This topic is in the 2023 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2023Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
p.4 #1Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
hkrazerx wrote:
I just inverted b/w in PS and adjusted in LR for years. It's definitely an adequate option.
That said, since I got Negative Lab Pro for color negs, I do all my b/w conversions with it too. It has a lot of intuitive, film specific adjustments and presets, etc. that speed up processing, at least for me.
Pretty sure there is a free trail option for NLP so you can evaluate yourself.That’s perfect you have done it extensively both ways. You wrote the PS/LR method is an adequate option. Would NLP be a superior option in your opinion? I suppose I should just spend the money just that I frown on the subscription model.
Not sure if its 'better', but I sure do find it easier and faster.
Subscription software is fine with me as long as it gets useful updates often enough, which LR/PS does in my opinion. Software engineers got to eat too
OregonSun wrote
hkrazerx wrote
I only shoot b/w roll film and am seriously looking into camera scanning for 6x6 format. How important is the conversion software? I understand for color negatives there’s the orange base and the negative lab plug in or similar software is necessary. For b/w would inverting the scan in Photoshop just as good or would a dedicated software is also recommended for b/w? Thanks in advance.That said, since I got Negative Lab Pro for color negs, I do all my b/w conversions with it too. It has a lot of intuitive, film specific adjustments and presets, etc. that speed up processing, at least for me.
Pretty sure there is a free trail option for NLP so you can evaluate yourself.
Not sure if its 'better', but I sure do find it easier and faster.
Subscription software is fine with me as long as it gets useful updates often enough, which LR/PS does in my opinion. Software engineers got to eat too
Dec 25, 2023 at 06:59 PM
p.4 #2Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
My son is a software engineer so I feel much better now!
Dec 25, 2023 at 07:02 PM
p.4 #3Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
For the past 2 weeks I've been working full time doing nothing but reading and experimenting to figure out how the negative conversion process works and what are the best tools available.
I think that the important thing to understand when it comes to these packaged software products is that they're essentially providing a GUI interface and a wrapper around a compendium of image manipulation tools that have been written by other people and lie in the public domain. Some companies simply gather a number of tools that lie in the public domain and present them for sale in a very usable menu-driven product. There is a lot of value in that kind of solution, but there isn't anything special about any one solution in particular, as nobody has a monopoly on the algorithms used in tool development -- the graphics, PC gaming and computer animation markets are just too large. What companies are extremely good at though is packaging, presentation and marketing. There are many competing software products that are available that perform the same actions using a proprietary GUI interface with the same image manipulation protocols operating in the background. Although there are many ways to 'skin the cat', consumers are guided into using a particular company's product because of co-marketing by the tech mega-monopolies. That often provides the path of least resistance for most people, because it just works. You just pay to play and you get successful outcomes.
Most of the tools that exist as modules in these software collections began their lives as open source command line utilities. Using a command line interface is decidedly inconvenient and impossible to market. Instead of using a command line process to iterate over a collection of still images, it's far more satisfying for the user to drag sliders in a WYSIWYG environment. That satisfaction in the GUI experience is the basis for software marketing.
Negative conversion is not at all complicated -- in terms of data processing it is a brain-dead-trivial task -- but the companies that market negative conversion products want you to think that it is complicated and that their product is the best solution. The reality is that negative conversion is just a simple binary data reversal process.
An example of of a command line tool that offers free cross-platform open source negative conversion is Imagemagik. It is a tool for complex image manipulation and forms the basis for many photographic manipulation modules that are wrapped in GUI interfaces. One of it's simplest command line options is "-invert" which performs instant negative conversion. To perform simple negative conversion all that you need to do is to tell it to "-invert" the image and the output is provided in the blink of an eye. Most companies don't want users to know how simple a task this truly is, as their entire marketing paradigm is based upon selling the perception that the process is complicated and that you need to buy a special tool to do it. They market simple negative conversion in a fancy GUI software package in an attempt to convince users that the process is complicated, when it is not complicated at all. By itself free negative conversion isn't very marketable, so they repackage it with a number of other existing tools that are also free to market a combined package that users will find useful for workflow. The result is the a software package that provides a total workflow solution for negative conversion and subsequent image manipulation. It's a good marketing plan, but that software is totally unnecessary for the user.
You could use a script to do negative conversion, for example, to process every file in a directory (file folder) as a virtual "roll of film" and get the same result as using the auto-import-convert feature provided by a GUI interface tool. Then you could take the converted output and play with it in your favorite photo software. The results would be the same, and no additional subscription is required, but seeing the negatives pop and change color in a GUI is a very convincing reason to use the GUI and a great marketing tool. The results are not any different depending on whether you use the same algorithm to perform inversion in a batch process or in a GUI, but the pay-to-play software companies make their money on the perceived value that the GUI offers.
Perhaps one of the most useful tools after negative conversion is the "filmic RGB" tool that was created by the authors of the 3D GUI animation tool, Blender. Filmic RGB was designed to "remap the tonal range of an image [computer generated] by reproducing the tone and color response of classic film." It expands/contracts the dynamic range of the scene to fit the dynamic range of the display, while protecting colors and contrast in the mid-tones, recovering shadow details and compressing bright highlights and the darkest shadows. It should come as no surprise that this free 3D animation tool rapidly found it's way to popular photo editing software. I think it's in it's 7th generation now, and just about every software package utilizes it.
