Nikon Slide system

[mike_halliwell]

Nikon with a 60mm Macro that's pointed right at a Carousel that doesn't have a projection lens installed.

So, just the Tungsten bulb and the diffuser?

 

Makes sense regarding exposure with a continuous lamp too.

 

As slide mounts come in different thicknesses, having one of the V holder should ensure the film is in the same plane very time.

 

However, as effectively it's a 1:1 macro shot, DoF at something like f4 isn't enough to allow for slide 'pop', even if it is the sweet spot.

 

D7500 + 60mm @1:1 @ f8 gives a DoF of just 0.32mm.....:eek:

 

Macro Depth of Field (DoF) Calculator | PhotoPills

 

Not having to unload a Carousel to digitize can be a life saver

True, but you do have to decide on the Landscape/Portrait orientation, unless the body/lens has a rotation collar.....;)

 

When i built my version about 10 years ago (!), I used a Tamron 180mm macro with a tripod collar fixed to the same base board.as the projector. The long lens gave lots of working room too! I sold the lens some time ago. Maybe time for a rebuild with my Sigma 150mm OS. (OS off of course!) ?

 

I managed to 'hot wire' the timer of the Ektapro to trip a simple Nikon 10 pin remote,

 

With self timer set on cam of 2 sec and a shot-delay of 1/2 sec for mirror up etc.. setting the projector to 5 seconds allowed everything to co-ordinate nicely.

 

Full AF with Matrix Metering at base ISO at F8 on my D810 proved a nice working set-up.

 

I guess you could use a simple microswitch on the slide loading arm to trip the body timer and shutter.

[tommarcus]

+1 to getting a 55mm manual focus Micro-Nikkor - either f/3.5 or f/2.8. It's what I used with the film-copier attachment I showed above. The one that isn't the Illumitran.

 

To be honest, there is very little difference in the speed of use, or quality of results between using that front-of-lens film holder, and the dedicated Illumitran. Provided that flash is used as the light source.

 

The main difference is in convenience, and a slight improvement in film flatness with the Illumitran. The Illumitran is ready and waiting to go, whereas the front-of-macro-lens gizmo needs careful focussing and trial 'pops' to get the exposure right, every time it's fitted to the camera.

 

The Illumitran also has a filter drawer that takes a blue filter to counteract the orange mask of colour negative film. Whereas I had to alter the camera White Balance with the lens attachment thingy.

(Why I believe a blue filter is necessary has been discussed at length in another thread.)

 

FWIW. If you have a digital camera with sufficient resolution to make it suitable for film digitising - then why the heck shoot inferior 35mm film in the first place?

ive decided to try to find a tube slide/film copier. So much easier on the setup. thought about the bellows but id still need to get the lens and i just dont want too do that.

[rodeo_joe1]

However, as effectively it's a 1:1 macro shot, DoF at something like f4 isn't enough to allow for slide 'pop', even if it is the sweet spot.

You'd be lucky, or wealthy, to find a macro lens that behaves itself nicely at f/4 as well.

 

The main parameters that I've found make f/4 unsuitable are vignetting, and spherical aberration that takes the edge off sharpness. Stopping down to f/5.6 makes the worst of the vignetting go away, and sharpness improves dramatically.

By f/8 you're starting to see diffraction take its toll on sharpness. So IME f/5.6 to f/8 is your only option if you want grain-sharp copies with even brightness and sharpness across the frame.

 

I'm sure there are mega-expensive lenses that will allow working at f/4, and holders that'll clamp the film dead flat to take advantage of those lenses. But for me a heavy glassless carrier and a good enlarging lens set to about f/6.3 are sufficient. I can't be doing with dusting a glass carrier every other frame and watching out for Newton's rings, and AN glass just ruins definition.

 

A modified slide projector is a good idea, but my main film backlog is in the form of negative strips, B&W and colour.

 

I'm not sure how well focus would be kept from slide to slide though, and I'm pretty sure the standard condenser system would need an additional diffuser to prevent a central hot-spot in the copy.

Edited July 18, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[mike_halliwell]

You'd be lucky, or wealthy, to find a macro lens that behaves itself nicely at f/4 as well.

The Tamron 60mm f2 isn't so bad at f4!

