Fiodor

You can't wash away 'holes' in the image.

 

This doesn't look like opaque dirt or chemical contamination, which would show up as black or dark spots. What's shown above is contamination that's prevented the developer from reaching the emulsion. As such it's pretty irreparable.

Thanks for the comment.

They are not holes. It is something stuck to the surface of the film, on the emulsion side. The stains are opaque, I mean, not transparent.

Why do you say they would show up as dark spots? It is the same than a hair, which is opaque, and appears white in the scanned image, doesn’t it?

I cleaned just one image, not completely, because I was afraid and I was trying. But after cleaning, I scanned it again and the image was behind the spots which disappeared. So, for the moment, I tend to think that the “dirt” is only superficial and it didn’t affect the exposure nor the processing. To verify this, I would have to clean an image utterly, if that is possible.

Short of a full re-wash, I'd be inclined to try PEC or Kodak Film Cleaner on a PEC pad.

Do you mean these?

Photographic Solutions PEC-12 Photographic Emulsion PECBTL B&H

Photographic Solutions PEC-PAD Photo Wipes PAD100 B&H Photo

Mm… I don’t know if I could get those products in my city. I’ll see. Thanks for the recommendation, I didn't know them.

On what surface would you put the negative to clean it? I mean, to avoid scratching the film, if you rub it with some pressure. Or would you hold the film in the air and rub it with two pads at the same time, on both sides?

I remembered this thread because I need to scan some images of this negative.

The manager told me back then that it wasn’t the lab’s fault, and that he believed the plush of the film cassette, where the film pass through at the end, had “glue” on it. This not only sounds strange, but if it was glue, wouldn’t it have some kind of relief? Also, the light wouldn’t expose the spaces with the supposed glue, but this is not apparently the case.

It seems like some kind of “dirt” from the roller transport mechanism, without affecting the process itself. So probably it is about the washing step, as mentioned before, or some chemistry which stuck to the film at the end of the process. I attach a photograph of the neg to show how it looks.

The stains are around the holes and also there are some vertical irregular stripes at some intervals, but this “dirt” is spread everywhere (the white spots we see in the scanned image) .

So now I tried to clean it with water. Submerging it in water is not enough, it doesn’t do anything. But if I rub the film with my fingers, with certain pressure, the dirt goes away. But to clean the film completely, if that is possible, I would have to rub the film firmly through all the extension of the film. So let me ask:

How could I do this task without damaging or crumpling the film? With the fingers is not easy.

If I use alcohol or some other product, will the “dirt” go away more easily?

When using 250ml with 35mm single roll tanks, or proportionally more for more rolls, I believe it is three rolls, with increased time for successive rolls.

I don't understand. Three rolls? For which chemical?

Have you ever used Flexicolor chemicals at home, with a small tank? With a liter of fixer or bleach, how many rolls would you process?

The developer is the only one that can't be corrected later. If you under bleach, or under fix, redo later with good chemistry.

 

Also, redo stabilizer after any such reprocessing.

Okay, thank you.

To get full use of bleach, you need to aerate (oxidize) it between (or during) use.

How do you aerate (oxidize) bleach?

Mostly, I don't worry (for non-professional use) about age for factory sealed packages.

OK, thanks.

Steve,

As far as I know, if you see the film transparent, not milky, it is well fixed. 75 rolls seem like a lot, but read what the fixer manual recommends. You could also do the clearing time test.

The times recommended by Kodak for TRI-x are too low, you get thin negs. How do you see the images on the negatives? If you see them okay and they are good for your copying and scanning, it is okay. What I am saying is that when I develop Ilford with the recommended times, with the same agitation and technique, I get darker images, more standard-looking, which I prefer. This is not only my experience, this subject about Kodak times was discussed in forums.

I recently began processing. I also use D-76. I only developed a couple of TRI-X. The first time I did it 1:1 at 68º for 10:30, and the images were thin. The second time I developed for 12:00 (if I am not wrong, I have to check) and it was quite okay. I still haven't overdeveloped TRI-X. Kodak doesn't give the time for +1, it suggests using normal time (but probably it would be better adding like 10-15% more, I have to try). So for +2 I would have to try, taking the difference between the recommended 9:45 for normal developing and my 12:00 as a reference (like 20% more).

