[BigMackCam]

No worries as I try to keep tabs into these alternative methods. There are many workflows outlined on youtube.

BTW, in another forum is someone who does this for a living - commercially, so I know with the right setup and workflow this is a viable alternative - Adrian Bacon setup. I've been meaning to send him some of my own just to compare but I wouldn't want to possibly affect someone's livelihood.

As soon as hit send on my last post, I went to my storage boxes - and I've found the negatives I was looking for The photos themselves aren't the best - they were taken with a Soviet Lomo LC-A compact with zone focusing, and developed by Tesco, one of our supermarket chains (I didn't know any better back then ). But, their scans vs my own will be a useful comparison. I'll endeavour to scan a few of the negatives tomorrow and post the results

[y0chang]

I have to admit I have only done a handful of color negative inversion - all manual. In my case I am still going to continue using my Coolscans but I can't imagine what the post work would be like without a good reference.

Do you have examples to show how your results compare to "lab quality" scan?

I really like negative lab pro for color scans you can use it by scanning your negative using nikonscan and either scan in NEF (Nikon Raw format) or TIFF with no processing (no inversion no color correction) then using the plug in to convert the negatives. Its big advantage is that it has a lot of color profiles that match lab scans from Fuji Frontier or Noritsu scanners. I tried a lot of different options (Vuescan, Silverfast, Negative Lab Pro) but I end up using just the NikonScan Software 95% of the time but I can't do that with the Epson V600.

This is a good article of the advantages and disadvantages.

We Review Negative Lab Pro and Interview its Creator, Nate Johnson

[LesDMess]

I really like negative lab pro for color scans you can use it by scanning your negative using nikonscan and either scan in NEF (Nikon Raw format) or TIFF with no processing (no inversion no color correction) then using the plug in to convert the negatives. Its big advantage is that it has a lot of color profiles that match lab scans from Fuji Frontier or Noritsu scanners. I tried a lot of different options (Vuescan, Silverfast, Negative Lab Pro) but I end up using just the NikonScan Software 95% of the time.

This is a good article of the advantages and disadvantages.

We Review Negative Lab Pro and Interview its Creator, Nate Johnson

Thanks as I have seen that before - and many others using other tools.

---------- Post added 12-29-21 at 01:48 PM ----------

As soon as hit send on my last post, I went to my storage boxes - and I've found the negatives I was looking for The photos themselves aren't the best - they were taken with a Soviet Lomo LC-A compact with zone focusing, and developed by Tesco, one of our supermarket chains (I didn't know any better back then ). But, their scans vs my own will be a useful comparison. I'll endeavour to scan a few of the negatives tomorrow and post the results

I think that would certainly be very beneficial addition to your previous post for sure!

[BigMackCam]

BTW, in another forum is someone who does this for a living - commercially, so I know with the right setup and workflow this is a viable alternative - Adrian Bacon setup. He states, "I scan anywhere's from a couple hundred to a couple thousand plus rolls a month with this setup" so obviously his post work is optimal enough that he doesn't charge a hundred bucks a frame which I would have to given how slow I am at this!

Interesting. Thanks for the link. His is basically a more optimised equivalent of my own in terms of hardware. He's using a better film holder and a flash as a light source (much stronger, allowing a much faster shutter speed - very helpful), and has some degree of automation - but the essence of it is the same. I wonder what software he's using to convert negatives, and for dust removal... Do you happen to know?

Dust and scratch removal is valuable, and I'd love to have some method of automating it - but I think it's worth noting that ICE, whilst undoubtedly very effective and time-saving, isn't without cost in terms of image quality. Everything I've read, and the examples I've seen online, suggest that it results in some softening and/or loss of very fine detail, including the natural grain of the developed film. Depending on personal requirements that may not matter, could actually be a good thing, or might be unacceptable. The other thing is, of course, that it only works for colour films... So with B&W, we still need a method for dust and scratch removal. I understand Photoshop has some functionality to assist with dust removal, but from what I've seen, it still requires a great deal of user involvement...

[stevebrot]

I will have to see if the 100mm is suitable for this setup but certainly a 50mm macro works perfectly well.

The Pentax negative/slide copy attachments are made to work with 50mm lenses only. Working distance is inadequate for 100mm.


Steve

[pres589]

I really like Negative Lab Pro for this sort of thing but I don't like that it is tied to Lightroom. I really like Lightroom 6 but I don't know if I would go with this solution if I did not already have a copy of it myself. I do not think there is any chance of Negative Lab Pro migrating to another 'host platform' like Dark Table.


It might be worth getting a dedicated scanner just to avoid this sort of situation.

[y0chang]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. His is basically a more optimised equivalent of my own in terms of hardware. He's using a better film holder and a flash as a light source (much stronger, allowing a much faster shutter speed - very helpful), and has some degree of automation - but the essence of it is the same. I wonder what software he's using to convert negatives, and for dust removal... Do you happen to know?

