really appreciate your perspective; it's so easy sometimes to go down rabbit holes for certain things when 99% of the marginal benefit might be reached by several different options so I certainly appreciate the quick side by side and I'll stick to what I've got already! also given the nature of color negative film and the tools available in NLP one can really make anything they want out of the colors so if you're already 99% of the way to a 100% neutral starting point that likely means the lighting piece ought to fall somewhat on the list of priority for building out a scanning set up.
Great video comparison as always and definitely making me rethink my DSLR scanning lighting. The offhand comment near the end about flipping your DeVere diffuser upside-down intrigues me, but why not just flip the camera mount on your copy stand so the lens points straight up and put it under the enlarger with the enlarger lens removed? It could be really good for your printing workflow to have a method for digital proofing of negatives before doing any printing that still uses most of the same setup. If there are any issues with the shot or the neg itself, you catch them before you've wasted any RA4 paper and chems on it, and if it all looks good you can just crack on with printing immediately as it's already set up in the enlarger.
As always, great content, now I'm looking forward to the next batch of film reviews. This is a bit off topic...but its regarding the Ferrania P30 film review you did a while back. Ferrania P30 is a film I shoot regularly, It has to be in my top 3 B&W film stocks of all time. Ferrania P30 is best developed at home, after much testing I got the best results using Kodak D-96, and like you I found that the Ferrania P30 was best shot lower, at between ISO 45-60, with more sun I shoot at 60, cloudy or part sun at 45, second note I'd add, is to avoid shooting directly into the sun where your subjects are back-lit, unless you're using good ND filters. Ferrania P30 is a film with super-high silver content on a clear base with ultra-small/fine film grain, I believe its cubic not tabular, so when shot correctly there is almost no visible grain. The film is high contrast, and has high resolution capabilities, and very limited latitude (+/- 1/3 stop up or down if your ISO is between 45-60) so if your not spot on with your metering the mid-tones will get lost on you. Like you, I haven't been able to verify anywhere but I believe the film might not be Orthochromatic as you stated, but perhaps this film is leaning more towards being a Panchromatic X, which means it would have an extended binder in the emulsion to enhance the sensitivity in red, blue, and green spectrum - but I do agree with you that it is more sensitive to the red spectrum of light of the 3 colours, even though the website and packaging state its a Panchromatic film, it might be a Panchromatic film as stated, but it really has a red sensitivity, does that make it Orthochromatic... probably not, because I believe it would be even more sensitive to the blue spectrum if it was an Orthochromatic film. So I'm starting to lean towards a Panchromatic X variant of some kind. Using your own chart, its curve is showing classic characteristics of being a Panchromatic X. Of course this is all conjecture at this point, without confirmation one way or the other through Ferrania. Lastly through in my own testing, I've found that any older type glass (lenses) that have Thorium (that heavy yellowish tint) like the older Canon, Pentax, and Olympus lenses have an easier time with bringing out much better mid tones in this film, with superb results.
Nice video. Am I the only one who just uses my enlarger as film holder and backligh source? It works a treat - just remove the lens and use a long-ish macro lens and you're golden!
The statistician in me would have liked for you to shoot half a dozen images using constant conditions to see if there was any variability. Would also have been interesting to see color histograms.
This is a great video! I’ve always wondered how the different light sources would stack up. I personally use flash in my setup, but clearly there are totally usable alternatives.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Yeah, for sure. I like having the flash because it lets me dial up the shutter speed and close down the aperture for more DoF to account for any film flatness issues. I use Negative Supply carriers so new film is already generally pretty flat, but some older films have a lot of curl and still aren't completely flat, even in the NS carrier, so being able to dial down to f/8-f/11 really helps.
Thank you for that comparison. I fitted an old normlight lightbox with high cri LEDs and use a blue 80a compensation filter for compensating the orange mask of the negatives. That RAWS do not have to be so much tortured at white balance than and I have more leeway for corrections...
Interesting idea. But, if the channels are not down in the weeds, or blown out, does it really matter what the initial color balance looks like? From a workflow perspective, I guess it would be slightly easier, but that depends on the package you're using for inverting.
For my needs the lightpad works the best for my workflow. I've been using the pad for a couple of years and it hasn't let me down. though I mostly shoot and scan black n white film.
Shouldnt you manually select the white balance on a film border for each scan instead of letting the software do all the job ? Looks like most of the differences were more or less warm colors, which could be explained by the software not choosing the perfect white balance value for each scans. Same for the halogen, it look more washed out than the other because the black point seems to be a bit high, by lowering the black slider you could probably get a totally fine image.
Thanks for suggesting setting the white balance on the film border. That's the first time I've seen someone mention it. I'm just getting into scanning. I'm not willing to spend big bucks either. I did purchase an EF50 macro lens though to correct corner sharpness. I found I can use my photo software which is a 10 year old Corel Paintshop Pro which has a negative conversion tab and select smart photo fix and the white balance and use the film border to do that. Only have to set contrast after that. No more software to buy etc. I'm currently using my Epson 2450 scanner lid as the light source but it's a hassle and maybe not the correct color spectrum (maybe I need to take a pic of light and analyze it). Taking pics of negatives is so much sharper than the Epson scan.
