Nikon Coolscan IV vs 24 Nikon DSLR

Hello. I haven’t been on here in some years. Ive retired now so have some time for film digitizing.

I have a lot of film around that will be a surprise to find what’s on it.

 

So I did a comparison test shooting color neg and Kodak Bw400 c41 BW neg. i first used a 20 mp Nikon D7500 but the used the 24 mp Nikon D3400

 

Nikon Coolscan IV is 2900 dpi using Vuescan scanning software.

Camera and scanner tiff files were similar in size but final test shot raw.

Lens was a Micro Nikkor 55. F2.8. Which allowed me to fill the frame with no extension tube thanks to the DX sensor

I used a fluorescent light box about a foot away from camera. I used an excellent 35mm film holder from a Minolta zMulti Pro. F stops tried between 5.6 to 11. Focused using LiveView magnified

I used Self timer to delay shutter release by 10 seconds tripod of course

The winner in sharpness was not surprisingly was the Coolscan

 

I could make a comparison that the camera scan might be equivalent to an Epson flatbed but don’t have on setup now

I didn’t do any sharpening on the raw file.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Is there anything I could do better? What has your experience been? Thanks

The often missing link in DSLR scanning is camera support. My experience is that tripods don't make it. Something akin to a copy stand would probably put the camera ahead. YMMV, as always.

Is there anything I could do better?

Yes. Fix the filmholder firmly to the macro lens and use flash as the illuminant.

 

There are three type of Nikon device that allow this, as well as other, much cheaper, third-party gizmos.

 

Here, for the umpteenth time, are pictures of said gizmos.

 

This one is (was?) sold under various names - Sunagor, Panagor, etc.

 

This is a converted Nikon ES-E28 on my D800.

And if you really want to go to town.

A Bowens Illumitran. The Honeywell Repronar is similar.

 

Quite honestly, just resting a filmholder on top of a light-box, and then trying to hold your camera steady and parallel to it isn't going to get the best results. A tripod doesn't help much, because it's almost impossible to get the camera perfectly squared up to the film.

 

24 megapixels is plenty to get extremely good camera copies - provided the setup is rigid and square enough.

 

Here are side-by-side 100% crops from a 3600 ppi filmscanner, and a digital copy from a 24 megapixel camera. From a colour negative BTW.

If it wasn't that the camera copy had more magnification, I'd be very hard-pressed to tell them apart.

 

Here are two more at full frame.

I think the top one is the camera copy, but I've actually forgotten which is which.

 

Oh, nearly forgot. With a decent lens and a good filmholder you shouldn't need to use a smaller aperture than f/5.6 ~ 6.3. Smaller than that and you lose out to diffraction.

Edited January 30, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

I use my Nikon CoolScan V-ED for color slides and color negatives because Digital ICE saves me hours of fixing dust spots and scratches. (Most of the film I'm scanning is very old and wasn't always stored properly.)

 

Digital ICE doesn't work on silver-based b&w negatives, so for those I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR, Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder. The 24MP D7200 makes copies at 4,000 dpi, same as the Nikon scanner. Because the ES-2 film holder works by diffused light (either flash or ambient), it minimizes dust and scratches, though it doesn't eliminate them altogether. Careful cleaning before scanning removes most dust unless it's embedded. Because the ES-2 screws directly into the macro lens filter ring, alignment isn't a problem, and no tripod is necessary. In fact, you can make sharp copies in ambient light, handheld at slow shutter speeds, such as 1/10 second if necessary.

 

I stop down my 40mm lens to f/11 despite advice that the optimum aperture is around f/5.6. By *actual test*, I get better results at f/11. The difference in center sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 with my lens is invisible at 24MP, but the corners are much sharper at f/11. (The film grain is the giveaway.) The reason is that the film rarely lies absolutely flat, even when clamped in the ES-2 film holder. Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

 

Predictably, someone will insist that I'll get better results at f/5.6, but they haven't used my rig, and I have. Probably they get better results at around f/5.6 with their setup. In any case, I recommend making your own tests at various apertures to see which one works best for you.

