My neg and slide copy rig

Many ways to skin a cat, but this does the job for me. It's my Z6, FTZ adapter, PB-5 bellows, PS-4 slide and neg holder and, new to the rig, Smallrig articulating arm (2065B) with a Nanlite Litolite 5C LED bank. The Smallrig camera cage isn't doing anything special here. I do use a drilled and tapped aluminum plate under the bellows so I can mount the rig at the balance point.

 

This is really convenient because you can put the light right where it needs to be, and color balance it any way you like, with the light or with the camera. So cool that Nikon knew decades later I'd need a 1/4"-20 hole in the front of the PS-4 to attach the arm. I'm using a 50 mm f/1.8 lens here, but sometimes use an 80 mm Nikkor enlarging lens and adapter. The 55 mm Micro is also recommended, but I've never been sure about the compensating element. The lens would need to be focused at infinity, so the compensating element would be in the wrong place for close work. Might be better or worse than a normal lens. The Nikon manuals suggest the f/2 was popular and the faster normals like f/1.4 not so great. They also recommended the Micro, but I don't know if they used compensating element at that time. Probably should compare at some point. At 1:1 I don't think there's any advantage in reversing a lens, but if anybody knows different, I'd like to get educated.

 

 

:) o_O

I'm sure this assembly works, but how often are you inclined to put it together and do all the necessary adjustments?

Assembly time is just a few minutes, actually easier with the Z6 than my old D200 (that took these photos) because nothing is in the way. The D200 required mounting in the vertical orientation, then rotating the mount back to horizontal. Focusing and the rest are pretty trivial. I do a lot of macro stuff, so I have a cardboard box marked "Macro Stuff" where the bellows and other related bits live. I don't know how this compares to a true film scanner, but I'm willing to bet it's way faster.

Nice, though much more complicated than what I do for quick copying. I just photograph a slide on a light box with a 90mm 1:1 macro lens.

 

Eric

photograph

Handheld?

...The 55 mm Micro is also recommended, but I've never been sure about the compensating element. The lens would need to be focused at infinity, so the compensating element would be in the wrong place for close work...

I am not really sure how to understand this about the compensating element.

 

I use a Micro-Nikkor (55/2.8) in my newly acquired Nikon ES-2 setup which is conceptually similar to yours, just rigid -except for the light.

<extension tube> <Micro-Nikkor> <extension tube> <negative holder> <diffuser> [light source]

 

The Micro-Nikkor is focused to the closest range where it is designed to work better. No reversing of the lens is needed of course.

 

I would imagine that a flat field Micro-Nikkor or enlarger lens would be better suited for a flat negative or slide, than a regular lens?

I went through the 55mm Micro-Nikkor versus this that and the other - mostly a variety of enlarging lenses.

 

I eventually settled on using an 80mm f/5.6 Rodagon enlarging lens, for a variety of reasons. Lower vignetting being the uppermost, and a flatter field being second. There was almost nothing to choose in terms of central sharpness.

I've often used an 80mm f/5.6 EL Nikkor and it works great. There's nothing to attach the front light shielding bellows to, so I use a rolled up piece of black paper instead. I could machine an adapter, but that sounds too much like work.

 

Niels- you have an advantage with extension tubes of being able to use a thin one. The bellows has a rather large minimum thickness that, combined with the focusing mechanism of the Micro Nikkor, requires that the Micro Nikkor be focused to near infinity. That places the compensating lens at the wrong end of its travel for close work. For most of my general macro work, I use extension tubes when necessary, not the bellows. I only resort to the bellows for higher magnifications, or when it's mechanically very handy, like slide copying, because it accepts the PS-4.

Where there actually any floating elements in the later (or earlier) versions of 55/3.5 Nikkors? The earliest version did have compensating aperture to correct for underexposure at close focus with the non-TTL metering heads (I think, my understanding of this, I have one).

 

If the 55/3.5 does not have floating elements but is simply optimized for close range focus, then having it set for infinity in the rig would have no effect, and the micro theoretically should be a little better than a normal 50 in this application. Maybe the 2.8 version had floating element compensation.

 

I don't do much close up photography, but do use a bellows with enlarging lens on those rare occasions. I do use a 55/3.5 frequently for macro applications, though, with good results. Somewhere, I do have a PB-4, can't remember if I have the copy attachment. Have a bunch of slides and negatives from back in the day, maybe some year I will get a chance to sort through. Darn day job!

I often wondered whether you could do away with all the optics and simply place the 35mm slide onto a bare FX chip.. a kinda contact copy...!

 

:cool:

I often wondered whether you could do away with all the optics and simply place the 35mm slide onto a bare FX chip.. a kinda contact copy...!

How would you keep it in focus? There are up to 2 mm of glass on top of the sensor, plus the thickness of the mount plus curvature of the film. The sensor is blazed to compensate for cosign vignetting, which would have the reverse effect if used for contact printing.

