Slide/Film DSLR Scanning- ES-2 vs. Bellows+PS-4

[ben_hutcherson]

As much as I love my scanners, they are slow and fiddly to get right, and I'd really like to try DSLR "scanning"

 

I know that the current, Nikon-sanctioned way to do this is the ES-2 on a 60mm Micro lens. Even though I have the AF-D version of this lens, it's never been a favorite of mine, so I'm not necessarily wild about this option. If I'm understanding correctly, since the distance from the filter ring to the negative will be fixed with the ES-2, a 60mm full frame(or maybe the 40mm DX?) is the only option that will allow a full frame scan in focus.

Buried somewhere in a box from moving a few years ago is a nice PB-4 Bellows with a PS-4 slide/film copy attachment. Obviously this is fairly old tech, designed primarily for slide duplication, but in my mind there's no reason this particular option shouldn't work provided that you set it up and focus it correctly. Obviously it needs a fair bit of manual input, and I do have some of the attachements to make life easier like the cable release stop down ring(number escapes me at the moment) to use with a reversed lens and a couple of BR-2 reversing rings.

I really do need to dig my PB-4 out, although it hasn't been pressing as my much lighter, more nimble Novoflex bellows do the job when I need them.

Still, though, does anyone have any thoughts on this combination as opposed to the ES-2?

[mike_halliwell]

Any 1:1 macro on an FX Nikon DSLR or Mirrorless will do just fine for 35mm slide digitization.

Over the weekend I used my Z8 and Z105mm macro on a vertical copystand with a mounted slide resting on a v.small LED (photo grade) lightbox. I've got a old 35mm neg carrier from an enlarger to mask off any unwanted light.  All done in a dark room.

Fine for half a dozen or so, but if you want to do industrial numbers....something more permanent is better.

I use focus peaking to ensure parallelism. Exposure triggered by self timer, ISO 64, f5.6 and however long it takes....🙂

No need for mirror lock up or shutter settle time..... 🤣

[Niels - NHSN]

15 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

If I'm understanding correctly, since the distance from the filter ring to the negative will be fixed with the ES-2, a 60mm full frame(or maybe the 40mm DX?) is the only option that will allow a full frame scan in focus.

ES-2 is designed for use with the two lenses you mention and the box includes what you need for them to work.

However, the front of the ES-2 moves back and forth to allow for minor fine adjustments of cropping so it has a little flexibility.

I used mine with a 55mm Micro-Nikkor and all I had to do to make it work was to add a glassless filter ring to extend the tube half a cm.

I disliked the whole setup. Slow to work with and load with strips. Due to it's flimsy construction, I felt the need to check focus for every frame.

The ES-2 slide holder only takes very thin mounted slides, such as Kodachrome cardboard or commercially mounted glassless. My home framed glassless GEPE mounts did not fit.

15 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Buried somewhere in a box from moving a few years ago is a nice PB-4 Bellows with a PS-4 slide/film copy attachment. Obviously this is fairly old tech, designed primarily for slide duplication, but in my mind there's no reason this particular option shouldn't work provided that you set it up and focus it correctly. Obviously it needs a fair bit of manual input, and I do have some of the attachements to make life easier like the cable release stop down ring(number escapes me at the moment) to use with a reversed lens and a couple of BR-2 reversing rings.

I really do need to dig my PB-4 out, although it hasn't been pressing as my much lighter, more nimble Novoflex bellows do the job when I need them.

Still, though, does anyone have any thoughts on this combination as opposed to the ES-2?

Chance had it that I was offered that exact combo including an old pre-ai Micro-Nikkor for the same as I paid for the ES-2, and I haven't looked back since.

I use a newer Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS (set to f/8), but the old 55/3.5 is quite capable and would have been OK.

The solid PB/PS-4 combo can be firmly locked down and I rarely have to adjust focus. A huge benefit is that the PS-4 front allows me to scan whole uncut rolls in no time - mainly relevant for newly developed film because my archive is already cut.
But not having to mount every strip in the flimsy ES-2 holder also saves a lot of time.

I use a Nikon SC-17 TTL sync cable on my Z6ii and position a flash (SB-400) in front of the PS-4 (plus a little LED pilot light to allow for framing). Quick to setup as that is all I use the bellows for.

I convert negatives to positive with FilmLab.

 

[ben_hutcherson]

10 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

Chance had it that I was offered that exact combo including an old pre-ai Micro-Nikkor for the same as I paid for the ES-2, and I haven't looked back since.

I use a newer Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS (set to f/8), but the old 55/3.5 is quite capable and would have been OK.

The solid PB/PS-4 combo can be firmly locked down and I rarely have to adjust focus. A huge benefit is that the PS-4 front allows me to scan whole uncut rolls in no time - mainly relevant for newly developed film because my archive is already cut.
But not having to mount every strip in the flimsy ES-2 holder also saves a lot of time.