Yes. Fix the filmholder firmly to the macro lens and use flash as the illuminant.

 

There are three type of Nikon device that allow this, as well as other, much cheaper, third-party gizmos.

 

Here, for the umpteenth time, are pictures of said gizmos.

 

This one is (was?) sold under various names - Sunagor, Panagor, etc.

[ATTACH=full]1374213[/ATTACH]

 

This is a converted Nikon ES-E28 on my D800.

[ATTACH=full]1374212[/ATTACH]

And if you really want to go to town.

[ATTACH=full]1374214[/ATTACH]

A Bowens Illumitran. The Honeywell Repronar is similar.

 

Quite honestly, just resting a filmholder on top of a light-box, and then trying to hold your camera steady and parallel to it isn't going to get the best results. A tripod doesn't help much, because it's almost impossible to get the camera perfectly squared up to the film.

 

24 megapixels is plenty to get extremely good camera copies - provided the setup is rigid and square enough.

 

Here are side-by-side 100% crops from a 3600 ppi filmscanner, and a digital copy from a 24 megapixel camera. From a colour negative BTW.

[ATTACH=full]1374216[/ATTACH]

If it wasn't that the camera copy had more magnification, I'd be very hard-pressed to tell them apart.

 

Here are two more at full frame.

[ATTACH=full]1374217[/ATTACH]

I think the top one is the camera copy, but I've actually forgotten which is which.

 

Oh, nearly forgot. With a decent lens and a good filmholder you shouldn't need to use a smaller aperture than f/5.6 ~ 6.3. Smaller than that and you lose out to diffraction.

Hi thanks for the feedback. I admit my quick test wasn’t very rigorous. I could only eyeball the squareness. I did use a 10 sec shutter delay with the tripod to reduce shake as my exposure was 1/10 sec. My light box isn’t so bright.

 

It so happens that I have an Omega Pro -B66 enlarger. Quick read online showed that if one had two adapter parts one can convert this to a copy stand. I am not sure if I would end up with the right parts from ebay or if the investment would be worth it. At the moment my 35mm Nikon scans with ICE are good Converting the Omega would be more useful for medium format.

Any feedback about the Omega conversion would be helpful. What about illumination?

Just a quick question. I have used the Nikon bellows and slide attachment on a tripod, I have used a Canon Scanner and I have used the ES1 on the 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor with several FF bodies. All the results have been quite satisfactory some faster, some slower to execute. If the lens and ES-1 are firmly mounted on the camera, and the slide is held firmly (as it is) by the ES-1, subject and camera are essentially a unit, how can any reasonable camera movement effect the outcome? I have shot quite a lot of slides with the ES-1 hand held using a light box without any movement problem.

I use my Nikon CoolScan V-ED for color slides and color negatives because Digital ICE saves me hours of fixing dust spots and scratches. (Most of the film I'm scanning is very old and wasn't always stored properly.)

 

 

 

Digital ICE doesn't work on silver-based b&w negatives, so for those I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR, Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder. The 24MP D7200 makes copies at 4,000 dpi, same as the Nikon scanner. Because the ES-2 film holder works by diffused light (either flash or ambient), it minimizes dust and scratches, though it doesn't eliminate them altogether. Careful cleaning before scanning removes most dust unless it's embedded. Because the ES-2 screws directly into the macro lens filter ring, alignment isn't a problem, and no tripod is necessary. In fact, you can make sharp copies in ambient light, handheld at slow shutter speeds, such as 1/10 second if necessary.