 

Tamron SP AF 60 mm f/2.0 Di II LD (IF) Macro 1:1 review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

I guess something like this with an extra diffuser would be fine up to 5" x 4"

 

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Dimmable-Bi-color-3200-5600k-Battery-Camcorders/dp/B07QL8WHRV/ref=sxin_9_lp-trr-1-eu_909603747030bcb011eaf55d57eee471dc51d6e4?cv_ct_cx=led+video+light&dchild=1&keywords=led+video+light&pd_rd_i=B07QL8WHRV&pd_rd_r=1363fde0-0498-4890-8be5-470dd015253c&pd_rd_w=Tsi78&pd_rd_wg=EbGMy&pf_rd_p=0d1375f7-dc6e-47e6-a201-69a2feb381cf&pf_rd_r=7GQZTS3EM95MWYCDQVEX&qid=1595068474&sr=1-1-73b378b6-230c-4fda-930d-f31261f038af

[rodeo_joe1]

I guess something like this with an extra diffuser would be fine up to 5" x 4"

I don't know why people are so keen to use a continuous source, and all the issues its low brightness brings. Such as ambient surface reflections from the film being copied. When a flash pointed at a white surface is all that's needed, and any decent speedlight will give you a 64:1 brightness adjustment range and a totally consistent and daylight compatible CT.

[mike_halliwell]

keen to use a continuous source,

Using auto focus maybe? .. although I suppose if there's enough ambient light coming through the slide it should be OK.

[Ed_Ingold]

Nikon glass carriers use AN glass only on the rear, and coated glass on the front. If you put the shiny side of the film toward the AN glass, you don't get Newton's Rngs, and the resolution is not affected. Good luck finding a Nikon carrier.

 

Using a continuous light source facilitates focusing, auto-exposure and consistent color balance. A flash requires more setup, power and cables, and the exposure is affected by slight changes in the angles and distances. Since the lens and ES-2 are firmly screwed together, you don't need a tripod or rigid support for long exposures. Using a desk lamp, f/8 and ISO 400, my typical exposure is 1/4 second, and I can hand-hold the camera (or just rest it on a table).

 

The film is well shielded from ambient light by the ES-1 or ES-2 holder.

 

HINT: Don't use AWB. Set the WB with an empty holder. This is especially important for negative film, because the orange mask throws AWB off. It's also important for slides, where a dominant color affects the measured WB.

 

You can't use auto-focus at 1:1 magnification, nor manual focus either. I use manual focus, having set the film holder and lens to slightly less than 1:1. That lets you do a rough focus by adjusting the film holder, and fine focus using the lens.

 

A DX setup requires significantly less magnification, 2:3, so AF and MF require little or no fiddling.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

[ben_hutcherson]

Nikon glass carriers use AN glass only on the rear, and coated glass on the front. If you put the shiny side of the film toward the AN glass, you don't get Newton's Rngs, and the resolution is not affected. Good luck finding a Nikon carrier.

 

I have a big, thick 120-sized piece of AN glass. It came with the BetterScanning holder I bought for my Epson V700, but I don't scan roll film on that scanner anymore so have "scavenged" the AN glass and played with my LS 8000 120 carrier so that I can fit it. Since I never did manage to get the standard 120 carrier to hold film flat(the design with "stretching" the film sounds like it should work, but in practice for me it never did) and a Nikon glass carrier would cost nearly as much if not more than I paid for the scanner, I've been happy with the results I've had from my make-shift AN carrier. I see no artifacts from the AN glass-there again I load the film emulsion down toward the CCD and put the AN side of the glass over the base side of the film to hold it flat.

 

My Leitz Focomat V35 has AN glass on the source side of the negative carrier, again on the same principle. It's easily the best 35mm enlarger I've ever used.

 

As a side note, it's a shame hand retouching has gone out of fashion. AFAIK, TXP 320(in sheet film) is the only film still made with a "toothed" base to facilitate this. I still shoot and scan a fair bit of old stock TXP 320 in 220(I like it better than normal TX 400 for some uses) and it's a dream to scan in glass since you won't get Newton Rings even on plain quality optical glass. I have a drawer full of odd sized cut pieces of glass(all of them borosilicate glass scavenged by washing the silica gel off "dead" TLC plates that were otherwise going to the garbage) for on-bed scanning with my V700, and dry scanning is definitely easier with a film that has a base for retouching.

[mike_halliwell]

You can't use auto-focus at 1:1 magnification, nor manual focus either.

Nice! Mind control?