I have very limited experience with the Filmic RGB module, having only used it for a few days when experimenting in performing negative conversions in Darktable. What amazes me about this tool is that it's so well designed that it "just works." The default values produce incredible output that's so good that I don't feel any need for further image manipulation.
What amazes me about all of this is that in searching the forum, virtually nobody bothers to use Darktable and it's impossible to get any advice on it in this forum because everyone seems to prefer to pay to use PS or LR.
I think that the important thing to understand when it comes to these packaged software products is that they're essentially providing a GUI interface and a wrapper around a compendium of image manipulation tools that have been written by other people and lie in the public domain. Some companies simply gather a number of tools that lie in the public domain and present them for sale in a very usable menu-driven product. There is a lot of value in that kind of solution, but there isn't anything special about any one solution in particular, as nobody has a monopoly on the algorithms used in tool development -- the graphics, PC gaming and computer animation markets are just too large. What companies are extremely good at though is packaging, presentation and marketing. There are many competing software products that are available that perform the same actions using a proprietary GUI interface with the same image manipulation protocols operating in the background. Although there are many ways to 'skin the cat', consumers are guided into using a particular company's product because of co-marketing by the tech mega-monopolies. That often provides the path of least resistance for most people, because it just works. You just pay to play and you get successful outcomes.
Most of the tools that exist as modules in these software collections began their lives as open source command line utilities. Using a command line interface is decidedly inconvenient and impossible to market. Instead of using a command line process to iterate over a collection of still images, it's far more satisfying for the user to drag sliders in a WYSIWYG environment. That satisfaction in the GUI experience is the basis for software marketing.
Negative conversion is not at all complicated -- in terms of data processing it is a brain-dead-trivial task -- but the companies that market negative conversion products want you to think that it is complicated and that their product is the best solution. The reality is that negative conversion is just a simple binary data reversal process.
An example of of a command line tool that offers free cross-platform open source negative conversion is Imagemagik. It is a tool for complex image manipulation and forms the basis for many photographic manipulation modules that are wrapped in GUI interfaces. One of it's simplest command line options is "-invert" which performs instant negative conversion. To perform simple negative conversion all that you need to do is to tell it to "-invert" the image and the output is provided in the blink of an eye. Most companies don't want users to know how simple a task this truly is, as their entire marketing paradigm is based upon selling the perception that the process is complicated and that you need to buy a special tool to do it. They market simple negative conversion in a fancy GUI software package in an attempt to convince users that the process is complicated, when it is not complicated at all. By itself free negative conversion isn't very marketable, so they repackage it with a number of other existing tools that are also free to market a combined package that users will find useful for workflow. The result is the a software package that provides a total workflow solution for negative conversion and subsequent image manipulation. It's a good marketing plan, but that software is totally unnecessary for the user.
You could use a script to do negative conversion, for example, to process every file in a directory (file folder) as a virtual "roll of film" and get the same result as using the auto-import-convert feature provided by a GUI interface tool. Then you could take the converted output and play with it in your favorite photo software. The results would be the same, and no additional subscription is required, but seeing the negatives pop and change color in a GUI is a very convincing reason to use the GUI and a great marketing tool. The results are not any different depending on whether you use the same algorithm to perform inversion in a batch process or in a GUI, but the pay-to-play software companies make their money on the perceived value that the GUI offers.
Perhaps one of the most useful tools after negative conversion is the "filmic RGB" tool that was created by the authors of the 3D GUI animation tool, Blender. Filmic RGB was designed to "remap the tonal range of an image [computer generated] by reproducing the tone and color response of classic film." It expands/contracts the dynamic range of the scene to fit the dynamic range of the display, while protecting colors and contrast in the mid-tones, recovering shadow details and compressing bright highlights and the darkest shadows. It should come as no surprise that this free 3D animation tool rapidly found it's way to popular photo editing software. I think it's in it's 7th generation now, and just about every software package utilizes it.
I have very limited experience with the Filmic RGB module, having only used it for a few days when experimenting in performing negative conversions in Darktable. What amazes me about this tool is that it's so well designed that it "just works." The default values produce incredible output that's so good that I don't feel any need for further image manipulation.
What amazes me about all of this is that in searching the forum, virtually nobody bothers to use Darktable and it's impossible to get any advice on it in this forum because everyone seems to prefer to pay to use PS or LR.
Dec 25, 2023 at 10:27 PM
p.4 #4Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
Back to the original post's objective -- how to digitize. I'm going to share what I've learned about digitizing with a D810 vs a D850. I think this subject is interesting because the D850 offers a "negative conversion" utility built into the camera.
One of the new features offered in the D850 is the "negative conversion" module. It provides you with the ability to take a photo of a negative when performing film duplication, then have the camera perform in-camera automatic negative conversion to produce a positive image in the form of a JPG file output. The JPG file output can then be used in your favorite editing software.
I had been thinking about buying the D850 for a number of reasons, one of which was the appeal of in-camera negative conversion. But after doing a lot of reading I came to the conclusion that in-camera negative conversion isn't all that valuable. As I mentioned in my previous post, negative conversion is not at all complicated. In terms of image processing, inversion is one of the simplest tasks that can be performed. It took Nikon very little computing power to add this feature to the camera and I think it turns out to be more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
The problem is that the D850 cannot output a negative inversion in the raw NEF format. Any negative conversion that the camera performs will be processed by the camera's engine to produce a JPG output; irrespective of your choice of output formats the camera will only output a JPG file. As everyone who uses photo manipulation already knows, you're better off working with RAW input than with a JPG. From a practical standpoint then, the D850's negative conversion feature seems to be nothing more than a quick-and-dirty solution aimed at people who want immediate results.