 

I stop down my 40mm lens to f/11 despite advice that the optimum aperture is around f/5.6. By *actual test*, I get better results at f/11. The difference in center sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 with my lens is invisible at 24MP, but the corners are much sharper at f/11. (The film grain is the giveaway.) The reason is that the film rarely lies absolutely flat, even when clamped in the ES-2 film holder. Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

 

Predictably, someone will insist that I'll get better results at f/5.6, but they haven't used my rig, and I have. Probably they get better results at around f/5.6 with their setup. In any case, I recommend making your own tests at various apertures to see which one works best for you.

I use my Nikon CoolScan V-ED for color slides and color negatives because Digital ICE saves me hours of fixing dust spots and scratches. (Most of the film I'm scanning is very old and wasn't always stored properly.)

 

Digital ICE doesn't work on silver-based b&w negatives, so for those I use a Nikon D7200 DSLR, Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 film holder. The 24MP D7200 makes copies at 4,000 dpi, same as the Nikon scanner. Because the ES-2 film holder works by diffused light (either flash or ambient), it minimizes dust and scratches, though it doesn't eliminate them altogether. Careful cleaning before scanning removes most dust unless it's embedded. Because the ES-2 screws directly into the macro lens filter ring, alignment isn't a problem, and no tripod is necessary. In fact, you can make sharp copies in ambient light, handheld at slow shutter speeds, such as 1/10 second if necessary.

 

I stop down my 40mm lens to f/11 despite advice that the optimum aperture is around f/5.6. By *actual test*, I get better results at f/11. The difference in center sharpness between f/5.6 and f/11 with my lens is invisible at 24MP, but the corners are much sharper at f/11. (The film grain is the giveaway.) The reason is that the film rarely lies absolutely flat, even when clamped in the ES-2 film holder. Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

 

Predictably, someone will insist that I'll get better results at f/5.6, but they haven't used my rig, and I have. Probably they get better results at around f/5.6 with their setup. In any case, I recommend making your own tests at various apertures to see which one works best for you.

Just a quick question. I have used the Nikon bellows and slide attachment on a tripod, I have used a Canon Scanner and I have used the ES1 on the 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor with several FF bodies. All the results have been quite satisfactory some faster, some slower to execute. If the lens and ES-1 are firmly mounted on the camera, and the slide is held firmly (as it is) by the ES-1, subject and camera are essentially a unit, how can any reasonable camera movement effect the outcome? I have shot quite a lot of slides with the ES-1 hand held using a light box without any movement problem.

I certainly see the value in the ES2 or 1 for 35mm. To get the complete ES2 kit with film holder a bit of an investment. I haven’t researched them completely.

Tossing medium format into the mix adds complexity thats for sure. Regarding the Omega Enlarger I removed the lamp head and also bellows unit. The D3400 fits neatly between the bellows arm. Drill one 1/4 hole for bottom screw and i could have a usable no cost rig. I would have to square in one direction but instead of two but should not be an issue. Any idea if It would for work for medium format film with the 55 2.8. Theres a lot of vertical range on the enlarger

 

You might consider making a fitting to bridge the two plates with a mount for the camera - could be wood even - then you could position the camera with the monitor facing you. Done well, and that not difficult, you'd be level both ways.

I certainly see the value in the ES2 or 1 for 35mm. To get the complete ES2 kit with film holder a bit of an investment. I haven’t researched them completely.

Tossing medium format into the mix adds complexity thats for sure. Regarding the Omega Enlarger I removed the lamp head and also bellows unit. The D3400 fits neatly between the bellows arm. Drill one 1/4 hole for bottom screw and i could have a usable no cost rig. I would have to square in one direction but instead of two but should not be an issue. Any idea if It would for work for medium format film with the 55 2.8. Theres a lot of vertical range on the enlarger

 

[ATTACH=full]1375128[/ATTACH]

This should work--get a decent lightbox that is reasonably color corrected and provides even illumination and set that on the baseboard. Then make a mask out of black paper for the negative size(s) you're working with to keep stray light from the lens.

Film curvature is particularly a problem with the negatives I'm copying, which are usually 30 to 75 years old.

