Recommended Light Box for Scanning by Camera

[Gesture]

Need guidance. Evenness of illumination. Cost. Etc.

Are some of the older ones that use "light bulbs" worth pursuing?

I'm seeing chap LED units that have some kind of grey dox matrix sandwiched in there?

Thanks.

 

[Overrank]

Need guidance. Evenness of illumination. Cost. Etc.

Are some of the older ones that use "light bulbs" worth pursuing?

I'm seeing chap LED units that have some kind of grey dox matrix sandwiched in there?

Thanks.

I bought one from Amazon called “ LED Video Light, RALENO Dimmable Bi-color 3200-5600k Panel Light, Built-in 5000mA Li-ion Battery,CRI95+”. Light is even (don’t need a diffuser with a Nikon ES-2), battery lasts a long time, it wouldn’t be big enough for 5 x 4 but I only really want to scan 35mm and subminiature formats. Plus you can use it as a fill in for Zoom calls !

The main issue is that you can’t have it on while it’s charging (so you cant run it off a charger for example). I’m sure the Solux bulb solutions are better, but at a much greater cost

 

[DrBormental]

This thread has a lot of information and suggestions in it:

Suggested backlight sources for scanning film with DSLR

New recommendation: If you can use an MR16 bulb, SORAA “Vivid Light” MR16 bulbs seem excellent, comes in 3K and 4K, but these two may not be that different. With my usual testbox, SORAA bulb, and NLP 1.31, I think I have the best auto conversion yet. Previous winner for illumination was the...

forums.negativelabpro.com

I have the Kaiser. Cannot compare it anything else, as I am only using it for B&W.

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm seeing chap LED units that have some kind of grey dox matrix sandwiched in there?

Maybe you're talking about the type I recently bought from eBay.

I bought the A4 version for viewing slides and negatives visually, and was unpleasantly surprised to discover that it does have a dot matrix structure. I had to deal with that by cutting a piece of white plexiglass of the same size to lay on top, and now it works great. For camera digitizing, any diffusing material will take care of that automatically.

The specs say it has a color temperature of 10000-12000K and a CRI of >80/90. My camera's custom white balance setting says the color temperature is 8200K. Whatever - with the custom WB set, the results look almost as accurate as what I can get using sunlight reflected off a white card.

There are A5 versions of the same product that cost less and provide enough area for any film format up to 4x5.

 

[Tomm111]

I use an old slide duplicator, for 35mm it is self contained unit with an excellent lens. It uses a 3200 K slide projector bulb. My Leica and Nikon list it as 3150 K. I like the constant color temp that can be set in the camera.

 

[Gesture]

Worked with one of those back in the day. Great alignment.

 

[Bags27]

This guy's, Andrew Clifford, is the smartest guy I know about these things.

https://clifforth.co.uk/howto/

but from what I can see, more important than the light source is the quality of the diffuser (and this guy's diffuser is absolutely tops).

 

[Overrank]

Need guidance. Evenness of illumination. Cost. Etc.

Are some of the older ones that use "light bulbs" worth pursuing?

I'm seeing chap LED units that have some kind of grey dox matrix sandwiched in there?

Thanks.

You may already have seen this but Negative Lab Pro has a page in their forum about this topic with recommendations. https://forums.negativelabpro.com/t/suggested-backlight-sources-for-scanning-film-with-dslr/130

 

[Gesture]

Thanks, everyone.

 

[just Tony]

Need guidance. Evenness of illumination. Cost. Etc.

Are some of the older ones that use "light bulbs" worth pursuing?

If it's what you already have then go for it and be sure to use custom white balancing. But think twice about buying into it. You would need to keep to a routine of allowing incandescent lamps to thermally stabilize. And they age at a rate you'd prefer to not think about, but probably should.

I'm seeing chap LED units that have some kind of grey dox matrix sandwiched in there?

I'm seeing impressive results in the Kaiser Slimlite Plano which I picked up after reading this thread. B&H didn't waste any time with the free shipping, also nice.

Here's my initial test shot of a 6x7 Kodachrome. The camera is supported in a jury rig which didn't achieve perfect parallelism, so the right side is soft. Some work is still in progress there.

I laid the Lomo digitaLIZA frame directly onto the light panel which would be a sure way to reveal any dot pattern - there's not going to be any in this case because the panel is edge-lit. The sky gradient is true to the slide, in which the sun was just outside the right hand side of the frame.


