Jump to content

Slide copy problem with Nikon ES-1


tom_halfhill

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi Tom<br>

I have been reading this thread with interest, and I too have an ES1 slide copier, I also owned a Nikon Coolscan at one point, then one day some years ago in conversation with a fellow photographer we came to the subject of digitally copying transparencies and negatives, both mono and colour, and having seen some of the examples of his copying I was sold on his method and have used it ever since with remarkable success, I have a Kaiser RA1 Copy Stand, a Kaiser Slimlite light box, and for negatives a Nikon FH-835S 35m strip film holder, I use a Nikon FX format camera with my 60mm Micro lens and photograph the individual negatives 12 at a time in RAW, I then take them into Photoshop where I employ a conversion process that produces, as far as I am concerned pretty accurate results when compared to the originals, with transparencies I photograph them individually, again in RAW, on the light box, normally in batches of about 30 to 50 at a time, then take them into Photoshop to work on the images, this method has worked fine for me and if you wish to see my methodology I would be happy to let you have a copy of my printed workflow, not sure if we can PM on this forum though, I could also send you some examples of thirty year old colour negatives that not only did I process using this method, I even used the mounted enlargements at a number of exhibitions that I presented, I apologise if I have gone off the topic of the ES1 but having tried this method myself, I felt far more at ease with my newly discovered means of copying.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>A copy stand like the Kaiser RS-1 (the RA-1 is the camera arm) or Honeywell Repronar is a lot more flexible than a Nikon ES-1 slide holder, but a lot larger and more expensive as well. The Nikon FH-835S film holder alone sells for more on the used market than the lens, extension tube and ES-1 in my setup - nearly twice as much.</p>

<p>I presume you use a guide of some sort to position the film holder at least in one direction. It would be rather labor intensive to center and straighten each frame. The ES-1, on the other hand, can be loaded and centered largely by sight and touch. It also excludes ambient light which might reflect on the shiny film surface and mount, reducing contrast and causing interference.</p>

<p>A copy stand would probably be the best choice for handling medium and large format film, as well as prints and flat work of any sort. I've tried using a tripod, and the difficulties with setting up and alignment preclude any extended use. Right angle finders are rather rare on modern DSLRs. The in-line finders on most cameras are almost impossible to use for copying. The articulated rear LCD and live view on most mirrorless cameras would work well. I've used an Hasselblad with a "chimney" finder effectively for copying.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Edward, I've used both Photoshop (CS6) and Paint Shop Pro (X7) for digitizing negatives and the results I've gotten have been reasonably good, with the exception of Ektar. But it has required a fair amount of fiddling and adjustment before I wind up with a final positive image that I feel comfortable is close to the original subject. Ektar is another matter, however. I've tried and tried, and just finally gave up on it. It exhibits way too much cyan and I can never get rid of the excess entirely.</p>

<p>So anyway, I would very much like to read about your procedure(s) for processing negative images in Photoshop. You can send me a PM if you want (just click on my name), or share with the group. Thanks.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Many people say Digital ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome slides. But the latest version that came with my Coolscan V does indeed work with Kodachrome as well as with other types of color slides and negatives. There's a special Kodachrome setting in the Nikon Scan software. I have scanned hundreds of Kodachrome slides and it works great. Just remember to select "Kodachrome" or you'll get odd results.</p>

<p>Digital ICE does not, however, work with conventional b&w films. Which is a shame, because old b&w negatives often need the most work.</p>

<p>I've seen those slide-dupe outfits that resemble darkroom enlargers. I'm sure they work fine, but I don't see any advantage over using the much simpler and smaller ES-1. The main purpose of those outfits is to correctly align the film with the macro lens. The ES-1 does that with no fuss. The slide-dupe outfits also have provisions for filtering to correct color balance, but that's a holdover from the film days. With the ES-1, the DSLR can do some of that filtration with auto white balance, and there's always Photoshop for further adjustments. In any case, finding the perfect gel filtration for each slide would be a time-consuming process when duping numerous slides made with different films at different times and places.</p>