Tom. The only reason I switched to an Illumitran, rather than the macro-lens + attached filmholder option, was to get better film flatness.

 

The supplied plastic 6 strip holder that came with the ES-e28 just isn't good enough I'm afraid, and forces an aperture of f/8 or smaller to be used. I suspect there's also some field curvature in my 55mm Micro-Nikkor too.

 

On the Illumitran, I have a proper, heavy, steel plate enlarger negative carrier fitted. This presses the film as flat as possible and allows an aperture of f/5.6 ~ 6.3 to be used (the enlarging lens I use is a bit sharper closed half-a-stop). The difference in lack of diffraction softening really is noticeable.

If the lens and ES-1 are firmly mounted on the camera, and the slide is held firmly (as it is) by the ES-1, subject and camera are essentially a unit, how can any reasonable camera movement effect the outcome?

I only recommended flash because the OP was using a separate light box and not a coupled system. And it can't hurt.

 

Plus I find a speedlight the most convenient source. It's consistent, compact and totally portable.

 

The method I used with the front-of-lens adapter was to mount the flash in the camera hotshoe, pointed slightly down, and reflect its light off a white surface about 2ft in front of the copying rig. This can be a white card, foamcore, whitewashed wall or whatever is convenient. I rarely needed more than a 1/8th 'power' setting on the speedlight.

 

Downside is that you have no constant focussing light, but a small LED torch (flashlight) quickly fixes that issue.

 

@newindustar.

Well, good luck with that arrangement, but I suspect you'll end up spending money on something a bit more precise and convenient in the end.

Edited February 7, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

I certainly see the value in the ES2 or 1 for 35mm. To get the complete ES2 kit with film holder a bit of an investment. I haven’t researched them completely.

Tossing medium format into the mix adds complexity thats for sure. Regarding the Omega Enlarger I removed the lamp head and also bellows unit. The D3400 fits neatly between the bellows arm. Drill one 1/4 hole for bottom screw and i could have a usable no cost rig. I would have to square in one direction but instead of two but should not be an issue. Any idea if It would for work for medium format film with the 55 2.8. Theres a lot of vertical range on the enlarger

 

[ATTACH=full]1375128[/ATTACH]

Here is the setup that I use for both 4x5 and medium format negatives. The light source is the old DeJure enlarger's cold light head placed in the plastic basket. All of my 4x5 and medium format negatives are black and white. A cold light head will not work with color negatives since it is not a white light source. I use a negative carrier placed on the flat plate with a rectangular hole in the plate. The negative carrier slides on the plate in order to position it. The plate also blocks stray light from the cold light head. The camera optical axis is carefully aligned perpendicular to the flat plate using a mirror placed on the flat plate so that the reflection of the lens is centered in the field of view. For 4x5 negatives, I take four overlapping images, one for each corner of the negative, and then use Photomerge in Photoshop to stitch the four images into one. For 6x9 cm negatives I take two images, and for 6x4.5 cm negatives I take one image. The camera shown is a Canon 5D II with a 100mm Canon macro lens, I now use my Canon 5D IV, which produces 30 MB images.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Glenn McCreery

You might consider making a fitting to bridge the two plates with a mount for the camera - could be wood even - then you could position the camera with the monitor facing you. Done well, and that not difficult, you'd be level both ways.

Well I found without the bellows everything was flimsy. My separate garage is currently at sub zero f so I had to make do with what I could find in the house. First I reinstalled the bellows assembly then found this rigid cast bookshelf mount which I mounted as shown in the pic. I drilled a hole and robbed a screw from a junk tripod. I squared it with a stick between 4 sides of lens barrel and light box and it’s quite square. I identified two other issues one being my 110 floors shake easily and the other the 1/10 sec shutter speed. I switched to my 18-55 AFP VR and autofocus and things improved markedly.

I was confused why shutter speed and f stop didn’t seem to be affecting exposure as expected and I didn’t want such a long exposure because of shake.

