[Dartmoor Dave]

Negs, just negs what I would really like is something like a stiff snoot that can be fastened onto the end of the lens via a filter holder, at the other end of said tube is a neg holder. Surely some enterprising tog has created something like this. It sounds so simple, I bet there are lots of sciency reasons why this won't work

There's no reason at all why it won't work. In fact it does work, and it works very well. The Nikon ES-2 adaptor mentioned above in this thread by @Alex645 will do exactly what you're asking for, although it's expensive for what it is. There are various lower cost versions of basically the same sort of thing, but they usually have crappy macro filters built in. If you've already got a proper macro lens then you could just deglass one of the cheapo versions and it should work just as well as the Nikon branded one -- assuming the film holder keeps the negative properly flat.

It really isn't rocket science. As with all photography, the ultimate quality of your results will depend more on your skill at using the gear than on the gear itself.

[UncleVanya]

A question about negative vs slides: how do you correctly invert the colors if you digitize via DSLR method?

[BigMackCam]

A question about negative vs slides: how do you correctly invert the colors if you digitize via DSLR method?

"Correctly" is the operative word, here.

Darktable has the "Negadoctor" module, RawTherapee has the "Film Negative" module. They work to some extent. For Lightroom, there's a commercial product called "Negative Lab Pro" which, IMHO, is fantastic and does the job properly. It's extremely popular for that reason.

Alternatively, you can simply invert the tone curve and set white balance off the unexposed border in whichever raw conversion software you're using, or convert the file to TIFF and do the same in an image editor like Photoshop or GIMP. However, that's where the "fun" starts (and I say "fun" in quotes because it's not much fun at all ). The colour of the film stock affects every colour and tone in the negative, and hence the positive when the tone curve is inverted. In the colour negatives I've tried to convert in this way, there's a noticeable green tint to positives, and simply reducing saturation of green in the positive (or magenta / red in the negative) doesn't work effectively. I've had best results in GIMP, by boosting the red channel curve in the positive image, and can get something that's vaguely starting to look right, but it's far from the result Negative Lab Pro is capable of. Negative Lab Pro uses camera-specific dcp profiles, and actively removes the orange/brown colour of the film stock...

[kypfer]

For the software, Vuescan from Hamrick is designed for the job of digitising film scans and works very well … I've used it for over 20 years … it's rather more expensive today than when I first bought it, but the updates are still free!
I can't make any recommendation for current hardware 'cos I'm still using my old SCSI connected Canonscan FS4000US (4,000 dpi), if only because Vuescan supports it, even under W10!
Good luck

[LesDMess]

I bought the ION years ago (2007) and was a good entry level system at the time
Not worth the time or money today though

I'd be curious to see results from it compared to what you're using now as it applies to color negatives . . .

---------- Post added 10-23-21 at 11:49 AM ----------

Asahi Pentax bellows with negative holder... 1960s technology .. LoL

[Cerebum]

I'd be curious to see results from it compared to what you're using now as it applies to color negatives . . .

---------- Post added 10-23-21 at 11:49 AM ----------

I want one of these

[Dartmoor Dave]

I want one of these

I want one too. We probably all do. But here's the thing. . .

It's just about the most useless contraption for DSLR scanning that you could possibly get your hands on. It's intended for use with non-macro lenses, which means that field curvature is likely to be an issue and soft corners will be a problem. And if you have got a proper macro lens that's capable of 1:1 reproduction, you might as well just chuck away the whole bellows part of the rig, mount the macro straight onto your camera, and just use the film holder to position your negatives in front of the lens. In which case, the sort of screw-on attachment mentioned earlier in this thread is a much simpler and cheaper solution.

I think there's a syndrome that reappears again and again on this forum. People want to own fancy, cool looking gear. They want to feel that they need to own that cool gear; to believe that only the cool gear will suffice -- if only to justfy the cost of it. So they end up throwing wildly over-complicated solutions at what are really very simple problems. Then we end up with multi-page threads full of erudite sounding justifications of why only the expensive cool gear will do the job properly, even though it's a hassle to use and there's no visible difference in the end results.

Looks like this has been my traditional Sunday morning grumpy post. Sorry about that.

[kypfer]

I think there's a syndrome that reappears again and again on this forum. People want to own fancy, cool looking gear. They want to feel that they need to own that cool gear; to believe that only the cool gear will suffice -- if only to justfy the cost of it. So they end up throwing wildly over-complicated solutions at what are really very simple problems. Then we end up with multi-page threads full of erudite sounding justifications of why only the expensive cool gear will do the job properly, even though it's a hassle to use and there's no visible difference in the end results.
Looks like this has been my traditional Sunday morning grumpy post. Sorry about that.

I've been wanting to write something like this for some while, but never quite got the words right … thanks!


Hope your day gets better

[Dartmoor Dave]

I've been wanting to write something like this for some while, but never quite got the words right … thanks!


Hope your day gets better

Thanks. It felt good to get it off my chest.


On a lighter note, I said I would post some DSLR scans done with the rig made out of the cannibalised Ion cheapo, so here they are. They are scans of Kodachromes rather than negatives, but hopefully they get the idea across.

[BigMackCam]

On a lighter note, I said I would post some DSLR scans done with the rig made out of the cannibalised Ion cheapo, so here they are. They are scans of Kodachromes rather than negatives, but hopefully they get the idea across.