You do know that the Kaiser has a brightness control? ;) Just keep the power button pressed to dim/brighten. I've also found that it's a tad brighter when powered from a wall wart vs. its internal battery. My shutter speed with the Kaiser is usually about 1/10s (ISO 200 and f/8).
@@TheNakedPhotographer Interesting. Either there's considerable sample variation with those Kaisers (mine is a smaller model though) or the rest of your setup is "two stops slower" than mine.
Another fine production sir! I have been using that Raleno with a 3d printed holder which fits the valoi and it`s been great. Granted i have to shoot at ISO 200 to increase the speed a little more but it does the job well. Good to see the comparisons, i have always wondered and now i know :)
Hi, Valoi actually does not recommend using there diffuser when using the Cinestill CS-Lite and this perhaps also goes for the Raleno you use? Have you tried using the Raleno without diffuser?
Problems with all of this lightning - color separation and control, for best result you need deep Red, Green and royal Blue LED, otherwise all the results more or leas the same. At the point where you can adjust power for each channel you will get “all data” in on the sensor and separation on the channels, even better - black and white sensor which can pickup up to infrared.
Hello from the UK. I recently watched this video and am in the process of trying to configure a stand for film scanning without taking out a 2nd mortgage. This solution with the Durst 301 seems really good. Is it stable enough and is the column tall enough for taking a 105 macro lens for medium format? would appreciate your comments - keep the great videos coming.
It should be fine. With my 50mm and MF film I am only a few inches above the negatives. I still have plenty of extension available before I would even need to raise the column with the secondary knob.
It will be very nice if you make something that explains the flash setup you used. I think it's the best results from all the others. Very cool video, thank.
really appreciate your perspective; it's so easy sometimes to go down rabbit holes for certain things when 99% of the marginal benefit might be reached by several different options so I certainly appreciate the quick side by side and I'll stick to what I've got already! also given the nature of color negative film and the tools available in NLP one can really make anything they want out of the colors so if you're already 99% of the way to a 100% neutral starting point that likely means the lighting piece ought to fall somewhat on the list of priority for building out a scanning set up.
Great to see that the results were so close!
Great video comparison as always and definitely making me rethink my DSLR scanning lighting. The offhand comment near the end about flipping your DeVere diffuser upside-down intrigues me, but why not just flip the camera mount on your copy stand so the lens points straight up and put it under the enlarger with the enlarger lens removed? It could be really good for your printing workflow to have a method for digital proofing of negatives before doing any printing that still uses most of the same setup. If there are any issues with the shot or the neg itself, you catch them before you've wasted any RA4 paper and chems on it, and if it all looks good you can just crack on with printing immediately as it's already set up in the enlarger.
As always, great content, now I'm looking forward to the next batch of film reviews. This is a bit off topic...but its regarding the Ferrania P30 film review you did a while back. Ferrania P30 is a film I shoot regularly, It has to be in my top 3 B&W film stocks of all time. Ferrania P30 is best developed at home, after much testing I got the best results using Kodak D-96, and like you I found that the Ferrania P30 was best shot lower, at between ISO 45-60, with more sun I shoot at 60, cloudy or part sun at 45, second note I'd add, is to avoid shooting directly into the sun where your subjects are back-lit, unless you're using good ND filters. Ferrania P30 is a film with super-high silver content on a clear base with ultra-small/fine film grain, I believe its cubic not tabular, so when shot correctly there is almost no visible grain. The film is high contrast, and has high resolution capabilities, and very limited latitude (+/- 1/3 stop up or down if your ISO is between 45-60) so if your not spot on with your metering the mid-tones will get lost on you. Like you, I haven't been able to verify anywhere but I believe the film might not be Orthochromatic as you stated, but perhaps this film is leaning more towards being a Panchromatic X, which means it would have an extended binder in the emulsion to enhance the sensitivity in red, blue, and green spectrum - but I do agree with you that it is more sensitive to the red spectrum of light of the 3 colours, even though the website and packaging state its a Panchromatic film, it might be a Panchromatic film as stated, but it really has a red sensitivity, does that make it Orthochromatic... probably not, because I believe it would be even more sensitive to the blue spectrum if it was an Orthochromatic film. So I'm starting to lean towards a Panchromatic X variant of some kind. Using your own chart, its curve is showing classic characteristics of being a Panchromatic X. Of course this is all conjecture at this point, without confirmation one way or the other through Ferrania. Lastly through in my own testing, I've found that any older type glass (lenses) that have Thorium (that heavy yellowish tint) like the older Canon, Pentax, and Olympus lenses have an easier time with bringing out much better mid tones in this film, with superb results.
Thanks! I'm going with the flash, just need to create a fast way to set it up
Nice video. Am I the only one who just uses my enlarger as film holder and backligh source? It works a treat - just remove the lens and use a long-ish macro lens and you're golden!
The statistician in me would have liked for you to shoot half a dozen images using constant conditions to see if there was any variability. Would also have been interesting to see color histograms.
