DSLR Scanner: Light Sources

[drtebi]

I have been following along on this topic - quite a read by now :-)

I'm looking to work towards a scanner setup as well, hopefully including a nice XY table.
My current set-up is a Canon FD bellows with duplicator, Canon FD 50mm macro lens and Sony A7 attached.
Playing around with ColorPerfect, which so far seems a very good piece of software indeed.

So many messages on the light sources that I am not quite sure what direction to go.
Lots of posts aim at high CRI, but since I'm primarily focussing on B&W, that probably is not my biggest concern.
Currently I'm using my tablet, and that makes me think in the direction of a lightbox (e.g., http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/...ge.asp?nr=2447)
Seems a good option for even illumination, but I'm unsure if the light output will be sufficient? (My tablet certainly is not, slow shutter speeds > 1 sec required to get the shot at f8).
Can anyone share experience in lightbox vs tablet light output?

If a lightbox turns out to be insufficient, I'm in doubt about halogen vs LED.
Any recommendation for B&W setup at reasonable price?

Thanks!

Roy

I think your best bet is, and what I usually do, to try the simpler methods first; then, depending on your results, upgrade what you think needs improvement.

In the beginning I have used a cheap lightbox (which was actually for tracing, rather than slides), and I must say the results were quite satisfactory. With a lightbox you will also have much less problems with diffusion, since most lightboxes will have several LEDs inside, and a large center area with good and evenly diffused light.

When I switched my light source to the Solex halogen, I felt that I could get warmer results, more natural looking ones (for color that is, of course). But the proper diffusion of light was extremely difficult, so in the end I sorted that problem out in the post-processing, by overlaying an image of the plain light-source in inverted mode etc.

Regarding an XY table: What size of negative are you planning to scan? If you are working with 35mm, it's probably not worth it, since you would need a macro lens with more than 1:1 magnification, which in itself may degrade the quality of your result (in other words, with a dedicated 1:1 macro and one-shot scans you would get better results). For medium format, it may be worth it. I noticed a great improvement in detail when working with black and white negatives. For color negatives and slides, the improvement was rather small, and due to the extra time spent using 4 shots and stitching, I often just sticked with the single shot (which was quite good already).

I think your best bet for now is, to replace your light source. A tablet doesn't have diffused light, so it would need an additional diffuser to produce properly diffused light, which in turn will give even less output. Try a lightbox with good CRI and good diffusion. When choosing a lightbox, be sure that it fits well within your setup physically. Especially if you want to add an XY table later on, a large lightbox may be problematic.

I hope this helped you out a bit... these are of course only my own opinions, hopefully other people may add some of their own knowledge.

[ropel]

Thanks a lot! Very helpful indeed. I'm mainly digitizing B&W on 35mm and medium format.

For light I will keep an eye out on decent lightbox. Seems more convenient as well.

The one shot tip is for 35mm is very welcome. I was hoping to go beyond 1:1 (even with extension tubes), but that might not the way to go. Have to reconsider how to gain the best resolution.

Thanks again.

[Peter De Smidt]

My setup uses a 75mm Rodagon D f/4, which is optimized for 1x magnification. I've tried using a Mitutoyo APO M-Plan 2x objective, and a Nikon MM5x objective, each at their rated magnifications. Even using a negative of 35mm tech pan shot with the camera on a huge tripod, mirror lock up, and a prime lens at it's optimum aperture, it was near impossible to see a visual difference in the resulting files scanned at the corresponding magnifications. Using a chrome on glass resolution slide was another matter, with the expected rise in resolution for each of the steps up in magnification, but that wasn't the case for negatives shot in a camera. So in my system there is no need to go above 1x. That still allows a good-sized print with 35mm, and the process is very fast, as no stitching is involved.

[joelkphoto]

I've been using my ipad mini as a light source for BW negs. I have a Negaflat raised up 2 inches off the ipad. On full brightness and a blank page open I get 1/50th at 5.6 and ISO 400 with my D600 and a tokina 100mm macro. Works pretty well! Check my flickr page for results. Most images are 4 shot stitches.

[drtebi]

Thanks a lot! Very helpful indeed. I'm mainly digitizing B&W on 35mm and medium format.

For light I will keep an eye out on decent lightbox. Seems more convenient as well.

The one shot tip is for 35mm is very welcome. I was hoping to go beyond 1:1 (even with extension tubes), but that might not the way to go. Have to reconsider how to gain the best resolution.

Thanks again.

Unless you are planning to do some huge prints, I think you will be quite please with the results and resolution of 1-shot 35mm DSLR scans. A good macro lens should do the trick.

Here are some examples to give you an idea. All images are reduced in size to 2400 pixels in height (my monitor). You can click the "download" link to get the original:

http://1drv.ms/21TKlCk

All were shot with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN on Fujifilm Superia 200 and scanned with a Nikon D810 with a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-D Micro lens, using my previously described setup.

[Ted Baker]

Has anyone used a portable flash ideally a nikon sb-26 (that is what I currently have) as a light source with stitching?

Specifically how consistent is the flash output, with regard to stitching the image. If you used a different battery power flash I am still interested in how consistent it was.

I want to build a light source to trial a few ideas I have, that need a powerful light, but I don't want to waste my time if stitching is not going to work with a flash.

[rdeloe]

I asked about light sources over at FredMiranda and user Rico posted a picture and description of his flash-lit approach. Have a look if your answer is there:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/to...100/0#14702562

Has anyone used a portable flash ideally a nikon sb-26 (that is what I currently have) as a light source with stitching?

Specifically how consistent is the flash output, with regard to stitching the image. If you used a different battery power flash I am still interested in how consistent it was.

I want to build a light source to trial a few ideas I have, that need a powerful light, but I don't want to waste my time if stitching is not going to work with a flash.

[Ted Baker]

I asked about light sources over at FredMiranda

Thanks, I had look, none of those guys are using stitching AND flash.

[rdeloe]

Thanks, I had look, none of those guys are using stitching AND flash.

Is your concern that between frames the flash will have inconsistent output? I would have thought a good flash should produce a consistent amount of light. Then again, I could see even the same model of flash performing differently depending on age and condition.

I suppose you could test yours out by shooting a dozen frames of the same subject in fairly quick sequence and checking to see whether or not the exposure at the same point in those frames is the same.

Anyway, that's all I got for you. I went with the LED light source approach: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ample-approach

[Larry Gebhardt]

I'm a fan of using a color head for scanning color negative film. It lets you remove the orange mask and gets all three channels exposed the same amount (histogram peaks align). That lets you expose to the right and have much less noise in the highlights when you invert.