For the best possible results, I think it's better to shoot your negatives in RAW format, saving them as a high resolution RAW file (called NEF in the Nikon ecosystem), and then import the NEF into your favorite photo editing software that also performs negative inversion. Doing it that way, you're working with full resolution unmolested input data that hasn't already been subjected to JPG compression.
To me it seems that the negative digitization feature of the D850 isn't all that useful, and you're more likely to obtain better results by saving a capture of the negative as RAW data in-camera, and doing the negative conversion on a PC using proper photo editing software.
So far my tests with a D810 suggest that the D810 is out-resolving the film sources that I've tested. I have to qualify that statement by saying that I'm starting off in learning how to do this by experimenting with my lowest resolution images first. So far I've been working on converting photos from my youth that were shot on a consumer grade film and an Instamatic 126 camera or a consumer grade 35mm SLR many decades ago. I haven't yet gotten to the point where I was shooting professional grade films on professional grade cameras with high resolution optics. That will come, but I'm just not that far along yet. My intention as I climb the learning curve is to make mistakes on the images where those mistakes won't matter as much.
The take-home point from this post is that I don't find value in using in-camera negative conversion. I think you're more likely to get the best results by inverting a RAW image in your favorite negative conversion software.
One of the new features offered in the D850 is the "negative conversion" module. It provides you with the ability to take a photo of a negative when performing film duplication, then have the camera perform in-camera automatic negative conversion to produce a positive image in the form of a JPG file output. The JPG file output can then be used in your favorite editing software.
I had been thinking about buying the D850 for a number of reasons, one of which was the appeal of in-camera negative conversion. But after doing a lot of reading I came to the conclusion that in-camera negative conversion isn't all that valuable. As I mentioned in my previous post, negative conversion is not at all complicated. In terms of image processing, inversion is one of the simplest tasks that can be performed. It took Nikon very little computing power to add this feature to the camera and I think it turns out to be more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
The problem is that the D850 cannot output a negative inversion in the raw NEF format. Any negative conversion that the camera performs will be processed by the camera's engine to produce a JPG output; irrespective of your choice of output formats the camera will only output a JPG file. As everyone who uses photo manipulation already knows, you're better off working with RAW input than with a JPG. From a practical standpoint then, the D850's negative conversion feature seems to be nothing more than a quick-and-dirty solution aimed at people who want immediate results.
For the best possible results, I think it's better to shoot your negatives in RAW format, saving them as a high resolution RAW file (called NEF in the Nikon ecosystem), and then import the NEF into your favorite photo editing software that also performs negative inversion. Doing it that way, you're working with full resolution unmolested input data that hasn't already been subjected to JPG compression.
To me it seems that the negative digitization feature of the D850 isn't all that useful, and you're more likely to obtain better results by saving a capture of the negative as RAW data in-camera, and doing the negative conversion on a PC using proper photo editing software.
So far my tests with a D810 suggest that the D810 is out-resolving the film sources that I've tested. I have to qualify that statement by saying that I'm starting off in learning how to do this by experimenting with my lowest resolution images first. So far I've been working on converting photos from my youth that were shot on a consumer grade film and an Instamatic 126 camera or a consumer grade 35mm SLR many decades ago. I haven't yet gotten to the point where I was shooting professional grade films on professional grade cameras with high resolution optics. That will come, but I'm just not that far along yet. My intention as I climb the learning curve is to make mistakes on the images where those mistakes won't matter as much.
The take-home point from this post is that I don't find value in using in-camera negative conversion. I think you're more likely to get the best results by inverting a RAW image in your favorite negative conversion software.
Dec 25, 2023 at 11:13 PM
p.4 #5Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
I would say that it depends on the film, the era of the film, how that film was shot and exposed and whether it was shot with the best lenses at the most optimum apertures on a steady tripod. If all of these are not happening, then yes, your Nikon will outresolve the images on the film but probably not the film itself.
If you are shooting or did shoot T-Max100 with all the above criteria in mind, you'd have to scan on a drum scanner in the 6000-8000 ppi range to record everything on the film - but you have to meet all those objectives.
For the last 25 years I've been using Howtek drum scanners to digital my film, first the 4500 model and since the fall of 2001 their flagship HR8000 model which scans up to 8000 samples per inch. One of the best scanners you could ever own but also at this point probably starting to bump into repairability.
While my Howtek still scans perfectly, in anticipation of the day it no longer works or can be repaired, I've converted my old Beseler 45 enlarger into a digital scanning station with the Fuji GFX100 and that unbelievable Rodenstock 105mm macro lens (about $6K from the UK or $8K from B&H). If you come close to filling the frame of the GFX with a 35mm piece of film, the GFX scan is very very close to the 8000 ppi drum scan. Surprisingly close, which is a good thing, and while it can't make a softer, grainier film sharper than it actually is, you can pull everything out of the film that's there, and that's very likely more than you'd think, plus they manner in which it resolves grain on grainy films like the Agfa 1000 I used to shoot a lot of for one music client, is just beautiful.
And this is one area where scanning film can actually look better than even the highest res digital, and that's to scan past the grain resolution and embrace the grain in really large prints, which just looks great. Scan at too low of a res and try to upres in Ps and there will be digital looking artifacts unless you add digital grain to the image.