For +2 with D-76, you could try developing 1:0 (aka stock). I think it is better for sharpness. A lot of people recommend this.

Maybe the three images you show in your first post are a bit underexposed. They have the typical look of underexposed images.

I agree with John Shriver.

Did you measure light with the same frame of the actual photos, with a center-weighted meter? If so, that is why they are underexposed.

Also, the box ISO is not considered the real ISO. The effective ISO of a 400 film should be 250 or 320. I usually shoot 400 film at 320. If I push one stop, at 640. Two stops, at 1250 (and then develop +2, of course). A third of a stop is quite irrelevant if you are shooting normal, but more significant if you are pushing two stops.

An image pushed 2 stops should look good, not muddy, if it is well exposed and developed.

I have some doubts about the capacity of C-41 Kodak Flexicolor chemicals. This is the first time I buy these chemicals and process C-41, so I want to be sure about it. I use a 600 ml Paterson tank which can process two rolls.

Feel free to answer any of the questions.

CAPACITY

1) The developer is easy. I use it and discard it, so I have no doubts about it. When I expose two rolls, I prepare 600 ml of developer using syringes.

2) Bleach, Fixer, Final Rinse: How many times can they be used? A Kodak paper says that a quart/liter of any of them can be used for ten 35mm rolls. Is it like this or do you use them more times? Do I have to add time to Bleach and Fixer processes every time I develop or it is not necessary?

3) I have a 1 liter bottle of Bleach (used pure). But I have prepared a 720 ml of Fixer, one half water, one half Fixer, so how many rolls could this bottle fix? (Maybe next time I should prepare 1 liter of Fixer, to make it easier.)

4) Is there for Flexicolor Fixer a test like the one used in B&W fixer, calculating the double of the clearing time? What calculation must be done?

5) Kodak says in its Flexicolor paper that solutions of Bleach, Fixer and FR must be used ideally for no longer than 8 weeks once prepared. I use the Bleach pure, so I don’t think it could be considered a solution. But my bottle of Fixer would be a mixed solution, because it is half water, half fixer. So should I discard the fixer by now? I prepared it like 7 months ago (and by the way, yesterday I used it, without knowing this, and it seemed to work fine). Also, if the 1:1 Fixer is only good for 8 weeks, this would be different from the B&W fixer I use, which lasts much longer, as far as I remember.

6) So far, I have been using the Final Rinse one-shot, just like I do with Photoflo in B&W. But apparently it could be used more times? Should I prepare one liter and use it for 10 rolls?

USE AFTER EXPIRATION DATE

7) How longer can each of the four chemicals be used after the expiration date indicated in the bottle?

In my case, the Bleach I am using has already expired. The Fixer expires this month, 11/17, and I still have a lot and I don’t shoot too frequently. The Developer and FR expire by mid-2018.

The difference is that you need 1:1 magnification to copy the entire slide and fill the frame of an FX camera, and AF doesn't work at or near 1:1.

Ed, I don’t know what AF macro lens you have, but some people uses AF until 1:1. So, yes, it is possible. Probably when they go beyond 1:1, to photograph a close-up of the eyes of a fly or something, is where they find some problems with autofocus, and so they have to focus manually. Other people prefer to always focus manually.

Anyway, I think I made my point clear in my last post about this subject. And when I said “With an FX camera and an AF macro lens you could also use AF” it was implied that the rate would be 1:1 or similar. Someone who digitizes films with an AF macro lens and a full frame camera would tell us how well AF works in this particular situation.

"actually the ES-2 is a full set -

 

In the Box

Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set

• FH-4 Strip Film Holder
  

• FH-5 Slide Mount Holder
  

• 52mm Adapter Ring
  
• 62mm Adapter Ring"
  

- This is contrary to what's written on Nikon's website. Although some retailers are advertising the entire kit as such (in advance of having actual stock).