I use a Nikon SC-17 TTL sync cable on my Z6ii and position a flash (SB-400) in front of the PS-4 (plus a little LED pilot light to allow for framing). Quick to setup as that is all I use the bellows for.

I convert negatives to positive with FilmLab.

 

 

Thanks for the detailed comments, and it sounds like the PB-4 may well be the winner given especially that I already have it.

I actually prefer the 55mm f/3.5 Micro to the f/2.8 version for true macro work. The floating element seems to make things weird on the f/2.8 version if you do more than the intended 27.5mm tube(and even then I feel like it loses a little vs. right on the camera). The unit focusing f/3.5 is beautiful no matter how far I rack it out from the film plane.

[Niels - NHSN]

9 minutes ago, ben_hutcherson said:

I actually prefer the 55mm f/3.5 Micro to the f/2.8 version for true macro work. The floating element seems to make things weird on the f/2.8 version if you do more than the intended 27.5mm tube(and even then I feel like it loses a little vs. right on the camera). The unit focusing f/3.5 is beautiful no matter how far I rack it out from the film plane.

I have heard others say similar things, but with the samples I have it worked out the opposite way.

I do have another 55/3.5 which I haven’t used in this setup - maybe I should try.

[mike_halliwell]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:19 PM, ben_hutcherson said:

DSLR "scanning"

Which body are you using?

(I might have missed it, but couldn't see it mentioned!)

[ben_hutcherson]

2 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Which body are you using? h

(I might have missed it, but couldn't see it mentioned!)

I have options...

 

IIRC, the D850 is supposed to do this at least sort of automatically with the ES2. sol

With that said, it seems like overkill for 35mm. A 4000dpi film scanner outputs a ~24mp full frame scan(~1x1.5" , or 4000x6000) although those are "real" RGB pixels and not Bayer pixels(if that actually makes a difference). That will grain resolve-or maybe dye cloud resolove to be more precise- a lot of film, including favorites like Tri-X, FP4+, and Portra 160 or 400. It SEEMS to grain resolve 100 speed slide films(including Provia 100F, which at least use to hold the finest grain slide film title with an RMS granularity of 8(Velvia 50 is close at 9, and I'd expect Extachrome E100G/E100GX/E100 to be close) but there's the pesky grain aliasing phenomenon that can increase apparent grain in fine grained film. I don't necessarily see myself going finer, as I've found films like Pan F to be too touchy for my liking and TMAX 100, which has finer apparent grain than FP4+, has never been a film I've taken to/

A 24mp camera might seem ideal, but I don't currently have one. I can go under with the D3s, Df, D4, and D5. I can go over with the D800/D810 or really over with the D850. I'm wondering where the sweet spot would be, since as tempting as it is to just grab the D850 for everything, I know I certainly hate the space and time(even on my 2019 8-core iMac, which is my current editing machine) that D850 files occupy, plus my D850 files always seem to need more work to make me happy than D5 files, which not only are smaller and easier to handle but also in the "real world" are nearly perfect. So, part of this is going to be experiment, especially with some of my "reference" slides that are ~15 years old and have been scanned on pretty much every scanning device I've ever owned(and that I always enjoy seeing again), is going to be testing bodies to see where the sweet spot is, and of course it could change depending on film stock. I have a feeling it mind end up being the D800 or D810, which already pretty much live as macro cameras for me now anyway.

I do want to do some medium format scanning too, especially as everything said about the "fun" of scanning 35mm is even more true of medium format. I went through fighting with the expensive better scanning holder for my Epson V700, only to still fight flatness with a lot of extra work. I'm now using a cobbled together holder that works by laying a piece of AN glass on the standard MF "stretch" holder for my Coolscan 8000, but it's still less than perfect and I haven't wanted to fork over the mega-bucks for a genuine Nikon glass holder. MF will likely on a lighbox with glass to hold it flat. The D850 could come into its own here, or I could get really fancy and do pixel shift on the X-T5.

I guess too there's always the "always an excuse to buy another camera" to end up at 24mp, but I don't really know where I'd go. I had a D600 for a while, but don't really know that I want to go there again just since I still have some annoyances with how the camera works even though they were(relatively) cheap the last time I looked. The D750 just doesn't appeal to me, especially for current used prices, even though I know it's a great camera. The D3X has a cult following and I suspect I'd actually really like it, especially given how much I love SOOC outputs from all the other full frame single digits I've used, but that cult following(combined with, I'd guess, relative scarcity) makes them bring prices far stronger than I'd really want to pay for a 15 year old camera. Even though I'm decent at the moment. on EN-EL4/EN-EL4a batteries, the genuine Nikons I have are definitely starting to show their age. I have some aftermarkets from both Kastar and Wasabi, and they're okay, but aftermarket batteries always leave me a bit on edge. Nikon made it possible to charge EN-EL4 batteries in the MH-26a with an addapter-the EN-EL18 seems electrically similar enough that I wish there was a way to make it work in the D2/D3/D300/D700 etc cameras.

