DSLR, Macro Lens, Bellows, Film Holder
I've gone through a couple iterations of camera-based film reprophotography. The first involved setting the camera parallel to a light table with the film in a negative carrier. While that is preferable in terms of absolute quality — the negative carrier holds the film flatter — it is slower than the bellows and film holder approach.
Equipment
DSLR (D800 or similar high-resolution camera)
Macro Lens (55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor or similar lens)
Bellows (Nikon PB-6 and rail)
Film Holder (Nikon PS-6 Slide Copying Adapter)
Light Source (small LED light table, strobe, clear sky)
Aside from the camera, the closeup equipment is fairly inexpensive. There are many 55 and 60mm macro lenses, and several generations of Nikon's bellows floating around. The film holder I use can take mounted slides or strips of film.
The disadvantage, as I've mentioned, is that the film strips aren't as flat as I'd like in the film holder, especially frames at the end of the strip. In the middle is less of a problem. A solid negative carrier from an enlarger does a better job, but alignment is trickier. Good for single frames, but nothing bulk. With this bellows system, a dedicated archivist can run a roll in several minutes. Take care to dust off your negatives!
The Nikon bellows system I use is made for 135 format film. Larger formats are a job for the negative carrier on a light table.
The PS-6 has a cool feature: It can be moved on the X and Y axes, allowing for reproduction of portions of a frame at higher magnification.
No matter what method you use, make sure you stop the lens down and focus carefully.
Film Scanners
Hamrick's Vuescan is invaluable when it comes to scanning film. Vuescan can output scan data to a TIFF, which can be reprocessed by Vuescan itself to create tonally adjusted files, or sent to a separate image processing application.
I've been getting superb results scanning black-and-white film with the discontinued Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV. Most recently, I ran a roll of FP4 Plus through and was pleased with the tonality, grain and sharpness of the results.
My results with the Plustek 7600i have been less positive. The 7600i does not produce the same critical sharpness as the Minolta IV. Further testing is necessary.
Film Scanning Workflow
Start with clean negatives and a clean environment. You'll go through a lot of canned air, so keep a fresh bottle on hand. Microfiber cloths are handy, particularly in areas where regular dusting is a part of life.
The Minolta IV's negative carrier can hold up to six negatives. Carefully load your negatives, give them a final blast of air and insert the carrier into the scanner.
Run a low-resolution preview in Vuescan, and check your settings before making the final scan. A few things to note: output to 16-bit grayscale, save raw file on scan. I need to test 16-bit RGB to see if it improves tonality over grayscale. Set color profile for output to ProPhotoRGB, set a monitor profile if you have one built.
I have not profiled the scanner itself at this time. Doubtless this would further improve tonality. I need to obtain a profiling target and get this set up.
Scan at the highest resolution the scanner has available. This is 3200 ppi for the Minolta IV, and it produces relatively clear, sharp results. Note that the Plustek 7600i has 7200 ppi available, though it produces less than 3600 ppi in reality. Scans from the 7600i can be downscaled to save space. I halve the physical size with nearest neighbor interpolation and save the result.
Output the scan as a raw file in DNG format (doubtless a straight TIFF will allow an equivalent workflow). Load the DNG into Lightroom, and open it without adjustment in Photoshop. Invert the colors, convert to grayscale if needed, and save the file as a TIFF, taking care to maintain 16-bit mode. I prefer zip compression to save a bit of disk space. Since I make most further adjustments in Lightroom, there is no speed penalty that I can detect with zip compression.
Underexposed film can be scanned with better color by setting the scanner to underexpose. This appears to produce aliasing, although further testing is necessary to determine the nature of this issue. Ten-inch prints from two such files do not reveal the artifact.
Apply tonal adjustments to the new TIFF in Lightroom as you would with any other photo.
Spotting is a time-consuming affair, and not worthwhile to run on every photo. The Minolta IV does not have an infrared channel, so Digital ICE and its equivalents are unavailable. Black-and-white film doesn't work with those tools anyway, so it's manual spotting all the way. Pick a subset of the roll; only your selects should be worth a spotting pass.
Load the TIFF into Photoshop without adjustments from Lightroom; you want to work on the unaltered file. Do all spotting work on a separate layer. I use the manual healing brush and the spot healing brush, depending on the type of blemish. Spots on broad tonal areas clean up nicely with the spot healing brush, while spots in complex areas are usually better suited to manual healing. The clone tool comes in handy as well, from time to time. To help spot blemishes, add a curve adjustment layer and invert the curve, or make an extreme inverse-S. When you use an adjustment layer as a visual aid, make sure your clone source only uses the "Current & Below" layers, not all layers. Save the final layered file (without the adjustment layer) and, optionally, use zip compression on the image and layer data to save a bit of space.
Back to Lightroom for further tonal adjustments, input sharpening and other work. With FP4+ developed in Arista, I find about 10 percent luminance noise reduction softens the grain without eliminating any detail. Indeed, the grain in well-exposed negatives is seldom troublesome in this case. Export the files as desired.
Rollei ATP/1.1
A high-resolution panchromatic technical film, similar to Kodak's Technical Pan. Developed in Diafine 4+4, my first roll came out nicely. I shot most of it through an R25 filter to darken the skies. Results overall are good; the film scans easily and the resulting files are clean, with subtle grain and good acutance. Recommended rating ISO 32; EI 80 produces excellent results in Diafine 4+4. Coming soon: results for EI 80 in Diafine 3+3.
Kodak HIE
An infrared film, discontinued in 2007. My roll was four years expired, but did produce images. Developed in Diafine 4+4, the negatives are low-contrast. I shot the roll through an R25 filter. This roll did not produce the same clean negatives as ATP/1.1, though one should not expect similar results. Scans with the Minolta IV are low-contrast and heavy with grain; attempts to increase contrast similarly accentuate the grain. I plan to make a few traditional prints as well to compare results. The lack of an anti-halation backing on this film is intriguing; the soft/sharp combination seen in others' photos can be pleasant.
Tri-X
A high-speed panchromatic general-purpose film. I am using the modern 400TX version. Recommended EI for Diafine 3+3 is 1600; this produced thin negatives. Scanning these underexposed frames is difficult and the results are rather grainy. Also noted large horizontal lines across clear areas of scanned frames; further testing necessary to determine if this is an artifact from the scan or inherent to the film. Better density at EI 800 in Diafine 3+3.
Rollei Ortho 25
EI 25 for Diafine 5+4, with a 1 minute presoak.
Rollei Infrared 400S
EI 200, Diafine 3+3
EI 400, Diafine 6+6 (EI 12—noted for deep red or opaque filters—check this)
EI 400, Diafine 3+3 (no filter—note minimal agitation—check this)
Fujifilm Neopan 400
EI 640 for Diafine 3+3