It'll be interesting to see what's really supplied in the box once the ES-2 becomes tangible hardware and not vapourware.

Rodeo, the ES-2 actually includes this:

“The set includes: ES-2 Negative Digitizer, FH-4 Strip Film Holder, FH-5 Slide Mount Holder, and 2 different 62mm adapter rings (62mm adapter ring A and 62mm adapter ring B).”

I don’t know if there is a difference between adapter rings A and B, but basically they are both 62-52mm adapters. They are used with the two 60mm lenses mentioned as compatible:

“Adapter rings are supplied with the ES-2 for use when attaching it to the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Lens or the AF-Micro NIKKOR f/2.8D Lens. When used with the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens no adapter ring is needed.”

If you have already an ES-1 and negative and slide holders, it is not definitely worth buying an ES-2, as you said at the beginning of the thread. I don’t know if there is another brand of adapter that includes a negative holder, or which accepts one from another brand (Do you?). If not, I suppose it would be possible to adapt it as Tom adapted his ES-1.

It's necessary to use a different sequence with an FX than Greg uses with a DX. Greg can allow the lens to auto-focus while adjusting the slide holder. The maximum magnification is 2:3 when the full frame is projected on the sensor.

 

The difference between 1:1 and 2:3 is significant, and it does change how you focus the image. AF doesn't work at 1:1. Furthermore the camera tries to focus each time you press the shutter, and can take a long time to settle in at close range. The angle of view changes significantly with barrel extension at close range.

 

I set the lens to 1:1 magnification in manual focus mode the focus the slide as best as possible, which is 1:1 with the PK13 extension tube. I then move it very slightly longer, by about a millimeter. The magnification is close to 1:1, but a little less. It's possible to fine tune the focusing with the lens at that point. I use 5x magnification in the electronic viewfinder, which makes the grain clearly visible.

 

I use an AIS 55/2.8, which has the magnification ratio printed on the barrel. Used with a PK13 extension (27 mm), the actual ratio is bout half the engraved value. An AFD micro lens also has the ratio engraved on the barrel, but focuses to 1:1. In manual mode, you would set that to 1:1.5 (2:3) with a DX sensor, then rough focus with the slide holder.

 

My method eliminates a lot of trial and error, and standardizes the setup despite variations in frame size. All this assumes you wish to capture as much of the film frame as possible. Most DSLR viewfinders cover about 90% of the image (except for the high end models), so you will always crop more with the viewfinder than by setting the lens. It probably doesn't matter, since slide mounts crop significantly, and you would ordinarily crop the image to remove rough edges and straighten it anyway.

Ed, I don’t agree, because you are doing the same than Tom, you with an FX, he with a DX.

It is just a matter of focusing, not big deal. And it is not like photographing a bee on a flower, with a handheld camera, where if you want the bee to be as big as possible and in focus, you could probably adjust the focus first, and then get closer until you see the bee in focus. In the case of film digitizing, it is easier because the film lies in a fixed position with respect to the lens. You can use MF or AF if available. In the micro 40mm, you get DX 1:1 when the object is 3,5cm from the lens (well, in fact it is a bit more than 1:1, because it allows to photograph a 23mm long object, instead of a 24mm one). Apparently the ES-1, when the tube is not extended, positions the film further than 3,5cm, and that is why you can’t get 1:1 (DX). Considering that the image at this position is a bit cropped, I supposed the rate at this position is like 1:4 or something similar. With an FX camera and an AF macro lens you could also use AF. Well, only a person who tries this combination would know how well AF works (I suppose it depends also on the particular lens and camera used). If for some reason the AF moves all the time, you can switch to MF when you get the focus, or directly focus manually. But then again, it is a matter of adjusting the magnification with the adapter tube and then focus with the camera, manually or automatically, as Tom explained clearly, and as you are also doing.

I see your point about setting magnification with the holder, then focusing the lens. That doesn't work for an FX camera, however. It's faster to set the lens at 1:1 (it's marked on the barrel) in manual mode, adjust the holder a little long, then touch up focus with the lens.