The same GFX/Rodenstock/Novoflex scanning setup, when scanning 6x7cm film is very close to drum scanning the same film at 4000 ppi.
I've been super busy for the last few months and as soon as I get a good chance, I'll scan the same piece of film both ways and post it here for people to see. I do not expect most people to spend what I did on this setup, somewhere in the range of $15-$17K, which seems crazy as I write this but you really can see the difference.
What I really wish I had was some 120 Tech Pan to run through the Mamiya 7.
If you are shooting or did shoot T-Max100 with all the above criteria in mind, you'd have to scan on a drum scanner in the 6000-8000 ppi range to record everything on the film - but you have to meet all those objectives.
For the last 25 years I've been using Howtek drum scanners to digital my film, first the 4500 model and since the fall of 2001 their flagship HR8000 model which scans up to 8000 samples per inch. One of the best scanners you could ever own but also at this point probably starting to bump into repairability.
While my Howtek still scans perfectly, in anticipation of the day it no longer works or can be repaired, I've converted my old Beseler 45 enlarger into a digital scanning station with the Fuji GFX100 and that unbelievable Rodenstock 105mm macro lens (about $6K from the UK or $8K from B&H). If you come close to filling the frame of the GFX with a 35mm piece of film, the GFX scan is very very close to the 8000 ppi drum scan. Surprisingly close, which is a good thing, and while it can't make a softer, grainier film sharper than it actually is, you can pull everything out of the film that's there, and that's very likely more than you'd think, plus they manner in which it resolves grain on grainy films like the Agfa 1000 I used to shoot a lot of for one music client, is just beautiful.
And this is one area where scanning film can actually look better than even the highest res digital, and that's to scan past the grain resolution and embrace the grain in really large prints, which just looks great. Scan at too low of a res and try to upres in Ps and there will be digital looking artifacts unless you add digital grain to the image.
The same GFX/Rodenstock/Novoflex scanning setup, when scanning 6x7cm film is very close to drum scanning the same film at 4000 ppi.
I've been super busy for the last few months and as soon as I get a good chance, I'll scan the same piece of film both ways and post it here for people to see. I do not expect most people to spend what I did on this setup, somewhere in the range of $15-$17K, which seems crazy as I write this but you really can see the difference.
What I really wish I had was some 120 Tech Pan to run through the Mamiya 7.
Dec 26, 2023 at 01:50 AM
p.4 #6Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
coralnut wrote:
…. Negative conversion is not at all complicated -- in terms of data processing it is a brain-dead-trivial task -- but the companies that market negative conversion products want you to think that it is complicated and that their product is the best solution. The reality is that negative conversion is just a simple binary data reversal process….
Negative to positive conversion is pretty simple in Lightroom with an inverted tone curve. Save that as a custom preset and it’s a one-click operation. I reckon you could also make it an import preset.
John
…. Negative conversion is not at all complicated -- in terms of data processing it is a brain-dead-trivial task -- but the companies that market negative conversion products want you to think that it is complicated and that their product is the best solution. The reality is that negative conversion is just a simple binary data reversal process….
Negative to positive conversion is pretty simple in Lightroom with an inverted tone curve. Save that as a custom preset and it’s a one-click operation. I reckon you could also make it an import preset.
John
Dec 26, 2023 at 09:12 AM
p.4 #7Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
Peter thanks for responding. I've seen some of your drum scans and the images were just incredible.
I've never used T-Max (I was out of B/W before it was introduced), so I won't be testing the limits of surveillance grade film with my 'ghetto' digitizing setup.
I'm starting my digitization project at the bottom, with the lowest resolution images, and I'm working my way up. For now the D810 seems to be working better than I had expected -- but of course I'm not working with negatives that are anything special (yet). The 35x24mm sensor has a resolution of 7360 x 4912, which I think equates to about 5,200 dpi. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers.
Assuming my numbers are OK, 5200 dpi seems pretty close to the lower limits of a drum scanner's capabilities -- so I'm hopeful that all of the effort will prove worthwhile. I'm hoping that I'll continue to have good results as I move on to digitizing the better films. I have my fingers crossed, as almost everything in my 35mm Kodachrome collection was shot on PKR, PKM and PKL, on a tripod, with the best lenses that I could afford, at f/8. Back in the day I used to examine the slides under a compound microscope. The resolution on some of them was actually quite good. Digitizing them will be an interesting experiment.
I don't have any idea what I'm going to do when I get to processing my 6x6 negatives. There aren't enough of them to justify a high end setup. For personal use I certainly can't budget a setup like your Rodenstock Macro / Fuji system. I think my only option will be to take 4 images of the negative with the D810, one image in each quadrant of the negative, and use software to stitch them together. It sounds very tedious, and probably will only be worth the effort on select 'special' images. For most of the 6x6 negatives I imagine I'll be stuck with digitizing them at 1:4 on a 35x24 sensor, which definitely will not take advantage of everything that the negative has to offer.
I've never used T-Max (I was out of B/W before it was introduced), so I won't be testing the limits of surveillance grade film with my 'ghetto' digitizing setup.
I'm starting my digitization project at the bottom, with the lowest resolution images, and I'm working my way up. For now the D810 seems to be working better than I had expected -- but of course I'm not working with negatives that are anything special (yet). The 35x24mm sensor has a resolution of 7360 x 4912, which I think equates to about 5,200 dpi. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers.
