Loading negative "strips" on an Ohnar Slide Duplicator

Hello Everyone, Long time reader, first time posting. First, I must thank the Photo.net community for all the helpful posts it has generated!

 

I just started 35mm film photography myself and developed my first roll of film. I got curious by the several threads on Photo.net and over at DPreview on slide duplicators / reversers for film scanning with a camera, so I purchased the Ohnar 1:2 Zoom duplicator. Unfortunately, its front stage appears to only accept 2x2 mounted slides, and not really a generic film holder (like this one built for dedicated scanners). All my negatives are cut in 6-piece strips and are stored in sleeves. So I am wondering if there exists any film strip holder measuring 2" along the short side, and also sufficiently thin so that the negative stays in focus for the duplicator. In general, I am also wondering how users of such equipment scan strips of negatives.

 

Thank you!

 

PS: I did come across the ES-1 / ES-2 kits from Nikon, but I would like to start off with something cheaper for now.

The same basic duplicator was sold under many names - Ohnar, Bush&Meisner and Soligor among others. They all have the same slide holder, and none of them will accept strips of negatives without modification or some non-existent film holder. They all have too much magnification to use with a DX format digital camera as well.

 

It would be possible to make a simple mask that fitted into the slide holder section and allowed strip film to be used, but I've never seen a ready-made filmstrip holder for the Ohnar copiers. The designers of the slide-holder/diffuser didn't do a very good job in my estimation, and there isn't room for a proper filmstrip holder to be fitted.

 

If you look a bit harder, there are duplicating adapters of similar design to the Nikon ES-1 & 2, but at a fraction of the price. However, they do need to be used in conjunction with a true macro lens, that they screw onto the front of.

 

This is such a device.

I can't remember its brand name offhand, but I've seen the same device sold under at least two different names. It's an open telescoping tube (no lens inside) with a slide/filmstrip holder at the front, and a filter thread to fit a lens at the back. Mine came with a 52mm thread, but I've seen others with a series vii thread at the back.

 

There's also the older Nikon ES-E28 with a 28mm lens thread. It can be modified to take a short extension tube and a lens reverser to make it similar to an ES-1. It comes in a kit with a decent 6 frame filmstrip holder.

Edited January 7, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Thank you @rodeo_joe! I continued playing with the zoom duplicator with DIY modifcations. I just wasn't getting sharp enough shots. Last week, I decided to take the macro route on my old 2010 APS-C Canon T2i DSLR. I coupled a few extension tubes with the 18-55 kit lens, placed the film on the film holder, and took shots of it backlit by a cheapo lightbox. Extremely happy with this setup and I don't foresee buying a dedicated scanner. Thank you all for your help!

Extremely happy with this setup and I don't foresee buying a dedicated scanner.

I've worked my way through several dedicated film and film-capable flatbed scanners over the years. I found all of them slow and in some cases giving disappointing results.

 

I now use a 24 megapixel camera to digitally copy my 35mm negatives; faster and with results at least as good as from my best scanner. Not looking back!

I've worked my way through several dedicated film and film-capable flatbed scanners over the years. I found all of them slow and in some cases giving disappointing results.

 

I now use a 24 megapixel camera to digitally copy my 35mm negatives; faster and with results at least as good as from my best scanner. Not looking back!

Hi joe. Can you tell me what you set up is? I use an old epson scanner but the results are a bit rubbish. Thank you. Alice

What works in scanning slides and images depends on what you are using the scanned images for.

 

For on-line posting and just screwing around, some flatbed scanners like the Canon 9950 and the Canon 9000F are adequate.

 

My personal experience based on having copied quite literally 10s of thousands of slides first with my old Heiland Repronar and subsequently with all kinds of other methods, is that the ultimate quality will come from a high quality dedicated film scanner like the Nikon CoolScan 9000 (e.g., LINK). Unfortunately the market to support such scanners has gone with the virtual disappearance of film as more than a niche product. If you wanted a top scanner for less than "commercial" rates, ca. 2004 was the time to buy one.

 

I have tried the direct to camera with what I consider the best copy rig -- the Honeywell Universal Repronar -- It works well enough for small batches, but it's not for fast through-put.

Honeywell Universal Repronar w/ digital camera

Hi joe. Can you tell me what you set up is?

It's a Sony a6000 camera on a Bowen's Illumitran. Similar to the Repronar shown by JD above.

 

However, I had to modify the Illumitran to reduce the flash power, which was too bright even at the lowest setting. It was designed for film copying using ridiculously slow copying film.

"The Beast"

It's a Sony a6000 camera on a Bowen's Illumitran. Similar to the Repronar shown by JD above.

 

However, I had to modify the Illumitran to reduce the flash power, which was too bright even at the lowest setting. It was designed for film copying using ridiculously slow copying film.

[ATTACH=full]1328256[/ATTACH]

"The Beast"

Crikey, what a monster. Too complicated for me ha. Thank you. Alice

What works in scanning slides and images depends on what you are using the scanned images for.

 

For on-line posting and just screwing around, some flatbed scanners like the Canon 9950 and the Canon 9000F are adequate.

 

My personal experience based on having copied quite literally 10s of thousands of slides first with my old Heiland Repronar and subsequently with all kinds of other methods, is that the ultimate quality will come from a high quality dedicated film scanner like the Nikon CoolScan 9000 (e.g., LINK). Unfortunately the market to support such scanners has gone with the virtual disappearance of film as more than a niche product. If you wanted a top scanner for less than "commercial" rates, ca. 2004 was the time to buy one.