I’ve been learning more about Live View which really had never used much. First is LV stops the lens down for obvious reasons. Then I discovered on my D7500 I can do exposure preview in LV. I don’t know if the D3400 has this. I know the 18-55 is quite sharp especially with VR. It’s possible it may compare favorably with the 55 micro. That remains to be seen.

I was under the impression that the D3400 had an advantage over the D7500 metering with AI lenses but can’t find why now. The D7500 certainly wins with AF lenses seeming to provide full functionality

I will return to the copy stand with the micro with and my better understanding of LV and see If I can get a faster shutter speed.

 

I actually have 3 camera choices. The two Nikons and a Sony A6000 with Nikon adapter also 24 MP. Any feedback on these three cameras as best for film digitizing would be appreciated.

 

Just a quick question. I have used the Nikon bellows and slide attachment on a tripod, I have used a Canon Scanner and I have used the ES1 on the 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor with several FF bodies. All the results have been quite satisfactory some faster, some slower to execute. If the lens and ES-1 are firmly mounted on the camera, and the slide is held firmly (as it is) by the ES-1, subject and camera are essentially a unit, how can any reasonable camera movement effect the outcome? I have shot quite a lot of slides with the ES-1 hand held using a light box without any movement problem.

You are essentially correct, that the camera, lens and ES-1 are a single, rigid unit which does not disturb the focus and alignment if used with due diligence. It is not necessary to mount it on a tripod, even for exposure times of 1/4 sec or longer, again using due diligence.

 

The ES-1 (or ES-2) is held in position by friction only. It can rotate on its tube, and the tube length (hence focus) can shift if bumped hard enough. It is easier to keep the ES-1 square if you rest the assembly on a table, since it rotates more freely than it slides. I keep the magnification slightly less than 1:1, and check the focus from time to time using focus magnification (Sony A7iii or A7Riii) using the focusing ring on the lens. Centering the slide in the holder and keeping it straight is the hardest task in practice. I should add keeping the slides free of lint is easily done using a conductive brush for that purpose. A couple of downward swipes on each side does the trick.

 

I have several micro fiber brushes for cleaning sensors which could be used for slides. In that case you spin the brush on a motorized handle, which cleans it and imparts a static charge which literally sucks up lint. I have not found it necessary to go to that extreme, nor do I use canned "air", which is a form of Freon. If you have no inhibitions against melting polar ice and flooding islands in the Pacific, go ahead and use it.

 

I'm considering buying a small copy stand for copying documents larger than fit on my scanner. IMO, it would be a waste of time for copying slides, and less stable than a slide holder attached to the lens.

 

Regarding building vibrations (you live next to a freight elevator?), it would have no effect on the ES-1 arrangement. The column of a copy stand (or repurposed enlarger) is rigidly mounted to its base. The key is to isolate the base from the building, which can be done with engineered flexible isolators, or resting on three tennis balls arranged in a triangle. Cut them in half for greater stability.

You are essentially correct, that the camera, lens and ES-1 are a single, rigid unit which does not disturb the focus and alignment if used with due diligence. It is not necessary to mount it on a tripod, even for exposure times of 1/4 sec or longer, again using due diligence.

 

The ES-1 (or ES-2) is held in position by friction only. It can rotate on its tube, and the tube length (hence focus) can shift if bumped hard enough. It is easier to keep the ES-1 square if you rest the assembly on a table, since it rotates more freely than it slides. I keep the magnification slightly less than 1:1, and check the focus from time to time using focus magnification (Sony A7iii or A7Riii) using the focusing ring on the lens. Centering the slide in the holder and keeping it straight is the hardest task in practice. I should add keeping the slides free of lint is easily done using a conductive brush for that purpose. A couple of downward swipes on each side does the trick.