Assuming my numbers are OK, 5200 dpi seems pretty close to the lower limits of a drum scanner's capabilities -- so I'm hopeful that all of the effort will prove worthwhile. I'm hoping that I'll continue to have good results as I move on to digitizing the better films. I have my fingers crossed, as almost everything in my 35mm Kodachrome collection was shot on PKR, PKM and PKL, on a tripod, with the best lenses that I could afford, at f/8. Back in the day I used to examine the slides under a compound microscope. The resolution on some of them was actually quite good. Digitizing them will be an interesting experiment.
I don't have any idea what I'm going to do when I get to processing my 6x6 negatives. There aren't enough of them to justify a high end setup. For personal use I certainly can't budget a setup like your Rodenstock Macro / Fuji system. I think my only option will be to take 4 images of the negative with the D810, one image in each quadrant of the negative, and use software to stitch them together. It sounds very tedious, and probably will only be worth the effort on select 'special' images. For most of the 6x6 negatives I imagine I'll be stuck with digitizing them at 1:4 on a 35x24 sensor, which definitely will not take advantage of everything that the negative has to offer.
Dec 26, 2023 at 02:30 PM
p.4 #8Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
coralnut wrote:
Peter thanks for responding. I've seen some of your drum scans and the images were just incredible.
I've never used T-Max (I was out of B/W before it was introduced), so I won't be testing the limits of surveillance grade film with my 'ghetto' digitizing setup.
I'm starting my digitization project at the bottom, with the lowest resolution images, and I'm working my way up. For now the D810 seems to be working better than I had expected -- but of course I'm not working with negatives that are anything special (yet). The 35x24mm sensor has a resolution of 7360 x 4912,...Show more →
Yeah, I've scanned a boatload of Kodachrome over the years. My favorite film of all time, and PKM could stand up to 8000 dpi if it was shot optimally. Jeez what beautiful film. And who cares if there was grain because it was such beautiful grain.
I'm sure you already know, but just as a reminder to those who don't or have forgotten, that when you're copying film with a macro lens at 1:1, you lose two stops of light and you lose two stops of aperture, so if you have your lens set to f/8, that means you effective (and actual) aperture is f/16, which means you're already into diffraction territory and losing potential detail, and I say potential because not every frame will have realized its full potential. Shooting at f/5.6 for an effective f/11 is sharper but also harder to keep the entire frame in focus. Some people will actually shoot a few frames to deal with that and focus stack them.
Scanning sections at a time will work just fine for you and Photoshop's PhotoMerge feature should automatically flat stitch them together so it should not take long at all. Heck, if I want to drum scan 6x7cm frames at 8000, which I've had to do on occasion, I have to scan it twice and change the crop, as the scanning software runs in Mac OS 9.2.2 from about 1999 or 2000 and there was a 2 GB file size limit in a 32 bit operating system, so I would scan it twice, stitch them together and end up with a 2.7 gb 16 bpc file. I have not had the opportunity to try that yet with the GFX system but one day I'm sure I will.
Peter thanks for responding. I've seen some of your drum scans and the images were just incredible.
I've never used T-Max (I was out of B/W before it was introduced), so I won't be testing the limits of surveillance grade film with my 'ghetto' digitizing setup.
I'm starting my digitization project at the bottom, with the lowest resolution images, and I'm working my way up. For now the D810 seems to be working better than I had expected -- but of course I'm not working with negatives that are anything special (yet). The 35x24mm sensor has a resolution of 7360 x 4912,...Show more →
Yeah, I've scanned a boatload of Kodachrome over the years. My favorite film of all time, and PKM could stand up to 8000 dpi if it was shot optimally. Jeez what beautiful film. And who cares if there was grain because it was such beautiful grain.
I'm sure you already know, but just as a reminder to those who don't or have forgotten, that when you're copying film with a macro lens at 1:1, you lose two stops of light and you lose two stops of aperture, so if you have your lens set to f/8, that means you effective (and actual) aperture is f/16, which means you're already into diffraction territory and losing potential detail, and I say potential because not every frame will have realized its full potential. Shooting at f/5.6 for an effective f/11 is sharper but also harder to keep the entire frame in focus. Some people will actually shoot a few frames to deal with that and focus stack them.
Scanning sections at a time will work just fine for you and Photoshop's PhotoMerge feature should automatically flat stitch them together so it should not take long at all. Heck, if I want to drum scan 6x7cm frames at 8000, which I've had to do on occasion, I have to scan it twice and change the crop, as the scanning software runs in Mac OS 9.2.2 from about 1999 or 2000 and there was a 2 GB file size limit in a 32 bit operating system, so I would scan it twice, stitch them together and end up with a 2.7 gb 16 bpc file. I have not had the opportunity to try that yet with the GFX system but one day I'm sure I will.
Dec 26, 2023 at 05:24 PM
p.4 #9Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
Thank you for being so diplomatic in pointing out some of the limitations involved when trying to press enthusiast grade "taking" equipment into a "reproduction" role that it was never intended to perform. Anyone who steps into this activity is going to learn that their results will be limited by the constraints of needing a planar image source, pixel pitch, diffraction, DOF limitations, vignetting, distortion, color noise, lens curvature of field, etc., and that the solution to each of these issues involves adopting highly specialized equipment and techniques.