<p>The slide-dupe outfits do allow more zooming if you want to crop the dupe in camera, but the ES-1 allows some zooming and is sufficient for all but the most poorly composed pictures. Film grain and lack of image sharpness limit the degree of zooming, anyway. The old slides I'm duping were made with cheap 35mm cameras and/or crummy lenses, so they aren't very sharp to begin with. And when Kodachrome was ASA 10, even daylight exposures were made at relatively slow shutter speeds that made it difficult to hold the camera steady. None of the slides I'm duping would be considered sharp by modern pixel-peeping standards.</p>

<p>I prefer to use bright daylight as my light source when duping slides with the ES-1 because it helps the camera focus accurately. I have no problems with color temperature. The slight differences in color temps over the course of a day are small compared with the much larger differences among old, faded slides. The camera's auto white balance handles it well. Some people prefer electronic flash, which is OK, except you still need a bright light source for focusing. Daylight serves both purposes.</p>

<p>The shutter speed is irrelevant when duping with the ES-1 because it's attached to the lens. In experiments, I've made sharp dupes using hand-held shutter speeds measured in seconds, not fractions of a second! The whole outfit is a single unit, so camera movement doesn't matter. But I prefer to go outside where I can point the ES-1 at the sky and get a relatively fast shutter speed at f/8 or f/11 at ISO 200, because slow speeds tend to increase digital noise and hot pixels, even at base ISO.</p>

<p>Some professional slide-duping services are now using DSLRs instead of film scanners. ScanCafe still uses Nikon scanners, but I prefer my ES-1 dupes to their scans, mainly because ScanCafe does virtually no color correction. Earlier this year I spent a few months tediously color-correcting 500 of their scans.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I found my Nikon film strip holder, and finally had a go at copying negative color film with a camera and processing the results. The FH-3 is only slightly thicker than a mounted slide, and fits (kind of) in the ES-1. I also ordered another ES-1, which I intend to modify to accommodate a Pacific film strip holder.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/907200-REG/pacific_image_649899001691_film_holder_for_pf7200u_pf7200_pf120.html</p>

<p>Processing the negative to a positive format proved to be more difficult than I had imagined. Simple inversion (ctl-I in Photoshop) doesn't work at all. There is an option in "Curves" (ctl-M) in the pull-down window for color negatives, which works much better, but still no cigar (with Ektacolor). I have the Silverfast Archive Suite for my scanner, which includes an HDR program for file processing. This works very well.</p>

<p>I have a lot of details to work out regarding film handling and processing, which I will post at a later time. One "trick" is to underexpose the copy by 2 stops, in order to produce a TIFF file "dense" enough for proper conversion. Otherwise the orange mask fools the camera into overexposing. Another is to crop any exposed frame, which upsets the conversion. This is a first try, as-is without much tweaking. (Even scanning, it is very difficult to balance both sky and foliage with Ektacolor.)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18269255-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<blockquote>

<p>Attached image produced from a 30 year old negative using my copy stand and light box method, regards Mike</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you describe your conversion method in more detail. Your results are impressive.</p>

 

<p>The Kaiser stand, camera arm and light table cost nearly $3000 at B&H. That's still cheaper than an used LS-8000/9000 with outdated software. The Nikon double strip holders go for about $400 used. The practicability of "scanning" negatives with a digital camera begins with the formidable problem of handling and presentation. Slides are much easier because they are generally individually mounted.</p>

<p>Conversion to positive images is hard enough to achieve any sort of consistency even with a scanner. Silverfast HDR software is basically the same as used for their scanner software, with the same interface and all, but designed to start with TIFF, JPEG and other standard image files. The simplest method is to drag-and-drop from a file explorer into the program. (The Silverfast file explorer is a kludge, and doesn't recognize default locations.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mike, if you can't figure out how to attach a pdf, perhaps you could send a copy via email? If you click on a member's name, it takes you to a page where you can send an email to the member, but I dunno offhand if photo.net allows attachments with their email link. If not, genuine email addresses can be exchanged via photo.net's<br>

email function and a copy of the pdf could be sent using conventional email routines.<br /> I'd really like to have a copy of that pdf.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I haven't done a lot of color negative duping yet. Mostly because it's more time consuming than slides but also because almost all my best work with film has been shot on slide film. So, given the added fiddly nature of duping negatives, the law of diminishing returns applies as well.</p>