 

I have several micro fiber brushes for cleaning sensors which could be used for slides. In that case you spin the brush on a motorized handle, which cleans it and imparts a static charge which literally sucks up lint. I have not found it necessary to go to that extreme, nor do I use canned "air", which is a form of Freon. If you have no inhibitions against melting polar ice and flooding islands in the Pacific, go ahead and use it.

 

I'm considering buying a small copy stand for copying documents larger than fit on my scanner. IMO, it would be a waste of time for copying slides, and less stable than a slide holder attached to the lens.

 

Regarding building vibrations (you live next to a freight elevator?), it would have no effect on the ES-1 arrangement. The column of a copy stand (or repurposed enlarger) is rigidly mounted to its base. The key is to isolate the base from the building, which can be done with engineered flexible isolators, or resting on three tennis balls arranged in a triangle. Cut them in half for greater stability.

 

Regarding the 111 year old house it’s just the wooden floors will induce vibration if anyone is moving around with some creaking and groaning as well. I did a quick setup with the Sony A6000 with the 55 Micro Nikkor on a Kiwi adapter. I realized the mirrorless has some workflow advantages with realtime viewing. Very simple in shutter priority. I don’t know it’s 24 MP sensor is any better or worse in this application compared to the Nikons.

 

At any rate at f8 my light source is only capable 1/10 sec Sony or Nikon. So I have been looking at better panels.

 

Before I go that route I’d like feedback on using the Omega lamp head. It currently has this Omega bulb.

Omega #471-038 PH140 75W 120V Condenser Enlarger Lamp

 

I know nothing about enlargers or which bulbs for color vs BW etc

 

The head has a clear glass plate and a lens

The bulb is standard base. Any ideas on bulbs or how bright with the idea of getting faster shutter speeds?

If you have a packaged light source, it makes sense to use it. However light for slide copying doesn't need to be complex.

 

Any light source which approximates a "black body" (Planck's) spectrum can be easily managed with white balance. Thermal sources like incandescent bulbs are a natural choice, but more and more LED sources are just as suitable. Mercury-fluorescent lamps generally have irregular spectrums, unless specially formulated. Lamp-base replacement bulbs use an ultraviolet LED to excite a phosphor mix which closely approximates incandescent bulbs, except for a spike at 480 mmicrons in the near ultraviolet which has little effect on the color. I use a 60 W (equivalent) daylight bulb of this sort in a desk lamp, bounced off a slanted white card for better distribution.

 

I have a small Lumicube light panel with a CRI 95 rating I plan to try this weekend for a slide copying party with my adult son.

If you have a packaged light source, it makes sense to use it. However light for slide copying doesn't need to be complex.

 

Any light source which approximates a "black body" (Planck's) spectrum can be easily managed with white balance. Thermal sources like incandescent bulbs are a natural choice, but more and more LED sources are just as suitable. Mercury-fluorescent lamps generally have irregular spectrums, unless specially formulated. Lamp-base replacement bulbs use an ultraviolet LED to excite a phosphor mix which closely approximates incandescent bulbs, except for a spike at 480 mmicrons in the near ultraviolet which has little effect on the color. I use a 60 W (equivalent) daylight bulb of this sort in a desk lamp, bounced off a slanted white card for better distribution.

 

I have a small Lumicube light panel with a CRI 95 rating I plan to try this weekend for a slide copying party with my adult son.

Thanks for that info. Today I took the Omega B66 lamp head and set it upside down on the copy board. I have a 100 watt equivalent 1800 lumen household bulb and screwed it in. It happened to be a soft white. Probably in the 2000 -3000 k temp range. Instant bright light source! I found right away how the convex glass lens piece spreads the light evenly much brighten than my old panel which I have no specs for. I could shop for a daylight temp led anywhere which is supposed to be around 5000k. Or a cool white would the daylight led be best being closest to D5000 proofing standard?

 

My disappointment however is the Omega head seem to only cover 645 or 66 max due to vignette and the physical size limitations of condenser lens if that is the correct term. Great light source for 35mm and 645. I just set my Minolta film carrier right on the upside down head. Everything square. But no 67 or 69 film So I am probably looking at panels again.