Looking at my first round of captures there may be some diffraction limitation in the results. I used f/8 nominal (f/16 effective) and I was able to obtain edge-to-edge focus, albeit with some diffraction that caused enough softness to limit the image viewing size. At "vintage period correct" magnifications of 5x7 or 8x10 the images were great. At 11x14 or 16x20 equivalent magnifications (pixel peeping on my 27-inch display) some softness became evident, though it's too early for me to tell whether the softness comes from the taking system or the reproduction system, as I don't even know what type of equipment was used in the era when these images were captured.
For the average photographer who simply wants to digitize his film library, or who still enjoys shooting film and needs to digitize it for printing and sharing, these camera based macro setups can be made to work quite well. I think that's why the consensus of opinion in the thread has been to adopt a setup that involves a ML or DSLR, a general purpose 1:1 "macro" lens, a film holder and a copy stand. Of course these setups are designed for high productivity/mass digitization and they'll never stand up to comparison to a professional reproduction system that is intended to provide optimal results with dedicated attention to a single image source.
I understand that I'm making a tradeoff in going the camera digitization route, but it's a tradeoff that's necessary to digitize an entire library in a reasonable amount of time while obtaining results that are "good enough." (Especially when not every image will be subjected to highly critical review.) Once digitization is completed I will have to reassess the prospect of going back to provide specialized attention to those images that demand special attention. Technique and/or equipment changes will probably be required.
I'm sure you already know, but just as a reminder to those who don't or have forgotten, that when you're copying film with a macro lens at 1:1, you lose two stops of light and you lose two stops of aperture, so if you have your lens set to f/8, that means you effective (and actual) aperture is f/16, which means you're already into diffraction territory and losing potential detail, and I say potential because not every frame will have realized its full potential. Shooting at f/5.6 for an effective f/11 is sharper but also harder to keep the entire frame...Show more →
I had observed that my Nikon 60mm macro lens -- which can reach 1:1 but definitely is not optimized for that reproduction ratio -- changes it's focal length when focusing close. A modern DSLR notifies you of the change so that even if you've forgotten to consider it, the camera reports the effective aperture in the viewfinder during close focusing. The corrected effective aperture is even embedded in the digital image's EXIF data.
I understand that the 2 stop change in effective aperture is an inherent weakness in a general purpose lens that changes it's focal length at the extreme of it's design limits, but I have to ask -- is it a universal effect that has to occur with all macro lenses? I'm thinking that it should be possible to design a lens specifically for 1:1 reproduction such that the nominal and the effective apertures are the same, but I'm not seeing that when I review data sheets, even for the best specialized reproduction lenses.
Rodenstock, for example, still reports the 2 stop change in their literature for the Apo-Rodagon-D lens that is optimized for 1:1 reproduction.
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/sites/default/files/2020-04/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230%20%281%29.pdf
Your previous post did not mention which series of lenses you're using, but based on the 105mm focal length I'd guess that you're using something like the Apo-Rodagon-N 105mm f/4 for 6x7 or 6x9.
Focus stacking? I had been hoping that it wouldn't come to that as it adds a layer of complication that will seriously impact the workflow of digitizing an entire library. If avoiding diffraction forces the use of wide apertures, then the expense of the boutique film holders may become a necessity (in the hopes that they are more effective at maintaining a planar image source).
All of this forces me to ask the obvious question -- what kind of conditions are used when labs perform batch scans when processing film? How do they handle the limitations imposed by diffraction and DOF? Do they address these problems or do they just give you crummy scans?
I think the diffraction problem is worse than you had mentioned. An additional diffraction limitation is imposed by a digital sensor's pixel density. As density increases the diffraction limited aperture (DLA) for the sensor gets worse. According to my sensor size math my D810 has a DLA of f/8 and I prefer not to use smaller apertures. DLA only gets worse with higher megapixel 35mm format sensors like the D850 where the DLA is f/7.1, or an A7RIV where DLA is f/6.2. The DLA creates a worsening problem when you want to capture at increasing megapixel counts, as you become constrained by proportionally worse diffraction that imposes new wide open lens performance requirements and imposes DOF limitations.
That DLA problem is obviated somewhat by moving to medium format where the pixel size increases, such that the DLA is better on MF than on a smaller sensor with the same megapixel count. Of course, those benefits go away as megapixels increase, irrespective of which format you choose. I'm not sure that I understand this well enough to know how a 100MP MF camera with a 3.76um pixel (Hass X2D 100C or GFX 100) would compare to a 60MP 35mm format camera with a 3.76um pixel (Sony A7R4). My envelope math tells me that the DLA would be f/6.2 for all of them. I don't know enough to know if medium format maintains it's performance edge in that context.
I am very interested in seeing the side-by-side comparison that you had mentioned, comparing the drum scans to the GFX/Rodenstock/Novoflex scanning setup. One of the key variables that drum scanning controls is the planarity of the image source, which is difficult with film holders and camera based captures. Drum scanning seems to prevent a host of new complications in the capture process that come with camera-based scanning.
When it comes to reproducing 6x6 by stitching together photos from a 35mm sensor, I have to consider that what's easy in theory may actually be difficult in practice. I've read about many who have had trouble stitching due to problems with the stitching process not working as intended. I seem to recall comments that the problem is made worse by negatives that were not held perfectly planar, but I haven't spent a lot of time researching that yet. Of course a drum scanner cures that problem.
Thanks for your time.