Aren’t you doing exactly the same than Tom? You adjust the ES-1 tube, and then you adjust the camera focus. I don’t see why you make a distinction between an FX camera and a DX one in this regard. The only difference is the angle of view, and that doesn’t change how you focus the image.

Apparently the slide wasn't perfectly centered in the ES-1. Either I didn't notice it while shooting or my 100% viewfinder isn't really 100%

Tom, thanks for the photos.

Indeed, the image is off-centered vertically. Is it always like this? Is it possible to center the image by elevating the floor of the adapter with something?

What about dust?

In office stores there are also binder boxes, without rings. Maybe I could get rings and stick them inside the box.

These special binders are made of “archival” materials. How important is this, if the negatives are already in the special sheets? Probably not too much. But I suppose someone pays for those overpriced special binders for design and tidiness.

Hi thirteenthumbs,

I need the binders, not the pages.

I suppose you wanted me to look at the binders recommended for the pages?

Anyway, it was a good idea to look for binders of the same brand. You opened my mind.

I think this Print File GBB12112 Metal-Edge Box Binder (Gray) 215-0050 B&H or this Print File Micro-Perforated Box Binder 215-1000 B&H Photo Video will do the job.

Also, buying them in the Print File page is cheaper. I don’t know about the shipping, I’ll see.

Thank you.

I have Print File pages with 7 strips of 6 frames of 35mm film. They measure 10 x 11,5 in / 25,4 x 29,3cm

Print File Archival Storage Page for Negatives, 35mm - 010-0115

They don’t sell negative binders in my city, so I have to buy them online. I am looking for a box binder with rings, something simple and good. I can’t find information about which is the correct model for strips of 6 frames.

What binder do you recommend?

For those who are compulsive about seeing the sprocket holes, these devices won't work. Get a life, or get a different film holder

I am personally not interested in seeing the sprocket holes, but I like to see the borders of the negative frames. I don’t like a piece of plastic to crop who knows where inside the image. Call it OCD, I don’t get offended. Do Nikon holders show you the borders, or do they crop by themselves? My Epson holders, for example, show me the borders, and they don’t have vertical plastic separations between frames. But they are not compatible with slide adapters. Also, Epson’s are not good when the negative is bent, they don’t hold it flat enough. In this respect, I read that Plustek’s are good, and also Better Scanning’s. But I don’t know about the Nikon ones.

I don't think extensions would be necessary for a 40 mm DX, 55 FX or 60 FX.

So, in conclusion, as far as I understood, extension is needed, but the one that the adapter offers is enough, even though the information given by the Nikon page is incomplete, and despite the fact that, previously, you thought extension tubes were needed. Is this correct?

It would be interesting that Tom confirms us this suspicion.

You don't use 1:1 reproduction with a DX camera if you want to capture the entire image area of the film. You need 2:3 magnification, which will require a longer focus setting and an extension between the lens and ES-1.

Yeah, I remember that you told me in the other thread that for DX cameras, you have to add a tube between the 1:1 macro lens and the slide adapter. In the review by Rockwell (Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX Micro-NIKKOR) we see that it can photograph until 24mm long, well, in fact 23mm, but we need to take a picture of a 36mm frame, don't we? So why doesn’t the Nikon employee of the Q&A page mention this?

Tom Halfhill, when you use the 40mm with the ES-1, do you see the whole frame, including the borders, or the frame is cropped?

Iosif, probably you are right…

I had a look at the Q&A section of the product page, and a Nikon employee wrote this:

“The ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter is designed for use with mounted 35mm slides and is compatible with the Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 lens and the AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D Lens (with BR-5 adapter ring, sold separately).

The ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter can be used with 35mm strip film as well as mounted 35mm slides. It is compatible with the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Lens, the AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D Lens, and the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens. Adapter rings are supplied with the ES-2 for use when attaching it to the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED Lens or the AF-Micro NIKKOR f/2.8D Lens. When used with the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens no adapter ring is needed.”