Those are better than I expected, David! There's some noise apparent in the first image, but nothing too obtrusive. At this size of reproduction, those scans are perfectly decent. I'm impressed

[Dartmoor Dave]

Those are better than I expected, David! There's some noise apparent in the first image, but nothing too obtrusive. At this size of reproduction, those scans are perfectly decent. I'm impressed

Thanks Mike. Just to be clear, those were done with a 6MP K100D attached to the guts of the Ion, not with the really hopeless lens and sensor built into the Ion itself. I might have some samples done with the Ion's own electronics somewhere, although it's probable that I didn't keep any.

Edit: the reduction to web size has made them look grainier than they are at full resolution -- seems to be a recurring problem with slide scans. My guess is that the downsampling algorithm mistakes the film grain for fine detail and tries to preserve and "enhance" it.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks Mike. Just to be clear, those were done with a 6MP K100D attached to the guts of the Ion, not with the really hopeless lens and sensor built into the Ion itself. I might have some samples done with the Ion's own electronics somewhere, although it's probable that I didn't keep any.

Edit: the reduction to web size has made them look grainier than they are at full resolution -- seems to be a recurring problem with slide scans. My guess is that the downsampling algorithm mistakes the film grain for fine detail and tries to preserve and "enhance" it.

Ah, of course... my bad! That explains it

[Cerebum]

[

I want one too. We probably all do. But here's the thing...

It's just about the most useless contraption for DSLR scanning that you could possibly get your hands on. It's intended for use with non-macro lenses, which means that field curvature is likely to be an issue and soft corners will be a problem. And if you have got a proper macro lens that's capable of 1:1 reproduction, you might as well just chuck away the whole bellows part of the rig, mount the macro straight onto your camera, and just use the film holder to position your negatives in front of the lens. In which case, the sort of screw-on attachment mentioned earlier in this thread is a much simpler and cheaper solution.

I think there's a syndrome that reappears again and again on this forum. People want to own fancy, cool looking gear. They want to feel that they need to own that cool gear; to believe that only the cool gear will suffice -- if only to justfy the cost of it. So they end up throwing wildly over-complicated solutions at what are really very simple problems. Then we end up with multi-page threads full of erudite sounding justifications of why only the expensive cool gear will do the job properly, even though it's a hassle to use and there's no visible difference in the end results.

Looks like this has been my traditional Sunday morning grumpy post. Sorry about that.

I just want it because it is a Heath Robinson original I am just surprised they didn't manage to fit a steam boiler into it somewhere down the line cool is for people with big budgets! My budget ran out paying for the ink to write "budget"

[LesDMess]

I want one too. We probably all do. But here's the thing. . .

It's just about the most useless contraption for DSLR scanning that you could possibly get your hands on. It's intended for use with non-macro lenses, which means that field curvature is likely to be an issue and soft corners will be a problem. And if you have got a proper macro lens that's capable of 1:1 reproduction, you might as well just chuck away the whole bellows part of the rig, mount the macro straight onto your camera, and just use the film holder to position your negatives in front of the lens. In which case, the sort of screw-on attachment mentioned earlier in this thread is a much simpler and cheaper solution.

I think there's a syndrome that reappears again and again on this forum. People want to own fancy, cool looking gear. They want to feel that they need to own that cool gear; to believe that only the cool gear will suffice -- if only to justfy the cost of it. So they end up throwing wildly over-complicated solutions at what are really very simple problems. Then we end up with multi-page threads full of erudite sounding justifications of why only the expensive cool gear will do the job properly, even though it's a hassle to use and there's no visible difference in the end results.

Looks like this has been my traditional Sunday morning grumpy post. Sorry about that.

Keep in mind there are lens reversers you can use with non macro lenses which offer even better flatness. A couple of these offer reversal of the front piece that holds the lens as well as some movement so that you can even apply DOF adjustments on the film post shot.



These also come with whole roll film holders, slide holders, masking and are really optimized for full frame DSLR scanning. In the used market it is entirely possible to acquire them super cheap . . . even free from those who feel they no longer need them . . .

But of course they're not only made for film scanning . . .



---------- Post added 10-24-21 at 08:55 AM ----------

I just want it because it is a Heath Robinson original I am just surprised they didn't manage to fit a steam boiler into it somewhere down the line cool is for people with big budgets! My budget ran out paying for the ink to write "budget"

Too bad you're across the pond as I just unearthed my first film scanner I bought - Canoscan FS2720. I'll have to fire it up and see if it still works. Might make for a good giveaway . . .

[Dartmoor Dave]

Keep in mind there are lens reversers you can use with non macro lenses which offer even better flatness. A couple of these offer reversal of the front piece that holds the lens as well as some movement so that you can even apply DOF adjustments on the film post shot.

Now that's the most utterly lascivious bit of gear porn I've seen in a long, long while. Love it!

Edit: Just to add. . .

A couple of these offer reversal of the front piece that holds the lens as well as some movement so that you can even apply DOF adjustments on the film post shot.

You can't correct depth of field at the film "scanning" stage. If it's out of focus on the negative or slide then it's going to be out of focus on the scan. That's a beautiful collection of gear, but for the practical job of DSLR scanning of film originals there are much simpler and cheaper options available that will do the job just as well.