 

..and oh yes you can. AF works a treat. Continuous light allows LV AF focusing.

 

As a side note, it's a shame hand retouching has gone out of fashion.

The words of a crazy man....:p

[ben_hutcherson]

The words of a crazy man....

 

You're not really wrong :)

 

I was/am curious about it that I did talk to my local used shop to see if he could scrounge up an old retouching table-the kind with a built-in light table, clamps for a sheet of film, and a motor that gently vibrates the light table to allow you to use knives, pencils, etc to touch up a small area by just holding the tool stationary. He said he thought he had one, but wasn't positive and would look..I'll mention it to him again if he ever opens back up.

 

I sold an unopened, expired box of TXP 320 in 4x5 not too long ago, but need to get some fresh. I'm still shooting 220 TXP 320, but that will run out(and the price keeps going up) and I feel like 4x5 or even 8x10(as scary as the cost of that is) is a lot better for practicing retouching than 6x6. I should see if the Ektapan I have piles of in the freezer has a retouching layer-that film is nearly immortal, and is an old enough emulsion that it might just have it. Super-XX would be another to play with, but at least a few years ago most of what was still out there(from the last 1994 batch) was being horded by photographers who had built their entire "look" using that film.

[Ed_Ingold]

..and oh yes you can. AF works a treat. Continuous light allows LV AF focusing.

 

At 1:1 magnification, the subject to film plane distance is an absolute minimum. Any deviation from 1:1, including focusing, increases the distance needed to remain in focus. Citing the simple lens formula...

 

1/f + 1/f' = 1/FL.

 

At 1:1, f = f', and when focused, f = f' = 2FL.

 

If you increase the working distance even a small amount, you can fine tune the focus with AF or MF.

 

That said, few practical lenses are simple lenses. Most macro lenses that focus as close as 1:1 use a floating group to decrease the focal length (and working distance) the closer you focus, which in turn allows you to fine focus with the lens in some cases. This feature is mainly used to decrease the amount of extension at the greatest magnification. Lenses like the classic 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor use a floating group to improve the flatness of field, so the lens can deliver good image quality from 1:2 to infinity. You need a 27.5 mm extension tube to reach 1:1.

[rodeo_joe1]

A flash requires more setup, power and cables,

No. It doesn't.

As I explained, it can be as simple as flipping up the popup flash on top of the camera. Although I prefer to use a hotshoe-mounted speedlight. No power or synch cables needed in either case.

 

Variation of exposure with angle and distance applies equally to any continuous source also.

Using a desk lamp, f/8 and ISO 400, my typical exposure is 1/4 second,

Well, that adds over 249ms to your 'scan' time for a start.:cool:

Then the low CT of most continuous sources means that the WB has to be pushed into boosting the blue channel - not good for noise. Furthermore, the orange mask of colour negative film has to be counteracted at some stage of processing. Otherwise you'll have very blue shadows in the final positive. It's far better to do this by starting with a high lighting CT from the outset, rather than in software; again for reasons of signal/noise ratio and RGB channel matching.

 

I explained this fully in this thread, second post.

Edited July 19, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Ed_Ingold]

We disagree on the value of flash v continuous light.You stated your reasons, I stated mine. We are providing information to those seeking practical knowledge, not proselyting dogma.

 

As it turns out, LED replacement bulb have an adequate CT rating for copying slides, or most photographic purposes. Modern replacement bulbs work on the basis of phospherescent pigments excited by a near-UV LED. The pigments are adjusted for near continuous spectral content, and persistent enough to avoid the flicker of direct LED lighting. I haven't tried it yet, but I have a small video light panel which is very bright and is CT97 at 5500 deg K. It's the size and shape of a cell phone, and runs 2.5 hours on an internal battery (or USB-C power).

 

The orange color of negative film is a mask to improve the dynamic range of the image. It is lighter where the image is denser. Consequently the color of the mask changes with image content. That complicates conversion if you use AWB. The same is true of slides. AWB depends on "average" color (if that even exists). A preponderance of one color, like green, can upset the white balance. On the other hand, AWB can improve slides which have faded or simply have a color cast. Velvia taken under heavy overcast skies is one example, unless you like the magenta cast it incurs. Do you want consistency and treat problems in post, or let the intelligant camera do its part? That intelligence is designed to work positive images, not negatives.

