finding the contrast curves. Really haven't gotten there yet. Can't just invert the file and go....

 

[dougpeterson]

Dick, not sure, it's 5am here and once I get in the studio and take care of the profit making portion of my day, I will start checking such things. I haven't done much 1:1 work with it other than this copy project. Other uses are large art repro, and some tabletop with "hit/miss results; and yesterday it shot one 48x36 that was blurry for no apparent reason, then I locked mirror up and tried again 1sec F 11 exp) and it appeared pretty good. With the trannies I am using strobes so shutter speed is a comfortable 1/125, so that shouldn't be an issue. Really wish I had live view like on the Canons, this wouldn't be an issue.

1:1 with a Phase One 120 is as good or better than any of the 120 macro lenses in medium format (to be clear, the Contax Zeiss, Hassy Zeiss, and Hassy H 120 lenses are all very good). However, no lens performs perfectly at it's stated limit, and 1:1 is the stated limit.

Also, it's VERY easy at this magnification (as most on this thread understand) to have insufficient DOF (even for a "flat" object), insufficient planarity (having the back slightly swung or tilted relative to the subject), or lose quality to shutter bounce, subject movement, mis-focus, insufficient flash duration to stop any bounce or subject movement, or to hit significant diffraction.

I am using an aperture of about f/13 mostly on the AFi-ii 12, and I'll go a bit further to f/16 with the CF 528 since it is less affected by diffraction.

At 1:1 an aperture of f/13 is fairly highly diffracted because the "effective" aperture is higher than the "stated" aperture. (read more)

That said, I'm well aware of how hard DOF and focusing are at 1:1, so if you have to accept some diffraction in order to get consistent reasonable-effort-level results then that's what you have to do.

 

[dick]

Hi, Doug...

1:1 with a Phase One 120 is as good or better than any of the 120 macro lenses in medium format (to be clear, the Contax Zeiss, Hassy Zeiss, and Hassy H 120 lenses are all very good). However, no lens performs perfectly at it's stated limit, and 1:1 is the stated limit.

I think you are talking about MFDSLR lenses that are "optimised" (or compromised) to perform from 1:1 to infinity? (I had wondered how good the new Hassy 120macro was, but for table-top work, in the middle of the magnification range).

I am talking about digital View camera lenses optimised for about 1:3 to 3:1, (like the Sinaron or SK apo-digitar) which, I hope, are a whole different ball game? On the Sinaron, at 2:1 magnification, the subject to sensor distance is 860mm... they do not compromise quality to for compactness or convenience.

I have about 2m of Sinar rail, and I can use my 600mm P2 and P bellows in the middle of a P3, with two P2 to P3 converter bellows, for magnifications up to 40:1 using Zeiss Luminar lenses.

Also, it's VERY easy at this magnification (as most on this thread understand) to have insufficient DOF (even for a "flat" object), insufficient planarity (having the back slightly swung or tilted relative to the subject), or lose quality to shutter bounce, subject movement, mis-focus, insufficient flash duration to stop any bounce or subject movement, or to hit significant diffraction.

At 1:1 an aperture of f/13 is fairly highly diffracted because the "effective" aperture is higher than the "stated" aperture. (read more)

That said, I'm well aware of how hard DOF and focusing are at 1:1, so if you have to accept some diffraction in order to get consistent reasonable-effort-level results then that's what you have to do.

Productivity seems to be the main motivation for MF slide copying, but there is nothing to stop one DOF stacking, even if only as a trial to see if it helps?

 

[dougpeterson]

Hi, Doug...


I think you are talking about MFDSLR lenses that are "optimised" (or compromised) to perform from 1:1 to infinity? (I had wondered how good the new Hassy 120macro was, but for table-top work, in the middle of the magnification range).

I am talking about digital View camera lenses optimised for about 1:3 to 3:1, (like the Sinaron or SK apo-digitar) which, I hope, are a whole different ball game? On the Sinaron, at 2:1 magnification, the subject to sensor distance is 860mm... they do not compromise quality to for compactness or convenience.