 

Negative Supply

 

 

Sunray Box III Panorama + Negative/Slide Holders (Camera Scanning Starter Kit) - Lightbox For Slide & Negative Film Scans

 

One of the things the Nikon does best besides ICE is the neg to pos conversion. I just scan with no color correction at all in Viewscan and open it in Gimp and do auto white balance and it comes out great or use levels with eyedroppers.

 

Trying Raw Therapee neg converter. Otherwise Nikon NX-D and flipping the levels then converting the raw to tiff or jpeg and trying to deal with the blue cast in Gimp Not very successfully unfortunately. Nikon Coolscan does it better

An Omega B is designed for medium format. The D was 4x5.

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

 

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

 

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

 

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

 

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

 

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

 

Thanks

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

 

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

 

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

 

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

 

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

 

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

 

Thanks[/QUO

Yes but with the 66 limitation

Omega B-66 is the more modern update to the famous B-22 enlarger. Like the B-22, it can handle multiple film formats from 35mm to 2¼"x2¼", but it's revised lamphouse design provides easier access to the condenser lenses and lamp.

 

I’m happy to have it covering as large a film as it does. And I now have an excellent bright light source.

I’m now in a much better position to experiment between this rig and the Coolscan for 35mm thanks to everyone’s feedback.

 

I am still unclear on the effect if different temps of the bulb either the Omega bulb I have or a led. Specifically I guess it’s a CRI question of different bulbs. I had some good response about the led lamps but still a little uncertain.

 

Could anyone say I should go shopping for a daylight led bulb? Also I haven’t been able to determine the characteristics of the Omega bulb I have as mentioned previously. Id like to know what my Omega bulb was intended for.

 

Does the temp or other aspect of the bulb make a big difference in negative conversion or positive film reproduction?

Especially with big jumps say between 2000k 5000k 7000k? Of course Um wondering about the camera white balance setting also.

I’m thinking a daylight bulb and daylight setting on the camera but not sure. The 100 equivalent household led I mentioned seems significantly brighter than the 75watt Omega bulb

 

Once I resolve this lamp question I can get started

 

Thanks

I did find the temp of the Omega bulb. 2900. I look at various enlarger bulbs and they are similar. I’m wondering if those being designed for printing paper are not necessarily the best for film digitizing. I’ll look for specs for high end digitizing lightpanels to see what they are using

This is what I ended up with. Added a stabilizer to the inverted lamp head. I bought the same 100 watt led in daylight. No Idea if it makes a difference at this point. The good news my shutter speed is up to around 1/250 and I was able to achieve similar resolution to the Nikon scans. I had better luck with the D7500 than D3400 using the Micro 55. The exposure simulation and touchscreen are nice.

 

I also realized I am missing a condenser lens but the one I have seems ok for light diffusion

 

As far as color my various neg conversion attempt have not matched the scanner but that’s a whole other endless topic.

 

Hacks galore for DSLR scanning. Scanner technology is stagnant and likely to stay that way. The Coolscan cultists can only carry on till their units need parts and/or service--then what? Happy to scan 120 b&w negs with a Nikon D7200+Micro Nikkor 40/2.8g. Like the look. Digital for color. No need for Lego-like Kickstarter neg holders. Get an old copy stand and do DIY neg holders instead. Speed and the ability to focus are undeniable advantages over affordable civilian-grade scanners. YMMV, as usual.

To prove that my digital copies of b&w negatives are sharper at f/11 than at the lens' nominal optimum aperture of f/5.6, I made the following photos. My purpose is to encourage people to test their own equipment and working methods to find their best solution instead of blindly following advice that copies are always sharper at f/5.6 or thereabouts.

