Digitizing medium format and 4x5; will my intended setup work?

[honeybee]

Hi all,

Since I've started shooting medium and large format, I've been dissatisfied with the digitization workflow I'd set up for 135. Previously I'd been using a Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 with an R8. It had adequate resolution, and I could magnify 10x in Canon's tethering utility to assist focusing. When I started shooting 6x9, I no longer felt that 24 MP were enough, and 10x was too little magnification to focus upon the grain without stitching, especially with 4x5.

Looking for better solutions led me down a rabbit hole of posts from Jim Kasson, Robert O'Toole, and others on photomacrography forums. Jim's setup for film digitization is especially impressive, but I had trouble stomaching the total cost and decided to prioritize a camera body and lens for the time being. A GFX 100S is the best bang for my buck, but I haven't yet settled upon a lens. I also picked up Mamiya NC401 bellows and a rear adapter for Mamiya 645 -> G-Mount.

Within the past week, I snagged a 105mm Printing Nikkor over on the forum marketplace. Now that I've ordered it, I've realized that the minimum extension of my setup might be too great for 1:1 scanning of 135 film (I know that the Fuji has a greater sensor size and plan to compare 1:1 in crop mode to 1.375 with the full sensor). The lens has a long rear component that extends 55mm, but it could recess into the bellows, so I'll ignore that for now. The bellows have 60mm minimum extension, the adapter is 36.15mm long, and the camera body has a flange focal distance of 26.7mm for a grand total 122.85mm minimum focus distance. That might be okay for 1.375:1, but I believe I can only have 105mm of focus distance for 1:1; please correct me if I am wrong. Will I need a dedicated G-Mount bellows to avoid the extension penalty of the adapter?

Obviously the Printing Nikkor doesn't cover the magnification range I had planned on. For medium format and 4x5, I had considered a combination of a Schneider Makro-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 0061 (0.33x) with a Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 (0.5-2x) or a Linos inspec.x 105mm f/5.6 float lens (0.3-3x). Now that I've stumbled into this issue with the Printing Nikkor, I'm unsure whether I'll have the same problem with these lenses. I realize now that I don't know how to calculate the correct distance between the lens and camera body for a desired magnification ratio. I'm sure that there are guides online, but I'm finding that I don't know the right search keywords to find an answer. Could anyone explain that calculation or perhaps link me to some useful reading?

Any advice on lens choices or alternative digitization solutions to what I've written are welcome and appreciated. I am avoiding flatbeds, drum scanners, and other solutions necessitating old software. Thanks.

[Alan Klein]

Hi all,

Since I've started shooting medium and large format, I've been dissatisfied with the digitization workflow I'd set up for 135. Previously I'd been using a Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 with an R8. It had adequate resolution, and I could magnify 10x in Canon's tethering utility to assist focusing. When I started shooting 6x9, I no longer felt that 24 MP were enough, and 10x was too little magnification to focus upon the grain without stitching, especially with 4x5.

Looking for better solutions led me down a rabbit hole of posts from Jim Kasson, Robert O'Toole, and others on photomacrography forums. Jim's setup for film digitization is especially impressive, but I had trouble stomaching the total cost and decided to prioritize a camera body and lens for the time being. A GFX 100S is the best bang for my buck, but I haven't yet settled upon a lens. I also picked up Mamiya NC401 bellows and a rear adapter for Mamiya 645 -> G-Mount.

Within the past week, I snagged a 105mm Printing Nikkor over on the forum marketplace. Now that I've ordered it, I've realized that the minimum extension of my setup might be too great for 1:1 scanning of 135 film (I know that the Fuji has a greater sensor size and plan to compare 1:1 in crop mode to 1.375 with the full sensor). The lens has a long rear component that extends 55mm, but it could recess into the bellows, so I'll ignore that for now. The bellows have 60mm minimum extension, the adapter is 36.15mm long, and the camera body has a flange focal distance of 26.7mm for a grand total 122.85mm minimum focus distance. That might be okay for 1.375:1, but I believe I can only have 105mm of focus distance for 1:1; please correct me if I am wrong. Will I need a dedicated G-Mount bellows to avoid the extension penalty of the adapter?

Obviously the Printing Nikkor doesn't cover the magnification range I had planned on. For medium format and 4x5, I had considered a combination of a Schneider Makro-Symmar 120mm f/5.6 0061 (0.33x) with a Schneider Macro Varon 85mm f/4.5 (0.5-2x) or a Linos inspec.x 105mm f/5.6 float lens (0.3-3x). Now that I've stumbled into this issue with the Printing Nikkor, I'm unsure whether I'll have the same problem with these lenses. I realize now that I don't know how to calculate the correct distance between the lens and camera body for a desired magnification ratio. I'm sure that there are guides online, but I'm finding that I don't know the right search keywords to find an answer. Could anyone explain that calculation or perhaps link me to some useful reading?

Any advice on lens choices or alternative digitization solutions to what I've written are welcome and appreciated. I am avoiding flatbeds, drum scanners, and other solutions necessitating old software. Thanks.

The Epson V850 flatbed scanner uses Windows 11, the latest operating software. It will scan up to 8x10's. Here are samples of my 4x5's. The unit comes with two film holders for each format (4x5 120, 35, and slides.) It's expensive though around $1300.

Here are samples of my 4x5's. You can see other formats on my Flickr gallery.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=...N05&view_all=1

[Ray Marrero]

Hi Alan,

Out of curiosity... were the scans performed with the supplied carrier(s) or aftermarket? Silly question?... but had to ask. Scans with my V700 and V750 were challenging with the included carriers.