<p>This is an example, though, of one conversion I've done. The film is Fuji Superia 400. Taken with a Canon F-1 and 85mm f/1.2 lens. I was shooting at f/1.2, so focus isn't the best, but the colors are pretty accurate.</p>

<p>The first photo was processed using Paint Shop Pro's negative command, followed by its color fade correction command. I then set the gray scale as accurately as I could and added a bit of contrast.<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/bratcat_psp_1a.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1067" /></p>

<p>This one was done in Photoshop, using its invert command. I did some work with the color functions and gray scale, then added a bit of contrast.<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/bratcat_ps_1a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I think the one processed in Photoshop is a bit more accurate; its colors are more neutral.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mike Doyle,<br /> Thank you for sending me (and others) the PDF instructions you use for converting color negatives. It is very helpful. I would like to expand a bit for the PNET audience.</p>

<ul>

<li>Using the digital camera, expose the negative normally (AE). This preserves the greatest dynamic range without clipping.</li>

<li>If possible, work in RAW mode, keeping a 14-16 bit channel depth. This minimizes the chance of posterization.</li>

<li>Crop the image to remove any borders included in the scan! The presence of borders, white or black, distort the subsequent conversions.</li>

<li>Optionally, use auto-white-balance (AWB) in the camera, or apply it to the RAW file in LightRoom. The conversion works with or without AWB, but removing some of the orange at this point helps</li>

<li>Export the results to Photoshop WITH EDITS (non-destructive in Lightroom)</li>

<li>In Photoshop, invert the colors (ctl-I). The order of this step is important!</li>

<li>Using Levels (ctl-L), adjust each color channel to full width. Do this one channel at a time manually, or use the AUTO function to maximize each channel simultaneously. Save the results</li>

<li>Continuing in Levels, adjust the center slider to the overall density. Save the results and return to Lightroom</li>

</ul>

<p>The following is an example of a color negative taken with Ektacolor 100. As with any conversion, you adjust the results "to taste", with normal variations. These are pretty much "as scanned." The A7Rii image was cropped more severely in order to straighten the borders. The purpose of this particular outing was to compare results between Ektacolor in a Leica M3 of the same scenes taken with a Leica M9. (I didn't always swap lenses. In this case, the M3 had a Summicron 50 and the M9 a Zeiss 35/2.8 ZM lens.)</p>

<p>Scanned with LS-8000 and Silverfast AI software<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18269588-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="460" /></p>

<p>Copied with A7Rii and Converted in LR and Photoshop<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18269613-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Leica M9<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18269635-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMO, those who settle for a photo editor "correcting" color negatives are just settling for "almost good enough". The degree of shifting way exceeds what 8 bit binary data can do. It's like gamma, simply not done in 8 bits. The digital camera is fantastically great for slides, but not so much for color negatives.</p>

<p>Photoshop has a specfiic tool for this color negative task, the Curve Tool at menu Images - Adjustments - Curves. That tool has a one click selectable profile Color Negative (RGB).</p>

<p>But if you examine that profile, it shows that 1/4 to more than 1/2 of the tonal range of all three channels is simply discarded (output as zero), the range is too great for digital.</p>

<p>Film scanners do this same job (to remove orange mask in color negatives) in analog light, so that the 255 clipping is not a factor in analog. It has not been digitized yet. The exposure times of the scanners green and blue channels are around 2x and 4x longer than the red channel exposure, to simulate analog filters to remove the orange, without digital limits. This is why color negatives scan slower than slides. It is a better way. Those that love their Photoshop may not be impressed, but these doing careful comparisons do know the way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't envision using a DSLR and the ES-1 slide copier to dupe color negatives. The ES-1 wasn't designed to hold unmounted film, and the orange mask is definitely a problem. I use my Coolscan for color negatives. I have relatively few color negatives worth scanning, anyway, compared with the much larger number of color slides.</p>