 

I have the best luck using the back end of slide scanning software, Silverfast HDR, for negative conversion. I understand that Vuescan will do the same, at lower cost.

 

Surely you are joking when you suggest an extra 249 milliseconds matter compared to a typical 2 minute per frame scan in an LS-4000? How about the recycle time of a flash unit (admittedly recycling at low power is far less than the time to change film/slide position). More important is the fact that most strobe units change color significantly as their duration is changed.

 

Cameras with a flip up flash units generally rely on a "pentamirror" lieu of using an actual prism (with total internal reflection).

[ben_hutcherson]

Cameras with a flip up flash units generally rely on a "pentamirror" lieu of using an actual prism (with total internal reflection).

 

I have quite a few Nikons that would disagree with this, including the D800, D810, the long-gone D600, the D100, D200, D300, and even stretching back to the film era N80. I'm too lazy to look at what other film cameras had both, but there was quite a period in the digital where Nikon put pop-ups on everything but the single-digit cameras. The D500 and D850 broke this trend that has continued onto the D780, but the persist on a lot of cameras lower down the totem pole that are very capable and still considered high end-like the D7500 and even slightly older but still very capable cameras like the D750. Of course, the Df also lacks one, but it would be hard to make it look right on the FM2-inspired pentaprism housing.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you use a shoe-mounted flash, make sure the white card reflector is far enough away so the flash is not shadowed by the lens and copying assembly, which extends nearly 8 inches from the camera. That would pose greater problems for a flip-up flash. I would be concerned about the exceptionally bright light striking the film adapter from the rear.

 

Lower tier cameras take excellent photos, they just aren't as flexible and rugged as the single-digit Nikons.

[rodeo_joe1]

The orange color of negative film is a mask to improve the dynamic range of the image. It is lighter where the image is denser.

Thanks, but I already knew exactly the purpose of the mask, since I enlarged colour negatives in a darkroom years before digital photography was invented.

 

Regardless of its function, the mask needs to be removed during processing. With wet printing, this was done by the varying sensitivity of the printing paper layers. When digitally copying, it can be done by using a complementary light-source colour, or by juggling the RGB curves.

 

As I showed, using a complementary optical filter during copying evens up the RGB histograms of the digital copy.

 

Why is this an improvement on simply digitally adjusting the histograms?

-

1. Even after shooting RAW there may be saturation in the red or blue channels that cannot be recovered. Digital manipulation also involves dropping some data, whereas a hardware fix is lossless.

 

2. Every common RAW converter applies a steep gamma curve during import, and before you even get to see the image. If the separate RGB images aren't similar in brightness and contrast (i.e have misaligned histograms) then the curve applied will be vastly different between the red and blue channels; making it difficult or even impossible to adjust and re-align the channels to get a neutral colour balance.

 

This is typical of the extreme tonal curve that's applied to a linear-space RAW image during conversion:

Imagine that curve divided into three parts horizontally, and then try to imagine the 3 inverse functions that would be needed to correct blue, green and red channels spaced to the left, centre and right, respectively, of that curve.

Not easy is it?

 

Proselytising?

Not at all. Simply trying to point people in the direction of an easier way to get a job done, and arrive at a better end result.

 

And was the emoticon not enough indication of an ironic tone?

Edited July 19, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[Ed_Ingold]

It works reasonably well if you use the sliders to optimize each primary color separately in Photoshop Levels before inversion, but further correction is usually needed. The effect of the mask is affected by small changes in exposure. Negative film is also very sensitive to the quality of the light used for taking. The green cast of photos taken in a forest, or at dusk, can be very problematic.

 

Silverfast HDR does that grunt work for you, requiring little adjustment of the results.

[mike_halliwell]

done by using a complementary light-source colour

Errr, CYAN?

[ben_hutcherson]

Lower tier cameras take excellent photos, they just aren't as flexible and rugged as the single-digit Nikons.

 

Cameras like the D850 and D500 are pretty darn high end-they're inferior to the D5/D6 in some respects(each in their own way) but superior in a lot of others.

 

The D6 is the fastest camera Nikon has ever produced, but IIRC the AF primarily is changed vs. the D5 by dumping a whole bunch more focus points on it and making them all selectable(and all cross-type). The excellent D5 module has also migrated down to the D850 and D500.