 

My first image shows the full frame. I took this picture in 1977 using a Canon TLb 35mm SLR, Canon FD 135mm f/2.5 lens, and Kodak Tri-X film. My standard developer at that time was Kodak HC-110 Dilution B, although sometimes I used Edwal FG-7 to push the film one or two stops. I can't remember if I pushed this roll. I made the digital copy using a Nikon D7200 DSLR (24 megapixels), a Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 macro lens, and Nikon ES-2 copy attachment, which screws into the 52mm filter thread of the macro lens. I bracketed the copies at f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. No digital sharpening applied.

 

Next come three 100% crops comparing center sharpness. The vintage 1970s Tri-X grain is distinct. Notice that the f/11 image suffers no loss of sharpness to diffraction effects. Indeed, I believe it's sharper than the f/5.6 and f/8 images. I think it's sharper because the additional depth of field at f/11 hides small focusing errors. DOF is extremely shallow at this magnification. As I said in a previous post, it's difficult to get sharp focus at every point on a negative. And this negative was flatter than many of the old ones I copy.

 

Finally come three more 100% crops, this time comparing corner sharpness. This time the difference is stark: the f/11 image is far sharper than the others. Here again, DOF is the reason.

 

Aiming the DSLR focus point at a different spot on the negative would show slightly different results, but some spots would always be much less sharp than others when shooting at f/5.6 or even f/8. I conducted many experiments to verify that f/11 is the optimum aperture for my equipment. At f/16 (not shown here), the corners sharpen a little more, but the center crop definitely looks softer. The diffraction falloff from f/11 to f/16 is significant with this lens.

 

Let me add that I've never seen a sharper result at f/5.6 or f/8 than at f/11, no matter where I aim the focus point. The diffraction falloff from f/5.6 to f/11 with this lens is invisible at 24 megapixels, and the film grain is as sharp as I need it to be. Maybe the difference would be visible at a higher digital resolution (e.g., 48 megapixels). But I think it would be overkill, especially for Tri-X and other old films.

 

I get similar results when digitizing negatives with a Nikon CoolScan V-ED dedicated 35mm film scanner. Sometimes it can't achieve equally sharp focus across the whole negative. In those cases I aim the focus point at the most important part of the picture. I can do the same when copying negatives (or slides) with my DSLR.

 

Conclusion: test your own equipment before gluing your aperture ring at f/5.6! Lenses allow smaller apertures for good reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

I know the 18-55 is quite sharp especially with VR. It’s possible it may compare favorably with the 55 micro.

Not even close!

To prove that my digital copies of b&w negatives are sharper at f/11 than at the lens' nominal optimum aperture of f/5.6, I made the following photos. My purpose is to encourage people to test their own equipment and working methods to find their best solution instead of blindly following advice that copies are always sharper at f/5.6 or thereabouts.

Well of course, if your filmholder isn't square to the camera, or allows the film to bulge, or your copying lens has some field curvature, then naturally the edges and corners are going to be less sharp than the centre of the frame. Forcing you to use a smaller aperture than optimum.

 

The point is; that if the film is held as flat and square as possible, and if the lens used is of good quality and with a flat field, then using a wider aperture will give less diffraction and sharper results. With the optimum aperture, discovered empirically, being around f/6.3.

 

I spent a lot of time and effort trying different setups, and I have two tips:

1. Use a good quality and heavily constructed negative-carrier/filmholder.

2. A top-quality, 6 element enlarging lens - Rodagon, Componon-S, El-Nikkor, Minolta CE, Neonon, etc. - is the most cost-effective way to get a suitably flat-field copying lens.

 

You can follow or ignore my advice as you wish. But the fact remains that when the rest of your setup is as perfect as you can make it, then diffraction, and the lens aperture used, is the limiting factor to sharpness and resolution.

Let me add that I've never seen a sharper result at f/5.6 or f/8 than at f/11, no matter where I aim the focus point.

I have, very clearly.

If you haven't then your setup must be sub-optimal.

Edited February 15, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1