medium format film "scanner"

Can anyone tell me if the viewing screen on the back of DSLR's (mine is a Canon 5D (2)) are parallel to the sensor?

 

If the camera is pointed down to copy, and a level is used to level the viewing screen, will the sensor be similarly aligned?

 

Thanks

I suspect it's likely -- and you could test by photographing some rectangular outlines.

 

One thing I do when setting up to photograph paintings is to place a mirror at the plane of the artwork, then adjust the camera to see the center of the lens at the center of the focus screen. With my particular setup, I can usually see the stopped down aperture of the lens when I take an exposure with that mirror. The process places the optical axis exactly perpendicular to the image plane. Note: I'm not saying it's easy to actually do! (And it does make me wish I owned a geared 3-axis head for my tripod.)

There are still film scanners being sold and some will do 120. Plustek, Braun, Reflecta (Pacific Image) are some of the more respected brands, - though they sell cheap stuff too.

There is an inexpensive alternative to the Nikon 9000: the 8000, which I have. Yes, they're getting older, but if it works it does a good job. I think the only difference from the 9000 is speed.

But frankly, having made numerous comparisons, my Epson v500 also does a good job. You can't really see a big difference unless the print size goes over like 26x26 inches. And at that size, you'd need a fine-grain film, a tripod, and a good stopped-down lens.

I would have thought anyone who was happy with the 2000 ppi or so resolution of an Epson flatbed, would be equally happy with copies from a 24 megapixel or higher digital camera dupe.

 

It irks me that Epson blatantly advertise a 6400 dpi (sic) "true optical resolution", that their scanners are completely incapable of delivering. Plus they openly display their ignorance of the difference between pixels and dots!

Just to circle back. Ended up buying a Canon 100mm macro, as it focuses on the entire negative with much less fuss than using extension tubes on other lenses. I'm delighted with the results. They're easily as good as any flat bed I've used, and much faster. The digital camera has far more dynamic range than any negative can "throw at it."

 

I use a Beseler negative carrier to hold the negative, and set it on a ipad with a blank screen as a back light source. Need to elevate the negative carrier a bit to throw the ipad lighting completely out of focus, as it will show banding otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2018 by ed_skibeki

Regarding JDMvW's last comment, I totally agree. I use what folks now refer to as a 'hybrid darkroom.' Meaning I develop my film in a light-tight tank, but I scan or dupe my negatives or slides. This is so much more convenient that a full-blown darkroom, plus having the images digitized makes it so much easier to share them on the web.

 

I have an Epson 4990, which was their top-of-the-line scanner prior to the V7xx series. Like all other flatbed scanners, including the V850, the resolution numbers are entirely overblown. My 4990 touts 4800x6400 pixels per inch resolution, but in reality it tops out at about 2000 ppi. The V7xx models top out at about 2200 ppi, this despite their claimed resolution of 6400 ppi, and although I'm not familiar with the V850's specs, I doubt seriously its resolution tops 2500 ppi. The Nikon Coolscans top out at around 4000 actual ppi, however, which is what makes them so desirable.

 

I get perfectly adequate scans from medium format negatives and slides with my Epson 4990, however. I set my Epson's resolution to 2400 ppi because this is more than it actually puts out and is plenty good enough for medium format because of the size of the negative or slide. Prints from these scans are plenty good all the way up to 16x20s.

 

For 35mm, I've found my Epson wanting. So I turned to my digital camera and decided to start duping my slides and negatives. Currently, I'm using a 24.3 mp NEX 7, which delivers 4000 x 6000 pixel images -- which are the same as the Nikon Coolscans, but at a small fraction of the price of one of those Nikon units..

 

So far I haven't tried duping my medium format images, mostly because I haven't really felt the need. But I would like to dupe my MF images one day, so here's what I've planned. I have a light box I built out of an old wine bottle box (made from wood). One side is a large, translucent piece of white acrylic. Its light comes from a couple of fluorescent fixtures with daylight balanced bulbs that I've mounted inside the box. I've been using it for examining slides and film strips, but it occurred to me that I could also use it as a light source for duping medium format film. Ed's idea of using an iPad is a good one. I have an iPad Air, so I could use it instead of my light box. I also have a copy stand, so I can set my light box (or iPad) on the copy stand and mount my camera with macro lens to the copy stand. To hold the film in place, I will use the medium format film holder from my Epson 4990, and then just push it around to change from one image to the next. People complain that these film holders don't hold the film flat. I personally haven't found this to be a problem because my Epson's lens seems to have sufficient depth of field. And when I shoot dupes with my macro lens, I set it to at least f/8, which provides me with sufficient depth of field to handle any slight curvature that my film may have. So flatness (or lack thereof) is a non-problem. And speaking of the lens, my macro lens of choice for film duping is my Nikon AIs 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, which will be mounted to my NEX 7.

 

The only problem I envision with my setup is the light source. Even daylight balanced fluorescents may put out light with suspect quality and the white balance of my digicam may or may not deal successfully with it. If that is the case, and if I'm not able to correct the white balance within my image processing software, then I'll replace the fluorescents with LED arrays. Great thing about LEDs is white ones really are white. Or I'll just use my iPad and be done with it. The only advantage my light box has over my iPad is size -- it's about 4x as big as my iPad.

Edited February 4, 2018 by mwmcbroom

Has anybody tried the "Film Toaster"? Does film from 35mm to 4x5. Not cheap but if you do a lot it may be worth it. It seems to be a more refined slide copier.

$1500 for a box with a light table in the bottom of it!?

 

Splutter! I don't know whether to laugh or cry. How the **** can anyone justify that price? Unless they throw in the DSLR and macro lens too.

 

There's a far more useful Bowens Illumitran on eBay right now for one-tenth of the price.