Dust and scratch removal is valuable, and I'd love to have some method of automating it - but I think it's worth noting that ICE, whilst undoubtedly very effective and time-saving, isn't without cost in terms of image quality. Everything I've read, and the examples I've seen online, suggest that it results in some softening and/or loss of very fine detail, including the natural grain of the developed film. Depending on personal requirements that may not matter, could actually be a good thing, or might be unacceptable. The other thing is, of course, that it only works for colour films... So with B&W, we still need a method for dust and scratch removal. I understand Photoshop has some functionality to assist with dust removal, but from what I've seen, it still requires a great deal of user involvement...

The color ICE in a scanner uses an infrared scan to create a mask image which is pretty good at keeping detail but doesn't work for B&W as you said. Software dust reduction does affect the grain because grain looks like noise to most software routines. Not sure if there are better software out there, I was trying out different scanning software and wasn't happy with the consistency of the results in the Epson software unless I did a lot of fiddling.

[LesDMess]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. His is basically a more optimised equivalent of my own in terms of hardware. He's using a better film holder and a flash as a light source (much stronger, so faster shutter speed - very helpful), and has some degree of automation - but the essence of it is the same. I wonder what software he's using to convert negatives, and for dust removal... Do you happen to know?

Dust and scratch removal is valuable, and I'd love to have some method of automating it - but I think it's worth noting that ICE, whilst undoubtedly very effective and time-saving, isn't without cost in terms of image quality. Everything I've read, and the examples I've seen online, suggest that it results in some softening and/or loss of very fine detail, including the natural grain of the developed film. Depending on personal requirements that may not matter, could actually be a good thing, or might be unacceptable. The other thing is, of course, that it only works for colour films... So with B&W, we still need a method for dust and scratch removal. I understand Photoshop has some functionality to assist with dust removal, but from what I've seen, it still requires a great deal of user involvement...

I am not sure but I seem to recall a previous post of his stating he developed something himself? Most likely since he does this for a living that he doesn't disclose too much info. Maybe he will market it?

Regarding ICE, of course there are many implementations of it and curiously enough Nikon apparently got the best of it - from all that I have tested, in terms of speed and quality of results. It is flawless even with Kodachrome.

It does come with some scanning time penalties as well as loss of detail and/or sharpness. On 35mm, the Coolscan V takes about a minute without ICE and about 2 minutes with ICE, 5000 takes 30 seconds without and 50 seconds with and the 9000 about the same as the V.

Optimally taken res chart of Kodak Ektar shows the impact on detail/sharpness.



Optimally taken res chart on Fuji Velvia shows the impact on detail/sharpness.



On less then optimally taken shots - with far less real detail and different DOF, the effects on sharpness/detail may be less discernible. BTW, on highly grainy film, it also serves as very fine grain reduction.

[BigMackCam]

I really like Negative Lab Pro for this sort of thing but I don't like that it is tied to Lightroom. I really like Lightroom 6 but I don't know if I would go with this solution if I did not already have a copy of it myself. I do not think there is any chance of Negative Lab Pro migrating to another 'host platform' like Dark Table.


It might be worth getting a dedicated scanner just to avoid this sort of situation.

I resurrected my copy of Lightroom 6 stand-alone primarily so I could use Negative Lab Pro Like you, I don't like that it's tied to Lightroom, but as I understand it, it makes such heavy use of Lightroom's functionality that there's really no way to make it a stand-alone app.

If someone doesn't already have Lightroom 6 or later, then I'd agree it may be preferable to go for a dedicated scanner - bearing in mind that these too have their downsides (depending on the exact model), such as scanning speed and arguably outdated software. Plus, if one wants to scan more than just 35mm, there's a rather limited choice of high quality, dedicated film scanners, and most of them are legacy models - many of which have been well-used by now. Flatbeds are another option, but they come with their own range of issues

[Not a Number]

The fastest setup would be to get one of the Pentax bellows for K-mount with the slide copier attachment and a set of K-mount extension tubes and say the Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 lens. You need a short extension tube between the bellows and the K-1 body because of the contours of the body prevent it mounting easily on the bellows. The 50mm f1.7 lens is recommended for copying purposes as it has flat-field performance. The 100mm lens is likely not to focus close enough to the slide copier. The bellows and copier were designed to be used with 55-50mm prime FF lenses on full frame.

[pres589]

See, and I really like Lightroom 6, and I don't want to quit using it. But I know eventually I will have to figure something else out.


It's all a compromise.

[y0chang]

My flatbed V600 is not really great for 120. For one I shoot multiple formats and only 2 6X7 negatives fit in the holders. So that means I have to scan 2 shots then flip around scan the last one. Two the v600 has no autofocus so if the negative is curled you get blurry parts of the scan. Right now I use anti-newton glass with a V600 but that leads to its own problems like making sure the glass is clean, the scanner is clean, and making sure its aligned and not curled.