 

The D500 I think comes up 2fps short of the D5 and 4fps short of the D6. With that said, 10fps is often too much for me, and I'd hate to think how much trash I'd have to sort through at 14fps. The D500's 20mp DX sensor has a pixel density comparable to the D850 and much more dense than the D5 or D6. That translates in to a very real advantage in some situations that call for long lenses, but that's offset somewhat by the lower max native ISO of the D500.

 

Meanwhile, the resolution is signifcantly higher on the D800/D810, much less the D850, than on any single digit camera made in Nikon's history. That's at an advantage for copying film, even if you are able to grain resolve the film. BTW, for comparison, a full frame scan of a 35mm image on my Coolscan V is 24mp(4000x6000), and it can grain resolve higher speed films but not always slower ones.

 

Weather sealing and ruggedness is also pretty darn good on the 3 digit cameras, and presumably elminating the pop-up helps even more. There are "torture test" videos on Youtube of people basically dousing these cameras and their comparable Canon models using a garden hose, and they come away with none the worse for wear and usually with no sign of water in the battery compartment, card slot, eyepiece, or other obvious places.

 

In the context of slide copying, though, I'd really just consider the single digit cameras not a great tool for the job. At least my D3s won't mount directly on my PB4 bellows without using an extension tube. A D800 takes a bit of contorting, but will go on, as will smaller ones.

 

If you need a single digital camera, you know it, but I'd argue that for many tasks, the high end not-single-digit cameras are a better choice. Slide/film copying is one of those.

[rodeo_joe1]

Errr, CYAN?

No, that would be the complement of red.

 

The orange(ish) mask of colour negative film is very close to that of an 85B CC filter. The complement of which is a bluish 80A.

 

I use a cheap resin 80A behind the film-copier diffuser, together with a flash light source. This pretty much neutralises the highest density of the orange negative mask. It does not neutralise its function, which is not to increase dynamic range, but to correct for deficiencies and unwanted absorption in the magenta and cyan-forming dye layers.

 

An overall blue colour shift obviously affects all dye layers; aligning and equalising their minimum densities. I.e. the orange mask is turned neutral grey (or close to). This almost exactly mimics what happens with colour enlarger filtration in combination with the sensitivity curves of colour printing paper.

[mike_halliwell]

No, that would be the complement of red.

Ah, OK. I read quite a few other threads on other fora using a 40 CC in Blue and Green (guess they didn't have a Cyan CC!). Maybe that was for a specific film base?

[Ed_Ingold]

In the context of slide copying, though, I'd really just consider the single digit cameras not a great tool for the job. At least my D3s won't mount directly on my PB4 bellows without using an extension tube. A D800 takes a bit of contorting, but will go on, as will smaller ones.

When copying slides/film, more resolution is better than less. Single-digit Nikons are in the "less" category, even to this day. However I don't dedicate cameras for copying, rather use what I have for general photography. My last Nikon was a D3, at the end of a 20 year lineup starting with an F3HP.

 

The question is moot, since I now use Sony mirrorless cameras, which are sufficiently rugged and have high-resolution (24 MP or more). This is a MF negative, copied with a Sony A7Rii and converted using Silverfast HDR.

 

Hasselblad 501cm + CF50/4, Fuji NPS160

[rodeo_joe1]

Ah, OK. I read quite a few other threads on other fora using a 40 CC in Blue and Green (guess they didn't have a Cyan CC!). Maybe that was for a specific film base?

Which other fora Mike?

Just curious.

 

Before getting the 80B filter, I set a custom WB to overcome the mask. Taking the WB from an unexposed piece of leader film.

 

The custom WB usually read in the region of 3300K + 3G(reen). Not a large green component by any means. Certainly not enough for the correction to count as true cyan.

 

Anyhoo. I find the 80B filter gets me close enough, unless the film is one of Kodak's crazy ventures into a magenta mask colour!

[mike_halliwell]

So, in terms of vertical sequence, I guess 'bottom' is light source (daylight LED or flash), next 80B filter then negative in mount of some sort.

 

I guess you don't want the neg's surface touching anything for Newton's reasons.

 

Putting the 80B on the macro lens is kinda the wrong way around?

 

I'll go find that link.

[rodeo_joe1]

Putting the 80B on the macro lens is kinda the wrong way around?

I don't think it matters as far as colour filtration is concerned. Personally I'd prefer not to have a filter on a macro lens though, and the enlarging lenses I use have tiny threads that you can't easily buy filters for.