medium format film "scanner"

Does anyone know if this type of device exists for medium format film?

 

Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set 27192 B&H Photo Video

I haven't heard of a contraption to mount MF film in front of a capable DSLR. There seems to be a cheap box with a cellphone level cam inside that digitizes MF for the Internet. - Stick to copy stands or "enlarge" into your DSLR in live view.

Alternatively you might be able to find a new use for an old movie titler to hold film in front of your lens. But some McGuivering seems unavoidable.

I've been looking for a long time, without success. However I have a film holder that attaches to a Novoflex focusing rail that serves the purpose. It's not cheap, but the focusing rail works very well for closeups and focus stacking and is compatible with Arca-style QR. My best macro lens is a Sony 90/2.8, and this adapter can be easily extended to accommodate the long focal length. I can also use my Hasselblad with this rig.

 

novoflex slide copier | B&H Photo Video

 

A more flexible option would be a copy stand with a light table. You could hold and copy any sized film on such a device.

 

Jury-rigged systems would only work for occasional use. They take a lot of assembly, and are difficult to align. This includes using a tripod to support the camera. Because of the extremely shallow depth of field, everything must be as parallel as possible. The self-contained rigs described above can be used practically anywhere. Since they are rigid, shutter speed is not an issue.

 

I use a desk lamp with a daylight LED bulb (screw base), for exposures of about 1/4 second at ISO 400 and f/5.6.

 

My ES-2 is still on back order from B&H. Bummer.

Thanks for the replies. The other thought I had was to get an adaptor that allowed a macro lens to be attached to the lens mount plate of my Beseler 23XL. It has a cold light for illumination, the carrier could hold the negative, and the camera mounts to the lens/lens plate. Tilt the rig horizontal for ease of focus and it might work.

 

I just have to see if a lens can be mounted somehow to a lens board. (sacrificial lens hood epoxied to the plate?)

I use a Manfrotto copy stand, small light table and a Nikon D7200+Micro Nikkor 40/2.8g. Improv a mask to hold the negs flat. Perfect for 120.

I just have to see if a lens can be mounted somehow to a lens board. (sacrificial lens hood epoxied to the plate?)

Ebay seems full of inexpensive Chinese lens hoods. you could also (ab)use a system filter holder, depending on how much bellows draw you have. But lens hood might be the better idea since you are attempting to achieve the opposite of an enlargement. - Make sure your hole in the board is big enough.

I'd feel a bit worried about stability. A complete DSLR weighs more than just an enlarging lens and probably wasn't made to have the tripod in the filter thread either?

If your enlarger permits put the head on the baseplate upside down and use the column as a copy stand or make a simple horizontal wooden construction to hold the camera and your film carrier. The light source doesn't look hard to do. - I guess I'd use flash bounced from a reflector.

Look for an old Bowens "Illumitran" copier stand/flash illuminator. They crop up on auction sites occasionally. IIRC they came in two models; one accepted slides up to 6x7cm, and the other up to 5" x 4" film.

 

Another idea is to use an enlarger as is, and project the image into a DSLR lying on its back on the baseboard. I did this for film duping years ago, but a waist-level finder made focussing easy. Maybe a little wooden stand and mirror to allow viewing a Live View screen might work?

Maybe a little wooden stand and mirror to allow viewing a Live View screen might work?

Before I'd dig out jigsaw and bubble level, I'd rather tether and be it wirelessly to a tablet or some external screen.

The best part of a dedicated film scanner is that the machine handles all the grunt work of presenting and aligning the film. Flatbed scanners do this to some extent, but not as consistently and certainly lower quality. If you plan to copy a lot of slides and film, you want a setup that doesn't need tweaking or alignment every time you begin. If it's too much trouble, you won't do it, any more than you'd take a view camera to a picnic. With a copy stand or film adapter, the only detail is centering the image and occasionally focusing the camera.

Have you looked at this thing on ebay: Adjustable Table-top Copy Stand for DSLR It's Chinese-made and it's probably pretty cheap but you wouldn't have much invested.

I think that adapter is for the new Nikon D850. Check Nikon's web page. I owned a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED and it's the finest scanner I owned (within my price range). It was as good as our Imacon at work. The problem is Nikon no longer has parts or will support service. It means you have to ship this rather heavy and bulky scanner out of state and hope it works when you get it back. That is why I sold it. I bought a Epson V850 and I'm satisfied, but it's not as good as the Nikon. Making copies of negatives with a DSLR is not the way to go, even the best macro lenses won't scan as well as a film scanner. It's very important to keep your negative flat, Nikon had a glass carrier.

I think that adapter is for the new Nikon D850. Check Nikon's web page. I owned a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED and it's the finest scanner I owned (within my price range). It was as good as our Imacon at work. The problem is Nikon no longer has parts or will support service. It means you have to ship this rather heavy and bulky scanner out of state and hope it works when you get it back. That is why I sold it. I bought a Epson V850 and I'm satisfied, but it's not as good as the Nikon. Making copies of negatives with a DSLR is not the way to go, even the best macro lenses won't scan as well as a film scanner. It's very important to keep your negative flat, Nikon had a glass carrier.

 

The Epson's a nice flatbed scanner but it suffers from the breed's main drawbacks: speed and inability to focus. That's why scanning with a 24mp+ DSLR and a macro lens works for me. Getting a neg flat on a light table isn't much of a challenge. The ES-2 fits Nikon's macro lenses. The 40/2.8g works especially well on DX bodies for scanning. No complaints, especially with 120 materials.