<p>But just for curiosity, have you tried removing the orange mask and color-correcting your negative dupes by using the midpoint eyedropper in Photoshop? It's my quickest way to color-correct faded slides. Just open the histogram, select the midpoint eyedropper, and click it on anything in the photo that should be middle gray. Usually I can find something, though it may take a few tries. One click often restores the colors very close to the original scene.</p>

<p>However, I would like to use a DSLR and the ES-1 to copy 35mm b&w negatives if I can improvise a film-strip holder. Those negatives don't have the orange-mask problem or color fading, and Digital ICE doesn't work with conventional b&w film, so the camera-dupe method has no disadvantages over using a film scanner. But with so many color slides, prints, and medium-format negatives to copy, I'm probably years away from getting to the 35mm b&w negatives.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>But if you examine that profile, it shows that 1/4 to more than 1/2 of the tonal range of all three channels is simply discarded (output as zero), the range is too great for digital.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are misinterpreting the significance of the histogram. Color negative film greatly compresses the dynamic range of capture into a space less than half that available in digital image. The total density range is easily captured by a digital camera or scanner. After trimming away the excess, you expand what's left. That's why it's important to capture the scan in 14-16 bits/channel, so that you don't get posterization when the range is expanded after trimming, as witnessed by a fragmentation of the histogram.<br>

<br>

If you want "accurate" color, you'd best spend some time defining what you mean by accurate. Slides are easy to copy because what you see is what you get, not obscured by an orange mask. You also have the original with which to compare the copy. That doesn't mean slide film captures the original scene accurately. With negatives, you don't have a convenient frame of reference. Putting it in "bumper-sticker" conciseness, every medium distorts, so pick the level of distortion which pleases you. The success of scanning is probably more dependent on consistency than any misguided sense of accuracy.<br>

<br>

The greatest challenge to scanning negatives with a camera remains the mechanical job of handling them and presenting them to the lens. Use of a light table and copy stand by Michael Doyle is the most straightforward method with minimal adaptations other than guides. I'm looking for a more portable method. I've ordered another ES-1, which I intend to modify to fit inexpensive ($10) film strip holders by Pacific (and others). I have accumulated many more negatives than slides over the years, mainly because it was easier to share prints than slides before scanning (and digital in general). My guess is that others are in the same position.<br>

<br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm thinking I do understand. It's worse than you might imagine. Film might have a little range, but this computer operation is digital, NOT film any more. Realize that our digital images are of course gamma data, so the actual linear midpoint is near 73% in the histogram, and after using this tool, there won't be anything left above about 25% of linear data. Maybe if we intentionally underexposed them about 4 stops? Don't expose to the right. :)</p>

<p>If this digital correction method worked well, then why would film scanners bother taking much longer to scan color negatives (to greatly increase blue and green exposure to offset the orange) ? When they could simply just stretch the digital histogram data? Except of course, they would quickly hit the 255 digital clipping point. Analog has advantages in some contexts.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I see no difference in scanning times of slides v negatives. There might be more processing time for negatives, but with newer, faster computers scanning has been limited by the LS-4000/8000 machine time for many years. For a straight-up scan, all the operations are executed in a single, lateral pass, then the film is indexed for the next pass. Up to three rows of in the sensor array are scanned per pass, with the option (slow scan) to do a single line at a time to reduce banding. There is also an option to do multiple passes, but in a Nikon scanner each line scan is repeated before the film is indexed (flatbed scanners repeat the entire scan from top to bottom).</p>