Looking at my first round of captures there may be some diffraction limitation in the results. I used f/8 nominal (f/16 effective) and I was able to obtain edge-to-edge focus, albeit with some diffraction that caused enough softness to limit the image viewing size. At "vintage period correct" magnifications of 5x7 or 8x10 the images were great. At 11x14 or 16x20 equivalent magnifications (pixel peeping on my 27-inch display) some softness became evident, though it's too early for me to tell whether the softness comes from the taking system or the reproduction system, as I don't even know what type of equipment was used in the era when these images were captured.
For the average photographer who simply wants to digitize his film library, or who still enjoys shooting film and needs to digitize it for printing and sharing, these camera based macro setups can be made to work quite well. I think that's why the consensus of opinion in the thread has been to adopt a setup that involves a ML or DSLR, a general purpose 1:1 "macro" lens, a film holder and a copy stand. Of course these setups are designed for high productivity/mass digitization and they'll never stand up to comparison to a professional reproduction system that is intended to provide optimal results with dedicated attention to a single image source.
I understand that I'm making a tradeoff in going the camera digitization route, but it's a tradeoff that's necessary to digitize an entire library in a reasonable amount of time while obtaining results that are "good enough." (Especially when not every image will be subjected to highly critical review.) Once digitization is completed I will have to reassess the prospect of going back to provide specialized attention to those images that demand special attention. Technique and/or equipment changes will probably be required.
I'm sure you already know, but just as a reminder to those who don't or have forgotten, that when you're copying film with a macro lens at 1:1, you lose two stops of light and you lose two stops of aperture, so if you have your lens set to f/8, that means you effective (and actual) aperture is f/16, which means you're already into diffraction territory and losing potential detail, and I say potential because not every frame will have realized its full potential. Shooting at f/5.6 for an effective f/11 is sharper but also harder to keep the entire frame...Show more →
I had observed that my Nikon 60mm macro lens -- which can reach 1:1 but definitely is not optimized for that reproduction ratio -- changes it's focal length when focusing close. A modern DSLR notifies you of the change so that even if you've forgotten to consider it, the camera reports the effective aperture in the viewfinder during close focusing. The corrected effective aperture is even embedded in the digital image's EXIF data.
I understand that the 2 stop change in effective aperture is an inherent weakness in a general purpose lens that changes it's focal length at the extreme of it's design limits, but I have to ask -- is it a universal effect that has to occur with all macro lenses? I'm thinking that it should be possible to design a lens specifically for 1:1 reproduction such that the nominal and the effective apertures are the same, but I'm not seeing that when I review data sheets, even for the best specialized reproduction lenses.
Rodenstock, for example, still reports the 2 stop change in their literature for the Apo-Rodagon-D lens that is optimized for 1:1 reproduction.
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/sites/default/files/2020-04/e_Rodenstock_Printing_CCD_43-62__8230%20%281%29.pdf
Your previous post did not mention which series of lenses you're using, but based on the 105mm focal length I'd guess that you're using something like the Apo-Rodagon-N 105mm f/4 for 6x7 or 6x9.
Focus stacking? I had been hoping that it wouldn't come to that as it adds a layer of complication that will seriously impact the workflow of digitizing an entire library. If avoiding diffraction forces the use of wide apertures, then the expense of the boutique film holders may become a necessity (in the hopes that they are more effective at maintaining a planar image source).
All of this forces me to ask the obvious question -- what kind of conditions are used when labs perform batch scans when processing film? How do they handle the limitations imposed by diffraction and DOF? Do they address these problems or do they just give you crummy scans?
I think the diffraction problem is worse than you had mentioned. An additional diffraction limitation is imposed by a digital sensor's pixel density. As density increases the diffraction limited aperture (DLA) for the sensor gets worse. According to my sensor size math my D810 has a DLA of f/8 and I prefer not to use smaller apertures. DLA only gets worse with higher megapixel 35mm format sensors like the D850 where the DLA is f/7.1, or an A7RIV where DLA is f/6.2. The DLA creates a worsening problem when you want to capture at increasing megapixel counts, as you become constrained by proportionally worse diffraction that imposes new wide open lens performance requirements and imposes DOF limitations.
That DLA problem is obviated somewhat by moving to medium format where the pixel size increases, such that the DLA is better on MF than on a smaller sensor with the same megapixel count. Of course, those benefits go away as megapixels increase, irrespective of which format you choose. I'm not sure that I understand this well enough to know how a 100MP MF camera with a 3.76um pixel (Hass X2D 100C or GFX 100) would compare to a 60MP 35mm format camera with a 3.76um pixel (Sony A7R4). My envelope math tells me that the DLA would be f/6.2 for all of them. I don't know enough to know if medium format maintains it's performance edge in that context.
I am very interested in seeing the side-by-side comparison that you had mentioned, comparing the drum scans to the GFX/Rodenstock/Novoflex scanning setup. One of the key variables that drum scanning controls is the planarity of the image source, which is difficult with film holders and camera based captures. Drum scanning seems to prevent a host of new complications in the capture process that come with camera-based scanning.
When it comes to reproducing 6x6 by stitching together photos from a 35mm sensor, I have to consider that what's easy in theory may actually be difficult in practice. I've read about many who have had trouble stitching due to problems with the stitching process not working as intended. I seem to recall comments that the problem is made worse by negatives that were not held perfectly planar, but I haven't spent a lot of time researching that yet. Of course a drum scanner cures that problem.
Thanks for your time.