Los Altos / Pentax 6x7 55mm f/4 / Nikon Z 7 60mm Micro f/2.8 G

Just so I can be "110% sure" about the evenness I'm going to add a diffusion sheet plus some standoff distance. Diffusion requires both scattering angle and distance in order to achieve the mixing.

The panel is sized nicely for selecting which frames to digitize. It has an internal rechargeable battery but I'll be running it from USB.

--
Wag more; bark less.

 

[2ndact scene1]

This guy's, Andrew Clifford, is the smartest guy I know about these things.

https://clifforth.co.uk/howto/

but from what I can see, more important than the light source is the quality of the diffuser (and this guy's diffuser is absolutely tops).

Thanks for the link. It is exactly what I have been looking for. I checked out the website and it looked well thought out and well made. So I googled Essential Film Holder to find a third party opinion and I found a detailed YouTube video review from a credible sounding guy in Australia. Everything looked good, so I went back and ordered one. Elapsed time less than 30 minutes!

Unexpected bonus was the Australian reviewer just upgraded his light source to a Viltrox LED that looks to be the same model I bought a few weeks ago. So good to know the LED and the Essential Film Holder will work well together.

 

[just Tony]

I googled Essential Film Holder to find a third party opinion and I found a detailed YouTube video review from a credible sounding guy in Australia. Everything looked good, so I went back and ordered one. Elapsed time less than 30 minutes!

Some of my 35mm color negs have a heavy curl that completely stump the 35mm version of the digitaLIZA. In many cases there's no contact at all with one of the edges and the strip flops out. I understand that there are some people who like to reveal the sprocket holes but I'm not one of them. This hanging on by fingernails isn't for me. There's so much lost opportunity here for achieving a good grip - this design looks more like an optional variant, not a sole one.

I'm looking forward to hearing anyone's experiences with the Essential holder regarding nightmare strips like this one.

I want something that reveals more than a 36mm width when I convert my Widelux frames. Maybe I'll resort to the ES-2's 24x36 apertured holder and then stitch panos (which would entail clamping on image areas).

[ATTACH alt="A "lucky" loading, i.e., both edges are still in contact"]2675362[/ATTACH]
A "lucky" loading, i.e., both edges are still in contact

--
Wag more; bark less.

 

[mamallama]

I googled Essential Film Holder to find a third party opinion and I found a detailed YouTube video review from a credible sounding guy in Australia. Everything looked good, so I went back and ordered one. Elapsed time less than 30 minutes!

Some of my 35mm color negs have a heavy curl that completely stump the 35mm version of the digitaLIZA. In many cases there's no contact at all with one of the edges and the strip flops out. I understand that there are some people who like to reveal the sprocket holes but I'm not one of them. This hanging on by fingernails isn't for me. There's so much lost opportunity here for achieving a good grip - this design looks more like an optional variant, not a sole one.

I'm looking forward to hearing anyone's experiences with the Essential holder regarding nightmare strips like this one.

I want something that reveals more than a 36mm width when I convert my Widelux frames. Maybe I'll resort to the ES-2's 24x36 apertured holder and then stitch panos (which would entail clamping on image areas).

[ATTACH alt="A "lucky" loading, i.e., both edges are still in contact"]2675362[/ATTACH]
A "lucky" loading, i.e., both edges are still in contact

Instead of clamping the frame or using anti Newton glass to sandwich the negative I think it would be simpler to flatten the negative. The negative is curled because the emulsion is extremely dehydrated and the emulsion shrinkage is causing the curl.

Compressing the negative between the pages of a heavy book can help but usually not much.

A better solution is to rewash the negative and rinse in a photo detergent solution like Kodak Photo Flo 200 using calcium free water. That will cause the water to run off in sheets and not leave water marks.Hang it up to dry in a dust free environment and when it is just dry to the touch press it between the pages of a heavy book for a couple of days.

I believe your negative will be much flatter and easy to work with.

 

[just Tony]

Instead of clamping the frame or using anti Newton glass to sandwich the negative I think it would be simpler to flatten the negative. The negative is curled because the emulsion is extremely dehydrated and the emulsion shrinkage is causing the curl.

Compressing the negative between the pages of a heavy book can help but usually not much.