[BigMackCam]

My flatbed V600 is not really great for 120. For one I shoot multiple formats and only 2 6X7 negatives fit in the holders. So that means I have to scan 2 shots then flip around scan the last one. Two the v600 has no autofocus so if the negative is curled you get blurry parts of the scan. Right now I use anti-newton glass with a V600 but that leads to its own problems like making sure the glass is clean, the scanner is clean, and making sure its aligned and not curled.

Keeping negatives completely flat is something I'm just recently struggling with, especially for 120 film strips. The Essential Film Holder (EFH) I'm using with my DSLR digitising rig is excellent, but the guide through which the film feeds is 0.5mm. That doesn't sound like much, but with physically-thin, springy negatives, it still allows for a surprising amount of curl at the leading and trailing edge of each strip. Now, that can be mitigated by using a sufficiently small aperture to increase depth-of-field - but it doesn't resolve the geometric distortion. It's not a huge problem, but frustrating nonetheless.

I recently bought a Pixl-latr film holder. Using this, I can keep individual frames completely flat, whether they're the first, last or intermediate frames on a strip. BUT... the Pixl-latr is horrible when it comes to feeding film through for each successive frame.

Currently, I'm not sure a perfect film holder exists for DSLR scanning, so it has compromises like every other approach... just different ones.

[wkraus]

I posted a photo and description of the rig I’m using on flickr:




This is the description from the flickr page, with some edits.

I developed the setup for an academic archival project at the University of Vienna and the aim was to get the best possible quality with minimal compromises, but also to keep expenses low where it did not matter.

Parts involved:
1. A massive old Polaroid copy stand that had been there for decades.
2. Manfrotto 338 leveling base (to ensure that the optical axis is perfectly perpendicular to the film). A mirror helps with the adjustment.
3. No name Arca Swiss standard clamp.
4. Novoflex Castel Q Focusing Rack (not needed with part Nr. 8 but useful with 120 film and for normal copywork).
5. Pentax K-1 body. The 36 MP of the K-1 combined with its Pixelshift technology are sufficient for most negatives and slides. Given that what we see as grain in DSLR scans is a combination of film grain and aliasing artifacts, the extra resolution offered by Pixelshift makes a real difference. The effective resolution with the K-1 is about 5000 dpi.
6. Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon-Zirconia 2.8/89-0001 lens (89mm f/2.8) with Schneider focusing unit and extension tubes. This is an industrial line scan lens optimised for 1:1 that for all intents and purposes is free of distortion, mechanical vignetting, chromatic aberration and has and extremely high resolution across the frame (but only at or very close to 1:1). This is what we use for 35mm film; for 120 film we have a less expensive but also very fine 1:2 line scan lens from VS Technology, the VST VS-L12056-05/V (120mm f/5.6).
7. Durst Sirioneg film holder (from a 6x7 enlarger) with AN glass below and various format masks above the film (which is always copied looking at the emulsion side). The film holder sits on aluminium rails glued to part No. 8 and its position can be adjusted by sliding it back and forth.
8. The basis of an old microscope that offers two extremely helpful improvements: focus micro-adjustments, and a sliding table for precise film positioning (left to right and rotation). The rotation thing is important because rotating digital images in software causes artifacts that can be clearly seen for instance in the grain structure. This part is only used with 35mm film because the opening of the sliding table is too small for medium format. For MF it is replaced with an opal glass plate with a cardboard mask.
9. Kaiser Slimlite Plano LED lightbox (produces better colours than the older tube lightboxes). For copying colour negatives it can be helpful to use a CC 30C filter to counteract the orange mask and better use the dynamic range of the sensor. This also improves colours with many negative films but not all.
10. The camera is connected to a MacBook Pro and operated via Pentax’s Image Transmitter software. Images go into a dedicated folder and can immediately be checked in full resolution via Adobe Bridge and Photoshop.

Since the lightbox illumination is not totally even and some optical vignetting is unavoidable, we take a flat frame of the illumination at each session and use it to automatically correct the images via a Photoshop action (I am indebted to DrTebi for helping me to understand how to best do that). The raw images are processed using a linear camera profile, something which helps especially with slides that are often copied with much too high contrast.

The best focus setting can only be found with bracketing focus and checking the results. With a decent holder, the focus setting can remain unchanged for the whole session. Copying is done in near darkness. I also tested the available Pentax macro lenses and found that the D FA 50mm does a better job at 1:1 than the D FA 100mm. The latter has a certain amount of lateral CA, which does not do a lot of harm with B&W film because in any case it is advisable to use the green channel only as it is the sharpest with most lenses. But the D FA 100mm is not the best choice for colour film.

[officiousbystander]

This is my setup. KP with DFA 100 macro and Manfrotto BeFree. Negatives also work as well as slides. I use my Epson scanner film holder. If this is done properly it's superior to and faster than the flatbed scanner.