So… it seems that the ES-2 has a 52mm thread. That’s why the adapters are supplied for the two 60mm lenses. Here is a photo of all the accessories:http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-MRItDefY8uS3cNHsVS3bpm3NYPzZUKnZYcvoY1nH7polAbfyN6aQJvsLlD8wcV5LI36dLB-9ziZsE1bmXljLbUkhJXI2mV78pRmac5L1RdA==/Views/27192-ES-2-Film-Digitalizing-Adapter-other.png

It seems that the adapters not only adapt the thread, but also the distance? But aren’t both 60mm lenses 1:1? I don’t understand. If someone understands this well, please correct me and clarify.

When using a DX-format camera and 40mm macro lens, the ES-1 is a better solution than the much more expensive and complicated ES-2.

Tom Halfhill,

Is this the lens you have? Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX Micro-NIKKOR

It seems like a very good lens for Nikon DX and for film digitizing with the ES-1, without tubes.

It is definitely the analogous to Nikon FX + Micro-NIKKOR 60mm 2.8G + ES-2

---

P.S. Thank you, Ed Ingold.

Fiodor - what you talk about is more like a photoshop plug in, from Nikon, which could convert the negative images using the presets of the Coolscans, for example, or other similar method - indeed such thing would be great

Yes, sure. If Nikon doesn’t have the balls to keep producing scanners, the least they could do is developing a decent software to treat dsrl scans in combination with their cameras and slide adapters.

Using an ES-1 or ES-2 eliminates the need to use a copy stand, unless you want to copy film larger than 35 mm.

Ed, so basically you recommend a slide adapter for 35 mm, and a copy stand only for larger formats?

Using a slide adapter for 35mm, could we photograph different fragments of the image for stitching them later with software? (I mean, does the adapter allow you to move the position of the frame?)

Is it possible to insert somehow a medium format holder in an ES-1?

And what about DX cameras, are they as useful as FX ones to do this digitizing work?

My doubt was how scanners treat the orange mask, if they do it by hardware or software. Then I read this article through the Nikon F-Mount - How to digitise your slides and negatives which says “Colour negatives have a strong orange mask. Formerly, I thought the scanner would correct it with a special mix of its RGB light components. But I was wrong - it is just software.” So, apparently, it is merely a software job, and we are dealing with an orange tinted image from the start, which if you think about it, is terrible, specially because this orange is not a Raw color temperature variable.

(I still don’t know how this orange mask is apparently useful for printing, and how color enlargers and photographic papers work in relation to this mask, but this is another story)

The author of the aforementioned article recommends Vuescan for doing the inversion. My question would be: if scanners treat the orange mask only with their scanning software, can we get exactly the same results with a photographed negative than with a scan, using Vuescan in both cases? If not, what is so different in these initial images from which the software works?

Then I read this Removing Orange Mask from Colour Negative Scans - Filmshooting . The idea is to find a method to reconstruct the yellow and magenta masks in order to subtract them from the image. It makes sense, because the masks are not flat signals. Below in the comments the author says that he was partially wrong about the theory, but the practice would be still the same. I read until the first page of the comments, so I don’t know if there is something interesting later. What do you think of this? I am sure we can find on the internet more methods like this, but before investing more time exploring, it would be interesting to know your opinion on this.

At the end of the first page of the comments, another poster suggests this Home > Resources > Film conversion a more rudimentary method, just using the orange of the film leader to compensate the color cast (so it doesn’t take into account the non-flat characteristics of the masks). The article also suggests Vuescan and Digital ROC, a Kodak plug-in.

That's not really possible - once a camera starts editing, the data is no longer raw. It could probably export the edited data in a container format like dng, but the actual data would be demosaiced, and no longer real raw data.

 

You could shoot in raw, and use something like ColorPerfect afterwards to handle the inversion with good curves. I never used it but it's reported to deliver good results.

Thanks. I didn’t know this plug-in, it looks interesting. Have you tried it with dsrl negatives?

Yeah, you are right, if there is editing, it is not Raw anymore, unless the changes are Raw variables and it creates also a .Xmp file (but then again, we don’t know what the d850 would be doing when it reverses negatives). Anyway, probably the d850 saves also as Tiff, which is preferable than Jpeg for editing.