Best,

Ray

[djdister]

Here are a few scans of 4x5 negatives using an Epson v750, the supplied 4x5 carrier, and the Epson Scan software on a Windows machine:

[Oren Grad]

Looking for better solutions led me down a rabbit hole of posts from Jim Kasson, Robert O'Toole, and others on photomacrography forums. Jim's setup for film digitization is especially impressive, but I had trouble stomaching the total cost and decided to prioritize a camera body and lens for the time being. A GFX 100S is the best bang for my buck, but I haven't yet settled upon a lens. I also picked up Mamiya NC401 bellows and a rear adapter for Mamiya 645 -> G-Mount.

I have a GFX 100S and have done a little bit of negative copy work with it, to better understand what it entails. I have a set of Apo-Rodagon-D lenses (75mm 1x, 75mm 2x and 120mm). I was able to obtain them relatively inexpensively by searching patiently on eBay; not sure what availability/pricing is like now. Jim Kasson has mentioned other lenses relevant for copy work, some more expensive and some less, on his blog.

Note that the resolution of the GFX 100S is not sufficient to faithfully record the grain structure of medium format Tri-X, let alone slower medium format films or 4x5. If you don't mind processing vast amounts of data, the pixel-shift mode can get you a bit closer. Nevertheless, depending on how you intend to use the captures, they may still be adequate for your purposes; many uses don't require the grain to be fully resolved and can tolerate a bit of grain aliasing.

Parallel alignment and focus are challenges. I've never used the Mamiya 645 bellows, but I'd be surprised if its focus action has the required finesse. I've been using extension tubes with focus helicals, but with those one needs to be very careful about flare from the inside of the tube. Also, recognizing the exact point of best focus on the 100S screen or finder is tricky. The GFX 100S II finder is supposed to be better, and the finder of the GFX 100 II better still. Regardless, unless you are going to dedicate the camera to a permanently aligned setup, expect a lot of ongoing fussing to get optimum quality on each capture. Or you could do what Jim does, if you too have a monster workstation - bracket focus and then stack in post.

Good luck!

[Oren Grad]

...but I believe I can only have 105mm of focus distance for 1:1; please correct me if I am wrong.

Not sure what you mean by "focus distance". For 1:1 you need total extension of double the focal length.

[honeybee]

Note that the resolution of the GFX 100S is not sufficient to faithfully record the grain structure of medium format Tri-X, let alone slower medium format films or 4x5. If you don't mind processing vast amounts of data, the pixel-shift mode can get you a bit closer. Nevertheless, depending on how you intend to use the captures, they may still be adequate for your purposes; many uses don't require the grain to be fully resolved and can tolerate a bit of grain aliasing.

Parallel alignment and focus are challenges. I've never used the Mamiya 645 bellows, but I'd be surprised if its focus action has the required finesse. I've been using extension tubes with focus helicals, but with those one needs to be very careful about flare from the inside of the tube. Also, recognizing the exact point of best focus on the 100S screen or finder is tricky. The GFX 100S II finder is supposed to be better, and the finder of the GFX 100 II better still. Regardless, unless you are going to dedicate the camera to a permanently aligned setup, expect a lot of ongoing fussing to get optimum quality on each capture. Or you could do what Jim does, if you too have a monster workstation - bracket focus and then stack in post.

Good luck!

Thanks! I'm planning to try pixel shift and focus stacking. I'm curious what others' step sizes and step ranges are since film is so thin in the first place.

I'm been using a laser aligner at the beginning of each scanning session; hopefully that'll be accurate enough to maintain good alignment.

If I need to switch from bellows to tubes and helicoids, I'll make sure to get some flocking for the interiors.

As far as the finder goes, I'm tethering with the Fuji Lightroom plug-in, which has been okay so far.

[honeybee]

Not sure what you mean by "focus distance". For 1:1 you need total extension of double the focal length.

That's what I mean about not knowing the right terms to find the answers I'm looking for. By "focus distance" I'd meant the distance from the lens to the imaging sensor. What's the correct term?

Now that you say it, I recall having read before that double the focal length is required for 1:1. Is that universally true regardless of the lens's optical design? I think I was confused after reading the coin imaging post about the Printing Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 A. In his tests, he had 90mm extension for .99x magnification, but maybe that was in addition to the focal length? What was especially confusing was that there seemed to be 13mm of extension missing from all of the values in his table.

[Oren Grad]

Now that you say it, I recall having read before that double the focal length is required for 1:1. Is that universally true regardless of the lens's optical design? I think I was confused after reading the coin imaging post about the Printing Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 A. In his tests, he had 90mm extension for .99x magnification, but maybe that was in addition to the focal length? What was especially confusing was that there seemed to be 13mm of extension missing from all of the values in his table.

Telephoto lens designs complicate the discussion of total extension. But in general, starting with a lens focused at infinity, you need additional extension equal to the focal length to get to 1:1 magnification. Anyway, looking across his different lens tests I cannot make heads nor tails of his reported extension values. They must be additional extensions compared to some base value but they are inconsistent across the tests, relative to the focal lengths of the lenses he is testing. This may have to do with his using different mountings for different lenses - different combinations of tubes and bellows - but I can't find any description of his setup nor of how the base value is determined.

For those who are following this discussion, the tests we are talking about are posted here:

https://www.coinimaging.com/Lens_tests.html

[Peter De Smidt]

For anyone who's doing scanning, I highly recommend getting one or more of Vlad's targets. https://www.film4ever.info/vtt The targets really help with maximizing the quality of your system, comparing lenses......