[ATTACH=full]1218011[/ATTACH]

Have you looked at this thing on ebay: Adjustable Table-top Copy Stand for DSLR It's Chinese-made and it's probably pretty cheap but you wouldn't have much invested.

 

Accident waiting to happen...

"Accident waiting to happen... "

 

It's only as 'accident' prone as the user cares to make it. With the centre of gravity of the camera and lens kept within the legs it looks perfectly stable - same as any other camera stand or tripod.

 

Admittedly the posted picture shows it set up in an unstable fashion, but that's not how it should typically be used.

 

It actually looks like a useful bit of kit for quick document/small artwork copying. Easier and with better clearance than reversing a tripod column, or using a boom arm (now that's unstable!). Plus I don't think it's aimed at owners of heavy DSLRs anyway.

 

"Making copies of negatives with a DSLR is not the way to go, even the best macro lenses won't scan as well as a film scanner."

 

- Have you even tried it Rick? Because I get excellent digital dupes from a high res DSLR.

Edited November 7, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

I have attacked some examples comparing a 35 mm negative scan using a Nikon LS-8000, and a Sony A9 with an ES-1 slide holder with a Nikon FH-3 film strip holder. Ektar was exposed using a Leica M3 with a Summicron 90/2 lens.

 

Leica M9P + Summicron 90/2

 

Ektar 100 + Sony A9 + Nikon 55/2.8 Micro

 

 

Ektar 100 + Nikon LS-8000 Scanner

Edited November 10, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

The conversion process is simple. I set the camera white balance to daylight, and used a daylight LED desk lamp as a source. First remove the orange mask by using Levels to maximize the R, G and B channels separately. Invert the color, then make adjustments for black and white points. Photoshop has a color negative conversion option, but it didn't work well in this case. The LS-8000 scan would improve with adjustments, but I left it as it came out of the scanner. Color balance is a very subjective thing with negative film. However notice that the resolution of the A9 (24 MP) and scanner (24 MP) are nearly identical. The uncertainty you see is due to the limitations of Ektar 100.

 

The Leica image has a smaller scale, since it is 18 MP rather than 24.

 

I shot these images on both digital and film specifically for testing purposes. It was beneficial, but was also the last time (9/23/14) that I used film, for various reasons - inconsistent conversion, mediocre resolution, expensive, and time consuming post-processing.

 

The Daylight LED has very smooth spectrum, except for a spike in the near UV (480 mu), which has no effect on the color balance.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I forgot to mention that these samples are 100% crops - pixel = pixel.

It's only as 'accident' prone as the user cares to make it. With the centre of gravity of the camera and lens kept within the legs it looks perfectly stable - same as any other camera stand or tripod.

I doubt this rig would support a DSLR, considering the flimsy clamps and small ball head. There are a lot of larger ball heads what will not support a heavy camera pointing straight down.

 

It's not a lot of money spend if it doesn't work, and a bargain if it does. I wouldn't put much faith in the latter.

Forget those devices, the end result will come nowhere near a film scanner. The best scanner used to be the Nikon Super Coolpix 9000Ed until Nikon killed service and ran out of parts. Without spending a fortune for a Hasselblad or Imacon scanner the smartest choice is the Epson 850. It makes great scans with Silverfast software. If you try to a negative or slide with a digital camera your not going to have dust and scratch removal, color restore and as large of a tonal range. Nikon's scanner adapter for my D850 is only good for 35mm and not as good as my Plutek scanner. (I know I spelled it wrong). If your images are very important, let a lab do a high resolutiom scan, but it will cost you dearly. I've tried a lot of scanners and came back to Epson. There are very few of us shooting MF seriously, you have to be prepared to pay. As much as DSLR for a decent scanner or your better off shooting digital.

Rick

Forget those devices, the end result will come nowhere near a film scanner

I'm in full agreement with that.

 

The old Canoscan 9050F with the proper holders• will do an OK, not spectacular, but OK, job on larger negatives.

The Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED is much better but hard to find, expensive, and no longer serviced by Nikon.

(with 2x2 slide holder. but larger sizes also work)

 

What's left on the market new are the professional and really expensive drum scanners and the like.

 

_________

* the holders are nearly impossible to find so make sure you buy a scanner with them

Anyone consider why Nikon stopped selling/servicing high-end film scanners? Scanner technology is effectively dead in the water for the same reason. Despite steady improvement in camera sensors, makers like Epson seem to limit their model updates to improved film holders.

why Nikon stopped selling/servicing high-end film scanners?

 

In the transition from film to digital, there was a period where everybody who had a portfolio was converting it from film to digital.

 

Now, and for some time in the past, there are just a handful of people for whom ritual purity (film, enlargers, chemicals, etc.) is not important so they shoot film and then scan it.

 

I only shoot film because I really like great old film cameras. But, I would take Photoshop over a darkroom pretty much all of the time, so I scan in negatives and slides every so often. I have some work to do, for example, with a new (to me) Pentax ME-F and I just now bought an Argus 44 for reasons which totally escape me....:confused:

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

In the transition from film to digital, there was a period where everybody who had a portfolio was converting it from film to digital.

 

Now, and for some time in the past, there are just a handful of people for whom ritual purity (film, enlargers, chemicals, etc.) is not important so they shoot film and then scan it.

 

I only shoot film because I really like great old film cameras. But, I would take Photoshop over a darkroom pretty much all of the time, so I scan in negatives and slides every so often. I have some work to do, for example, with a new (to me) Pentax ME-F and I just now bought an Argus 44 for reasons which totally escape me....:confused:

 

There are also those of us who have so much old film, we'll be at it awhile. :p