 

I have tried the direct to camera with what I consider the best copy rig -- the Honeywell Universal Repronar -- It works well enough for small batches, but it's not for fast through-put.

[ATTACH=full]1328208[/ATTACH]

Honeywell Universal Repronar w/ digital camera

hi, what lens is on your camera and can i use a close up atatchment. thank you. Alice.

what lens is on your camera and can i use a close up atatchment

 

For small lots of slides, you can rig an equivalent of a copy stand with a tripod. You need a light source beneath the slide, and a bellows with a real copy lens (e.g., an enlarger lens on a bellows).

 

A 'macro' lens like ethe Tamron 90mm also works.

 

In a pinch, even close-up "plus" lenses will do, but not all that well.

For small lots of slides, you can rig an equivalent of a copy stand with a tripod. You need a light source beneath the slide, and a bellows with a real copy lens (e.g., an enlarger lens on a bellows).

 

A 'macro' lens like ethe Tamron 90mm also works.

 

In a pinch, even close-up "plus" lenses will do, but not all that well.

Thank you i'm going to try it with extension tubes and a ceiling light ha. Alice.

You need a light source beneath the slide, and a bellows with a real copy lens (e.g., an enlarger lens on a bellows).

+1 to using an enlarging lens.

I've now settled on a Rodenstock 80mm f/5.6 Rodagon. That's after trying a small collection of enlarging lenses.

 

The Rodagon cost me £25 UK, IIRC, but an even cheaper (£10) Durst 80mm Neonon came a very close second for quality. Enlarging lenses are almost certainly the 'best bang for buck' macro lenses you can buy today. Be quick though, because prices seem to be creeping upwards from an all-time low!

I have several enlarging lenses that I use for copy work. What makes them good for this sort of thing is that they are designed to have flat fields of focus. One of the problems with many camera lenses is that they do not have flat fields of focus - here's a particularly bad example of that in a copy photo of a Civil War image:

While the original picture was not without lower definition on the edges, the regular lens used on the copy camera was responsible for much of this. Stopping down the lens would have helped, a lot.

 

As rodeo_joe says, even good ones are relatively cheap, and it's a good tool to have in the kit.

I took a light panel from my ceiling and used a negative carrier from my enlarger and used a 16mm extension tube on a 50mm lens, ha. and I quite like the result.

The copy of the negative with my Canon, with a Tak 50mm and a 16mm extension tube at f11 at 100iso.

Good for you!

The copy of the negative with my Canon, with a Tak 50mm and a 16mm extension tube at f11 at 100iso.

[ATTACH=full]1328310[/ATTACH]

Did you change the white-balance of the camera to neutralise the orange mask?

If not, see my first response to this thread for why I think it's a good idea.

 

Also, placing a small mirror on your light-box in the film position will help you square up the camera to the plane of the film. You simply centralise the reflection of the camera lens in the frame.

Edited February 4, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Did you change the white-balance of the camera to neutralise the orange mask?

If not, see my first response to this thread for why I think it's a good idea.

 

Also, placing a small mirror on your light-box in the film position will help you square up the camera to the plane of the film. You simply centralise the reflection of the camera lens in the frame.

Hi, I don't know how to do the white balance right or how the mirror thing works ha. Thank you. Alice.

Hi, I don't know how to do the white balance right or how the mirror thing works ha. Thank you. Alice.

If you have a piece of blank (orange but transparent) film leader, you can use this to set a custom WB on the camera. See your camera manual for how to set a custom balance. Alternatively, set a manual WB of 3200 Kelvin - that'll probably be close enough.

 

The mirror trick is called 'autocollimation'. You need a small mirror that'll sit flat on your light-box. Replace the film-holder with the mirror and just aim the camera at it; moving the camera until the reflection of the lens is symmetrical and dead-centre of the viewfinder. This will only happen when the camera is almost exactly square-on to the mirror. In this way, you can be sure that your copy will be in focus from edge to edge. Otherwise your method of just pointing the camera downward on a tripod may not result in a 'square' copy.

Edited February 5, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

I did the kelvin thing but the mirror was a bit hard to do. What I don't like about copying onto my camera is I have to use photoshop which I think it is horrid. I love prints and slides that have not been messed with. Here is the print from the neg but the colours are not real and not what it looked like in real life.

 

If you have Photoshop, use the curves tool. At the bottom of the histogram display there are three 'eyedropper' pickers. One selects the white point, one selects the black point, and the middle one selects neutral grey.

 

The central neutral grey picker is the most useful. Select it and poke about on the image at what you think should be neutral grey. This could be a piece of concrete, something white in shadow, a rock.... whatever. Once you've found the right point in the picture the colours will right themselves and the colours generally 'pop'.

 

In your picture above, I'd try making the edge stones of the canal neutral grey.

Something like this?

Thank you, joe, that is more like it. I have an old laptop with a very early version of Photoshop (Elements 2 - twenty-odd years old!). It hasn't got curves or droppers, and anyway, I'm not a fan of art packages. It sounds daft but I want to digitalise my pictures without any manipulation. They are of memories I have lost, and I want the results to be close as possible to the original shot, and so my quest now is to find a lab that can measure up! (I know, loony, ha!) Cheers. Alice. x

It hasn't got curves or droppers,

The free GIMP editor has.

www.gimp.org

hi, joe, I downloaded the gimp but I found it difficult to use. I don't understand a lot of the actions and the ones I do I can't get to work - for example the picker or the curves tool. I did manage to convert a film negative to positive but I couldn't get the clone tool to work, and then could not save the file to jpeg when I finished (what a loser, ha!). Anyway, thank you for your help. Alice. x