I have about 2m of Sinar rail, and I can use my 600mm P2 and P bellows in the middle of a P3, with two P2 to P3 converter bellows, for magnifications up to 40:1 using Zeiss Luminar lenses.

Productivity seems to be the main motivation for MF slide copying, but there is nothing to stop one DOF stacking, even if only as a trial to see if it helps?

In my experience the Schneider 120 Macro Digitar large format lens is in a league by itself (I've not compared to Rodenstocks). This is the lens we use most often for this application in the Cultural Heritage market (e.g. Harvard, Getty, Library of Congress). However this is the difference between A+ and A++.

Generally speaking anytime I see someone complain about the quality of the Phase One 120 macro lens I think first, second and third of technique.

This of course only applies to it's stated range (up to 1:1). Above that other speciality lenses will far out perform it. I have a certain love of Leica Photar microscope lenses - it could be that they are just so stinking small .

 

[dick]

Thanks, Doug...

In my experience the Schneider 120 Macro Digitar large format lens is in a league by itself.

I have been collecting view camera kit on eBay for about a decade, and I was luck enough to pick one up.

(up to 1:1). Above that other speciality lenses will far out perform it. I have a certain love of Leica Photar microscope lenses - it could be that they are just so stinking small .

¿Do these (or which) microscope lenses work by themselves (screwed in the front of a shutter) or do they need to be part of a "whole microscope" system, with a tube lens and a photo-eyepiece?

 

[EH21]

Doug,
Trying to understand your comment - guessing the mamiya 120 needs extension to get to 1::1? If you have to add extension then yes, effective aperture does change.

btw -The schneider makro-symmar lens I use does not have f/stops marked so i'm only guessing at what I have it set at.

I think multishot backs are great for negatives....

 

[ondebanks]

Doug,
Trying to understand your comment - guessing the mamiya 120 needs extension to get to 1::1? If you have to add extension then yes, effective aperture does change.

The long focus throw alone gets it to 1:1. Which is the same as adding extension to a lesser-throw 120mm lens.

Ray

 

[dougpeterson]

Extension is extension.

With most SLR lenses the longest extension is not enough to worry about the change in "effective aperture".

At 1:1 you lose about 1 stop worth of light and diffraction kicks in about 1 stop earlier. So use of f/16 at 1:1 is more akin (diffraction wise) to f/22 which will cause considerable diffraction on an 80mp system.

More complete explanation (along with the math) here.

 

[dougpeterson]

¿Do these (or which) microscope lenses work by themselves (screwed in the front of a shutter) or do they need to be part of a "whole microscope" system, with a tube lens and a photo-eyepiece?

Glass is glass. All you need is a shutter of some sort and a way to position the lens the correct distance from the body.

In my case I used a Mamiya body with the Mamiya Macro Extension Bellows. The Mamiya body has a focal plane shutter, and the bellows have a thread which, when used with the proper step down filters meant a no-gaffe-tape mounting solution .

That's one reason why I love bodies with built in shutters. VERY flexible the optics you can put in front of them.

But a shutter is not 100% necessary (though it makes things MUCH easier). I also used a view camera using light as the "shutter" - I shot at night in a dark room with all the lights out (including computer monitor) started the back's exposure, triggered the strobe, then ended the back's exposure before turning the lights back on.

Eventually I learned (through trial and error) that because the sensor was behind a lens with an effective aperture of around f/16 that the room just had to be very dim - not black. That greatly increased the working speed of the system as I did not have to turn the lights back on to make minor adjustments.

This gave me access to even higher levels of magnification.

 

[EH21]

I think of it like this - with extension the image is bigger and the diffraction is just magnified by the same ratio making it effectively more noticeable. It's perhaps one reason why some people fit diopters to the front of the lens such as Leica's Elpro, or reverse lenses. I just try to use a focal length that gets me close to what I want to start with.