There are up to 2 mm of glass on top of the sensor

I should have been more specific about bare. Removal of the filter sandwich is pretty straightforward!

 

If I have a parallel light beam, what needs focusing?

I almost have the same set up. I use a Nikon PB4 bellows with the PS4 slide and negative holder which I recently acquired. For lighting I use a Viltrox LED kit. My camera is a Nikon D7000. So far I have only tried to copy slides. It's amazing how sharp and life-like the slides look through the camera viewfinder, almost 3D, but when I take a picture of the slide and look at the back LCD on the camera, the image takes on a slightly Magenta color cast and you can start to see the grain although slightly ? I tried adjusting the camera from Vivid to Neutral, but that did not help. I'm shooting at ISO 100, aperture is set to F8 with a Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Macro lens. Edited March 21, 2021 by hjoseph7

Many ways to skin a cat, but this does the job for me. It's my Z6, FTZ adapter, PB-5 bellows, PS-4 slide and neg holder and, new to the rig, Smallrig articulating arm (2065B) with a Nanlite Litolite 5C LED bank. The Smallrig camera cage isn't doing anything special here. I do use a drilled and tapped aluminum plate under the bellows so I can mount the rig at the balance point.

 

This is really convenient because you can put the light right where it needs to be, and color balance it any way you like, with the light or with the camera. So cool that Nikon knew decades later I'd need a 1/4"-20 hole in the front of the PS-4 to attach the arm. I'm using a 50 mm f/1.8 lens here, but sometimes use an 80 mm Nikkor enlarging lens and adapter. The 55 mm Micro is also recommended, but I've never been sure about the compensating element. The lens would need to be focused at infinity, so the compensating element would be in the wrong place for close work. Might be better or worse than a normal lens. The Nikon manuals suggest the f/2 was popular and the faster normals like f/1.4 not so great. They also recommended the Micro, but I don't know if they used compensating element at that time. Probably should compare at some point. At 1:1 I don't think there's any advantage in reversing a lens, but if anybody knows different, I'd like to get educated.

 

[ATTACH]1380665[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]1380666[/ATTACH]

"So cool that Nikon knew decades later I'd need a 1/4"-20 hole in the front of the PS-4 to attach the arm".

 

Actually I think that hole is to attach the "film tray" but I guess you can use it to attach a clamp for the lights(great idea) . My PS4 did not come with a film tray, but I don't think that's a biggie.

No, they don't label it, but the hole is under the lock, right where the line to the diffuser plate turns upward. I did find that the Smallrig 5.5" arm has too big a nut, and binds against the sliding carrier. Need to use a smaller nut! I rarely use the film tray and it actually interferes with strips if you aren't careful.

I could machine an adapter, but that sounds too much like work.

Or just buy a cheap filter step-up adapter!

 

Most enlarging lenses have a standard 40.5mm filter thread (Schneider use 43mm - oddballs). So all that's needed is a 40.5 to 52mm stepping ring. And to tape over the enlarging lens illuminated aperture scale, if it has one.

 

Just FWIW. This is from a negative copied with the 80mm Rodagon.

Edited March 22, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Historically, when slides used to 'pop', usually into focus, I guess it was entirely thermal within the slide projector with a hot bulb? Did they go from flat to curved or curved to flat or concave to convex or convex to concave etc... ? Using a cold LED source or flash avoids the change I suppose.

 

Hopefully mounted slides that stay cold, stay flat!

 

If slides do have a natural concavity/convexity, a flat field lens is a hindrance....you just need to match the curves......:D

Fortunately, in copy work, you never have the intensity or heat you would in a projector, so no pop!

Fortunately, in copy work, you never have the intensity or heat you would in a projector, so no pop!

Very true, but this (your own thread) title of..

 

My neg and slide copy rig.....

 

Kinda means transmitted light but not reflected light work!

Edited March 23, 2021 by mike_halliwell

Well, sure, but it's still dim compared to a projector. I use "copy" for both reflected and transmitted situations.

Can't say I miss the days of multiple BIG tungsten lights in a badly ventilated studio!

 

I fully understand why slides popped...:eek:

you just need to match the curves......:D

Good luck with that search Mike!

 

But maybe (some) enlarging lenses were deliberately designed with a slightly concave subject field? To match film that nearly always bows inward on the emulsion side. Who knows?

 

Me only know enlarging lens good for camera copy film.

 

I've nearly always shot colour negative, because of its better dynamic range, and because it's an easier route to a print. Now, when being scanned or digitally copied, it allows use of a proper film-holder or negative carrier that squeezes the film pretty flat. Unlike a single frame of 35mm transparency film floating about in cardboard or plastic. Or even randomly touching two bits of dust-attracting glass.

Edited March 24, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1