Tried that, got nothing. No surprise there since the state of tension in the gelatin had nothing to make it relax.

A better solution is to rewash the negative and rinse in a photo detergent solution like Kodak Photo Flo 200 using calcium free water. That will cause the water to run off in sheets and not leave water marks.Hang it up to dry in a dust free environment and when it is just dry to the touch press it between the pages of a heavy book for a couple of days.

I used to have these specialty print drying books back in the day. They're still around. Have you tried them on film?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43039-REG/Doran_bb912_Blotter_Book_9_x.htmlhttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/86326-REG/Delta_Archival_Photo_Drying_Book.html

I believe your negative will be much flatter and easy to work with.

 

[mamallama]

Instead of clamping the frame or using anti Newton glass to sandwich the negative I think it would be simpler to flatten the negative. The negative is curled because the emulsion is extremely dehydrated and the emulsion shrinkage is causing the curl.

Compressing the negative between the pages of a heavy book can help but usually not much.

Tried that, got nothing. No surprise there since the state of tension in the gelatin had nothing to make it relax.

A better solution is to rewash the negative and rinse in a photo detergent solution like Kodak Photo Flo 200 using calcium free water. That will cause the water to run off in sheets and not leave water marks.Hang it up to dry in a dust free environment and when it is just dry to the touch press it between the pages of a heavy book for a couple of days.

I used to have these specialty print drying books back in the day. They're still around. Have you tried them on film?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43039-REG/Doran_bb912_Blotter_Book_9_x.htmlhttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/86326-REG/Delta_Archival_Photo_Drying_Book.html

I believe your negative will be much flatter and easy to work with.

No. Those blotter books are for matt and RC (Resin Coated) prints, not negatives. I have rewashed and dried negatives as I described to get the curl out. It really is a simple process. Just be sure to only use calcium free (soften) water to avoid water spots. If you don't have Kodak Photo Flo 200 or equivalent photo you can use a diluted solution of that kid bubble stuff (it basically the same thing - detergent and glycerin). If you are queasy about using a valuable negative, try it on a junk one first to test.

 

[just Tony]

R.O. purified water and junk negatives are available in sufficient quantity so that’s taken care of. Maybe a book I wouldn’t miss too. Photo Flo is on order. Funny how you can only get it in 16 oz bottles even though 4 oz bottles lasted for years. No worries it's cheap.

This is outside of the job description of run of the mill printed books which were never designed for either prints or negatives. I'm curious, what would you say is the downside of print blotter books which are intended for contact with image-bearing gelatin, such that ink and traces of acid would be the more attractive option?

--
Wag more; bark less.

 

[Gesture]

Edwal LFN.

 

[mamallama]

R.O. purified water and junk negatives are available in sufficient quantity so that’s taken care of. Maybe a book I wouldn’t miss too. Photo Flo is on order. Funny how you can only get it in 16 oz bottles even though 4 oz bottles lasted for years. No worries it's cheap.

This is outside of the job description of run of the mill printed books which were never designed for either prints or negatives. I'm curious, what would you say is the downside of print blotter books which are intended for contact with image-bearing gelatin, such that ink and traces of acid would be the more attractive option?

I avoid contacting a wet negative emulsion with anything. Wet emulsion is soft and highly susceptible to scratches. I don't even touch a wet negative with those wet sponges intended to wipe negative, not even on the non emulsion side.

After a final wash in Photo Flo (or equivalent) there should be no need to wipe (or blot). You should see the liquid run off in sheets and not leave drops. Any drop that dries can leave a ring if the Photo Flo dilution water contained calcium.

 

[DrBormental]

Tony, a word of advice: careful with this Kaiser. The surface material is extremely soft, you'll soon start seeing scratches left by Lomography DigitaLIZA.

I bought a large mouse pad at Best Buy and cut a hole in it to accommodate the negative width, so the negative mask never touches the surface.

 

[mamallama]

Tony, a word of advice: careful with this Kaiser. The surface material is extremely soft, you'll soon start seeing scratches left by Lomography DigitaLIZA.

I bought a large mouse pad at Best Buy and cut a hole in it to accommodate the negative width, so the negative mask never touches the surface.

I don't know the exact situation but wouldn't a clear acetate sheet covering be a simpler way to protect the soft surface?