<p>In negative film, the entire scene is recorded to a density range equivalent to about 8 stops. That is why negative film has such a broad dynamic range of capture, and is so forgiving of exposure and color balance. The Dmax is about 2.5. The Sony A7Rii, Nikon D810, and others have a dynamic range of 12-13 stops, so recording every bit of data on a color negative is well within their capacity. A Nikon scanner can handle a Dmax of 4.0. This does not apply to a digital camera "scan", since the exposure time can be varied over a wide range.</p>

<p>Other than the electromechanical options described above, all the scanner operations are executed in software as the scan progresses, including ICE. This includes analysis of the data represented by the histogram, removing the mask, and optimizing the color channels. There are no physical adjustments for exposure - it's all software.</p>

<p>I'm not sure you understand what "expose to the right" means, as it is best applied to reversal (slide) film and digital capture. That said, I may overexpose color negative film by up to 1 stop, depending on the emulsion and the scene, in order to get better shadow detail. In negative film, highlights tend to take care of themselves, so you would "expose to the left" for better shadow detail.</p>

<p>The limit of 255 refers to 8 bit/channel capture or display. The limit for 16 bit images is over 32,000. This isn't a limit, per se, rather the number of possible steps between pure black and pure white. When you "expand" the histogram of an 8 bit file, each bit is rounded to the nearest value. For a 16 bit file, there are 8 steps for each step in an 8-bit histogram, hence the stretching must be pretty drastic to open up any gaps.</p>

<p>The orange mask serves a curious function. It is formed from the unreacted leuco dye in the emulsion. Where the image is dense, there is less masking, and vice versa. This serves to reduce contrast to make printing easier, sort of an automatic dodging and burning effect.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Using a digital camera in lieu of a film scanner is necessary because good film scanners are no longer made at a reasonable price. Nikon, Canon, Minolta and others are kaput. If you have $20K for an Imacon or Scytec. go for it. You can also pay $50 to $100 or more for a drum scan. Otherwise you can settle for a flatbed and generally mediocre results.</p>

<p>A 24 MP digital camera has the same resolution for 35mm film, 6000x4000 pixels, as an unobtanium Nikon LS-4000/8000, and is 10x as fast. What we have established here is a reliable method for converting negatives to positives, with reasonably good results. Not completely solved are the problems handling film strips as opposed to mounted slides. This resolution is more than good enough. The results are grain-sharp, which is more than you can say for the underlying detail, taken with excellent lenses and a sturdy tripod.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Great thread, thanks to all.<br /> <br /> I have an ES-1 and a older 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens. The lens came with an M2 ring to give a 1:1 image, but in order to get the whole slide I added a K4 ring and a filter ring with the glass removed. These two rings give me a 1:1 copy using a Nikon D70 body. I think that camera has a DX sensor.<br /> <br /> I haven't seen any mention of the M2 ring so far so perhaps my setup may be of interest. As for film, I have a Nikon six frame strip that fits nicely under the clips of the ES-1. It's a film holder that came with a copy accessory for a Coolpix 990.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paul</p>
www.paulwhitingphotography.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For an APS-C camera, you need an overall magnification of 1:1.5 not 1:1. The lens itself only goes to 1:2, but the extension ring brings this to 1:1. You would need to back off the lens focus and move the slide/negative further away to get 1:1.5. This is a little more extension than the telescoping adjustments on the ES-1 can accommodate. The Nikon K extension tubes screw into the filter ring, and the ES-1 into the K4, both 52 mm threads.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, Edward, for helping me better understand my ratios. So, the D70 has an APS-C sensor? I didn't know that. This was just a borrowed camera, I want to get a D90 which has a higher pixel count. Does it have an APS-C sensor also? Does DX mean the camera has an APS-C?</p>

<p>Thanks also for helping me better understand what my K4 ring and my empty filter ring were doing. I suppose I could've used a K5 ring and I wouldn't need the empty filter ring.</p>

<p>Then, I dug into my saved links folder and lo and behold found this: http://www.scantips.com/es-1b.html</p>

<p>(as an aside... do you know of some way I can delete those messages where I got rather lost? Very embarassing!)</p>

<p>Appreciated your help,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

www.paulwhitingphotography.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...