Dec 27, 2023 at 07:22 AM
p.4 #10Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
I have recently started to think about these issues as I explore negative scanning with a Sony A7RV, a Fuji GFX 100s, and/or a Nikon CoolScan 9000, both for my mountains of old photos and for new film photography
I understand that the 2 stop change in effective aperture is an inherent weakness in a general purpose lens that changes it's focal length at the extreme of it's design limits, but I have to ask -- is it a universal effect that has to occur with all macro lenses? I'm thinking that it should be possible to design a lens specifically for 1:1 reproduction such that the nominal and the effective apertures are the same, but I'm not seeing that when I review data sheets, even for the best specialized reproduction lenses.
If I recall correctly, lens focal length (nominal) is defined for focus at infinity, even for repro lenses. When you run them in 1:1, that pushes the focal point back through an aperture that is still the same diameter, hence the higher "effective" f stop. Maybe repro lenses should be spec'd at the actual working conditions on the data sheets?
Some discussion here: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm
In terms of resolution, the ancient CoolScan is rated at max 4000 dpi regardless of whether you scan 35mm or 120 (it does a CCD line scan). For camera scanning, projecting the negative onto the sensor gives me:
35mm neg on 60MP Sony A7RV: 6800 dpi
6 x 6 neg on 60MP Sony A7RV: 2700 dpi
35mm neg on 100MP GFX 100s: 8200 dpi
6 x 6 neg on 100MP GFX 100s: 3700 dpi
based on how the negative images are placed on the sensor (both of which are made by Sony with the same pixel pitch). So scanning a medium format image with the Sony is tough but nearly ok with the GFX. But it's a much quicker process than putting everything through the CoolScan (which could be used for those special selected images).
- David
Dec 27, 2023 at 01:44 PM
p.4 #11Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
This is the lens I'm using and where I got it from:
https://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Macro-lenses-and-Mounting-Solutions/M:acro_lenses_Rodenstock_Cambo
Here it is at B&H at $6500: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1769343-REG/cambo_999105000_rodenstock_105mm_f_5_6_hr.html
This is not the same as the lens you referenced. There is no focusing built in to this lens so it has to be used on a focusing bellows of some sort, often Novoflex or Cambo, with the appropriate lens boards.
It's optimized for use between one third life size and three times life size and has a manually operated ring to set the floating elements to their optimum setting which is determined by placing a small chart that you print out from their supplied pdf and reading the reproduction ratio off the chart and transferring that to the secondary adjustment ring on the lens. And, yes, that floating element control really works.
I completely get that this is way beyond what most people either need or can afford, but I also remember seeing a presentation at Art Center back in 1983 or so about this new technology called "laser" scanning where they demonstrated what this could do compared to traditional reproduction techniques. It all seemed so pie in the sky and stuff we would never ever be able to afford, and then fifteen years later I had my own drum scanner. That's why I post this information - so more people know that it's out there and if they somehow come into an inheritance or other windfall, they might know where to spend it. Ha.
https://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Macro-lenses-and-Mounting-Solutions/M:acro_lenses_Rodenstock_Cambo
Here it is at B&H at $6500: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1769343-REG/cambo_999105000_rodenstock_105mm_f_5_6_hr.html
This is not the same as the lens you referenced. There is no focusing built in to this lens so it has to be used on a focusing bellows of some sort, often Novoflex or Cambo, with the appropriate lens boards.
It's optimized for use between one third life size and three times life size and has a manually operated ring to set the floating elements to their optimum setting which is determined by placing a small chart that you print out from their supplied pdf and reading the reproduction ratio off the chart and transferring that to the secondary adjustment ring on the lens. And, yes, that floating element control really works.
I completely get that this is way beyond what most people either need or can afford, but I also remember seeing a presentation at Art Center back in 1983 or so about this new technology called "laser" scanning where they demonstrated what this could do compared to traditional reproduction techniques. It all seemed so pie in the sky and stuff we would never ever be able to afford, and then fifteen years later I had my own drum scanner. That's why I post this information - so more people know that it's out there and if they somehow come into an inheritance or other windfall, they might know where to spend it. Ha.
Dec 27, 2023 at 03:46 PM
p.4 #12Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
Peter Figen wrote:
.. That's why I post this information - so more people know that it's out there and if they somehow come into an inheritance or other windfall, they might know where to spend it. Ha.
Dood, when I come into a windfall I'm just gonna hire you to do my scanning.
.. That's why I post this information - so more people know that it's out there and if they somehow come into an inheritance or other windfall, they might know where to spend it. Ha.
Dood, when I come into a windfall I'm just gonna hire you to do my scanning.
Dec 27, 2023 at 04:46 PM
p.4 #13Recent Film Shots -- How are You Digitizing?
Desmolicious wrote:
Dood, when I come into a windfall I'm just gonna hire you to do my scanning.
Hey - I've already done some of your scanning. And anyway, by whatever time this is, I'll be done with it and just give you the lens and camera. But at least that lens is something I've used for numerous macro shot, mostly of tools that are quite striking.
Peter Figen wrote
.. That's why I post this information - so more people know that it's out there and if they somehow come into an inheritance or other windfall, they might know where to spend it. Ha.Hey - I've already done some of your scanning. And anyway, by whatever time this is, I'll be done with it and just give you the lens and camera. But at least that lens is something I've used for numerous macro shot, mostly of tools that are quite striking.
Dec 27, 2023 at 05:31 PM