Thanks Very good video! I like the flash setup, what WB did you adjusted in the camera for it
This is a great video! I’ve always wondered how the different light sources would stack up. I personally use flash in my setup, but clearly there are totally usable alternatives.
The flash did really well. Not surprised since that used to be a common method, but it’s still nice to see
@@TheNakedPhotographer Yeah, for sure. I like having the flash because it lets me dial up the shutter speed and close down the aperture for more DoF to account for any film flatness issues. I use Negative Supply carriers so new film is already generally pretty flat, but some older films have a lot of curl and still aren't completely flat, even in the NS carrier, so being able to dial down to f/8-f/11 really helps.
Great ideas. Would like to try the flash option. I use a film advancer that has a LED backlight.
Thank you for that comparison. I fitted an old normlight lightbox with high cri LEDs and use a blue 80a compensation filter for compensating the orange mask of the negatives. That RAWS do not have to be so much tortured at white balance than and I have more leeway for corrections...
Interesting idea. But, if the channels are not down in the weeds, or blown out, does it really matter what the initial color balance looks like? From a workflow perspective, I guess it would be slightly easier, but that depends on the package you're using for inverting.
@@pulpufictione I use NLP and Negmaster for converting and had less banding in gradients like skys with that filter.
For my needs the lightpad works the best for my workflow. I've been using the pad for a couple of years and it hasn't let me down. though I mostly shoot and scan black n white film.
B&W just needs even light. Color temperature doesn’t matter at all. Use what works
Imho, it's better to compare results of some slide photos. Results look almost the same because of NLP algorythms.
What is in front of your lighting box? A milky sheet difuser?
Shouldnt you manually select the white balance on a film border for each scan instead of letting the software do all the job ? Looks like most of the differences were more or less warm colors, which could be explained by the software not choosing the perfect white balance value for each scans.
Same for the halogen, it look more washed out than the other because the black point seems to be a bit high, by lowering the black slider you could probably get a totally fine image.
The white balance selection is required, what I didn’t change was any type of preset, curves, contrast, etc
@@TheNakedPhotographer I didn't knew that, thanks :)
Thanks for suggesting setting the white balance on the film border. That's the first time I've seen someone mention it. I'm just getting into scanning. I'm not willing to spend big bucks either. I did purchase an EF50 macro lens though to correct corner sharpness. I found I can use my photo software which is a 10 year old Corel Paintshop Pro which has a negative conversion tab and select smart photo fix and the white balance and use the film border to do that. Only have to set contrast after that. No more software to buy etc. I'm currently using my Epson 2450 scanner lid as the light source but it's a hassle and maybe not the correct color spectrum (maybe I need to take a pic of light and analyze it). Taking pics of negatives is so much sharper than the Epson scan.
You do know that the Kaiser has a brightness control? ;) Just keep the power button pressed to dim/brighten. I've also found that it's a tad brighter when powered from a wall wart vs. its internal battery. My shutter speed with the Kaiser is usually about 1/10s (ISO 200 and f/8).
I used it at max brightness and plugged in
@@TheNakedPhotographer Interesting. Either there's considerable sample variation with those Kaisers (mine is a smaller model though) or the rest of your setup is "two stops slower" than mine.
I really like the CineStill Cs-lite light source. It's really cheap and 95+ CRI is what they claim.
Another fine production sir! I have been using that Raleno with a 3d printed holder which fits the valoi and it`s been great. Granted i have to shoot at ISO 200 to increase the speed a little more but it does the job well. Good to see the comparisons, i have always wondered and now i know :)
Hi,
Valoi actually does not recommend using there diffuser when using the Cinestill CS-Lite and this perhaps also goes for the Raleno you use? Have you tried using the Raleno without diffuser?
No. As far as I’m concerned, more diffusion gives more even lighting. The Raleno light is bright enough to handle it.
Looking at them on youtube the best to me looked like the flash, i though it did wonderful over all.
Problems with all of this lightning - color separation and control, for best result you need deep Red, Green and royal Blue LED, otherwise all the results more or leas the same. At the point where you can adjust power for each channel you will get “all data” in on the sensor and separation on the channels, even better - black and white sensor which can pickup up to infrared.
If you’re going to do all that just buy a film scanner
EXCELLENT VIDEO !
Hello from the UK. I recently watched this video and am in the process of trying to configure a stand for film scanning without taking out a 2nd mortgage. This solution with the Durst 301 seems really good. Is it stable enough and is the column tall enough for taking a 105 macro lens for medium format? would appreciate your comments - keep the great videos coming.
It should be fine. With my 50mm and MF film I am only a few inches above the negatives. I still have plenty of extension available before I would even need to raise the column with the secondary knob.
It would be better to compare the lights not with negatives but with reversals.
It will be very nice if you make something that explains the flash setup you used.
I think it's the best results from all the others.
Very cool video, thank.
I pointed the flash into the enlarger diffusor just like the halogen bulbs
How did you focus and frame the negative using the Speedlite?
I mix the light from a flat panel and my Speedlite to handle the focusing and framing.
Thanks!
As a side note I use a Pixel G1s which has a CRI of 97 and a min / max of 2,500 to 8,500K with my dlsr scanning setup.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thank you for your support!