[Kobayashi.K]

What about digitalizing negatives with this setup ?

I have very positive experiences with DSLR scanning of 35 mm film.

I have both used the Pentax slide copier and a custom made film holder and I have no issues with dust. My negatives are always squeaky clean. I think most of the time dust is the result of how they are stored and how you work.

The Pentax slide copier works very well for film strips, but it has one issue. The holder can be shifted up and down but it snaps into a groove exactly in the middle with a small steel ball and a spring. So, when you want to shift it slightly up- or down from the middle, to adjust it to the camera sensor, it snaps back into the groove. A solution is to remove the ball and the spring.

I have no issues inserting the film strip in the Pentax slide copier and adjusting it horizontally and it is reasonably well positioned in place. That said, I'm now using a custom made film holder for narrower tolerances for the position of the strip.

I have tried various other slide copiers from Hasselblad and Nikon, but actually it is crap because there is too much play for the film strip in all three dimensions. I think they are mainly designed for copying mounted slides. I also tried a film holder from Kaiser for their enlarger but it is terrible: no possibility to lock the strip in place reliably, and it is plastic which attracts dust.

DSLR scanning is very fast, you can copy a roll in two minutes (6 strips of 6 frames).

What I see as a disadvantage of a commercial scanner is that it has software attached you must learn to use, and most of the time there are issues when you want a clean scan without any modification from this software. After a scan with a DSLR you can use exactly the same post-process as applied to your digital photos.

---

Last edited by Kobayashi.K; 05-16-2021 at 12:18 PM.

[stevebrot]

There is a lot of good advice in the comments above and I can only add just a little more. "The Pentax Bellows" by PF member Murray O'Neil (username: oneil) is the comprehensive reference and guide to owning and using Pentax-brand bellows. The PDF can be downloaded from the Extreme Macro site using the link below:

Extreme Macro Downloads | The Pentax Bellows (PDF) From: Extreme Macro Downloads

Note that the Exteme Macro site is the work of PF member Johan J Ingles-Le Nobel (username: Nass).


Steve

(...owns and uses Pentax Bellows K...)

[stevebrot]

After a scan with a DSLR you can use exactly the same post-process as applied to your digital photos.

Will you forgive me if I find this last a bit humorous? Slides are fairly straightforward, but color negatives...


Steve

[pentaxus]

Buying a scanner just might be the best way to go. UMC is right on all counts.

[stevebrot]

Buying a scanner just might be the best way to go. UMC is right on all counts.

Yep...learn on a scanner and move to dSLR copying if bored and wanting a challenge.


Steve

[Kobayashi.K]

Will you forgive me if I find this last a bit humorous? Slides are fairly straightforward, but color negatives...
Steve

Sorry Steve, everything I photograph is B&W, both film and digital. So I sometimes forget there is also color

[swestin]

What I see as a disadvantage of a commercial scanner is that it has software attached you must learn to use, and most of the time there are issues when you want a clean scan without any modification from this software. After a scan with a DSLR you can use exactly the same post-process as applied to your digital photos.

The advantage, however, is that someone has worked out transfer curves to convert negative to positive. And many have Digital ICE, which can detect and remove most dust. I believe there is 3rd-party software that gives more control and has preset curves for popular film stock.

Scanning Kodachrome is always a challenge, as it is capable of extreme densities that many scanners will just fade to black.

– Stephen

[Kobayashi.K]

There is one minor issue with the Pentax slide copier I forgot to mention. It is good practice to copy film with the emulsion side pointing to the lens, to reduce flare and scattering of light in the film base. However, if you observe the construction of the guide-strips in the slide copier, you can see that they expect you to insert the film strip with the emulsion side to the front (close to the diffuser). They probably did that to prevent mirroring the image (which must be done in post when mounted correctly), but it is less ideal for maximum quality. This is what I see on the slide copier K, I don't know if they perhaps changed that on later models.

[UMC]

... It is good practice to copy film with the emulsion side pointing to the lens, to reduce flare and scattering of light in the film base. .... They probably did that to prevent mirroring the image ....

Xou hit the nail! At the time when these items were designed, there was no such thing as "post processing" - at least, as long as the copying was slide to slide. Back in '85 I was in a group of train spotters and it was our usual routine to copy each others slides one week after a spotting trip. We went through every issue with the slide copier that was discussed in this thread. And you had the additional complication, that slide-to-slide copying required a special "slide duplicating film" from Kodak, which prevented the copies to have too much contrast.
Anyway, in 85 your least concern was "will I have enough sharpness" - you were just glad that you had the possibility for duplicating at all