If only there were a 24mp option with pixel shift...(and yes as I mentioned I'm taking a serious look at it as my potential first Z camera, although that's going to be a ways off).

Edited September 26, 2023 by ben_hutcherson

[conrad_hoffman]

I love my bellows and ES-2. I usually use an enlarging lens as the copy lens, about 80 mm I think. These days I wanted to use the ES-2 with my Z6 and 105 MC macro lens, as it's probably one of the best lenses for the purpose. No easy way to do it, so I built a support to hold things. Works like a champ! (I use a black paper tube between the lens and holder.)

 

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, conrad_hoffman said:

No easy way to do it, so I built a support to hold things. Works like a champ! (I use a black paper tube between the lens and holder.)

Nice!

What's your light source?

[conrad_hoffman]

I usually use a little Nanlite 5C and the white silicone diffuser with good results, but a window or incandescent works fine. Regardless of what I use, I do a custom white balance. Something I've wondered about is (AFAIK) slide projectors use halogen bulbs, so slides are projected at 3000K. I don't know if that's relevant to copying them. I use the same rig for 35mm black and white film. The Z6 is very good, but a Z7 would probably be a better choice for this sort of work.

I've got pretty good machine tools and had the aluminum extrusion sitting around, but a perfectly servicable one could be made from any hardwood or even a 2x4! I printed a 2x2 target card with a 24x36 square and cross hairs so I could center the frame. I run a bit less than 1:1 so there's room for the lens to focus.

[nail33]

17 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

Something I've wondered about is (AFAIK) slide projectors use halogen bulbs, so slides are projected at 3000K.

one could be made from any hardwood or even a 2x4!

I'm using my speedlight (with a diffuser) for illumination, which I think is around 5000K. The white balance seems right to me in general when doing my Kodachrome 25 slides. I am indeed using a 2x4 for my platform 🙂

[Niels - NHSN]

A TTL speed-light native to the system will correctly adjust for the WB. You may want to play with exposure compensation to account for the orange mask.

20MP and above is more than enough for camera scanning IMO.

[ben_hutcherson]

On 9/30/2023 at 10:40 AM, Niels - NHSN said:

A TTL speed-light native to the system will correctly adjust for the WB. You may want to play with exposure compensation to account for the orange mask.

20MP and above is more than enough for camera scanning IMO.

re: the orange mask-

I've never done software reversal, but can't most software account for the mask? With that said when I sit down to do this if gelling the flash helps, it's worth trying. I've never optically printed color, although I do have a color head on one of my enlargers(I'd not go out of my way to buy one, but the one I have is handy to dial in contrast filters for VC paper) but when one is printing color, don't you start by dialing in correction for the mask?

Re: Resolution of the cameras-it seems to me(not having done this but hoping too in the coming week-I have just located my PB4) that you want enough to get everything, but going too high just leaves you with big files with a bunch of useless information. I honestly shoot with my D5 a lot these days just because even my good "regular" lenses like my 24-70 f/2.8E don't show a ton more detail in real-world situations on my D810 or D850(and I'm REALLY pressed to see a difference with all but a few lenses between the D800, D810, and D850). Storage is cheap these days, both in camera and on the computer(I have 10TB on-tap in my 2019 iMac-2tb solid state and 8tb in a spinner) but big files are slower to import, slower to sort, and just everything about handling them seems to drag down if I'm scanning my computers. 

With scanning, I've always gone by the idea that if I can see the the grain/dye clouds I have enough resolution. I'll go straight to 4000ppi if I'm scanning modern fine grain transparencies(E100/Provia/Velvia) or even finer grained negative like Ektar 100, but once I start getting into any 400 speed films I usually dial the resolution back. Scanning is a slow process anyway, and if the higher resolution just means more pixels without more detail, it seems a waste to me. Of course too with a DSLR set-up, I have a feeling that once I get a workflow down with a particular camera(probably going to be my D800...) it's worth keeping going.

One of the stores where I use to hang out had a really interesting set-up for slides. They had a Kodak Carousel without a lens, then a DSLR(I think something like a Nikon D5200 with a kit lens-nothing at all fancy) pointed right where the lens would be mounted on the Carousel. The whole set-up was tethered to a computer-I'm guessing with a special dongle to tie the Carousel remote port to the computer-and they could just drop a tray on the Carousel and let it rip and get a stack of files.