Feb 8, 2023Liked by Lester Picker, RWB, Paper Arts Collective
Hi Les,
Absolutely agree re practice making better (not quite perfect!). Or perhaps "re-doing" rather than "practice" Here's my story:
I have been going back through a collection of Cibachrome prints I made several decades ago in a "wet" darkroom and reprints of some of the images made digitally between 15 and 4 years ago. Interestingly, in several cases I preferred the Cibas to the more recent ink jet versions. In any case I have selected about two dozen of my favorite prints for reprinting. Even looking at the not so old ink jet versions I see how to improve the prints. Or perhaps my concept of how the scene should look or how I want it to look has changed. The originals were mostly on Velvia 35 mm with a few old Kodachromes. The digital prints were made from scans on a Nikon coolscan with resolution of about 4000 dpi. For a few of my re-exams I concluded that either the resolution was not adequate and/or the scan did not capture the full contrast on the transparency. So for these I have been using a nikon slide holder to photograph the slides with a Z7 + macro lens and multiple stepped exposures (typically 0, +1, -1 f-stop, sometimes a greater range ) varying only the shutter speed on the Z7. The combination of HDR reimagine plus a resolution of about 8000 dpi on the Z7 usually results in marked improvements in the final image I use for printing.
For more details, the images were all made on NikonF2, F4, or F100 bodies with Nikon lenses. If anyone is interested i'd be happy to share further info on techniques I use. I can be contacted at
I have a Nikon 8000 ED that does a fine job on my medium format negatives. My problem is that it is just SO SLOW. I've done the same as you have done lately and just shot the negatives with my 5DsR and macro lens using an old film carrier and a flash setup shot through some opal glass. Works great but the setup and breakdown is time consuming so I am thinking of investing in gear from these guys: https://www.negative.supply
Pretty much a negative carrier and a copy stand.
You may want to check them out or alternatively you can buy a fantastic device that Nikon used to sell (and maybe they still do) that attaches to one of their versions of F mount macro lenses and allows you to do the same thing REALLY quickly via any decent light source you point the rig at. I'd use flash myself. Absolutely zero setup time.
Feb 8, 2023Liked by Lester Picker, RWB, Paper Arts Collective
Exactly. My slide copier is a Nikon ES-2 that has adaptors for both slide and strip 35 mm negs. The holder for slide/ strips screw into the filter threads of the micro lens with appropriate adaptors. Then I use an LED Promaster superslim light (desgned to go onto flash shoe of cameras) as light source. It’s balanced for daylight with a small table top tripod to hold it. Works great. Set up time is minimal. For 120 transparencies I use a small light table with VERY bright light daylight balanced and mount camera looking down on it. Any small deviations from exactly parallel setup can be fixed in post processing. Even though I use a level oon the camera body it still seems to be not quite parallel to film.
Personally I find hand holding the camera and using a soft box with a strobe head far easier and quicker as you can be far away and there's ZERO issue with parallels when it comes to the light source.
Too bad I cannot do anything similar with larger film which is why I am looking at the stuff I referenced above.
Hi Bruce. Thanks for writing. I'd be happy to respond, but I'm traveling right now and don't have all (actually ANY) of the details with me. If you will write to me via email (you can get that from my website: lesterpickerphoto.com) after March 7, I'd be happy to give you the information you'd need. Looking forward to helping.
You may have to wait for Les on specifics but I KNOW that the boxes we use personally and in our workshops are custom made to order and are very expensive.
Les looked at alternative sources and found a few companies that he was interested in taking a look at their products for lower end projects etc but we'll be continuing to use the custom made units for our current portfolio workshop and 80% of personal use.
Printing is good, but doesn't give enough quality to proper individual editing. Making quality prints for editing makes no sense. I used to do dummy books with paper prints, and now rarely do
I am not sure what you are saying here. I think Les (and me when I use the term editing) may mean a very different way than you are using it here? Would love to discuss but need some clarification
There is a lot of overload today on the term edit/editor. I think Les was using the term editor weighted heavily toward the much older use of the term of selection of images. Of course one could also use the the term edit/editor weighted more towards the less comprehensive use of today mostly meaning post processing/adjusting the image itself, which of course those would also be improved when it comes to how to make the print itself look best as well.
Hi Les,
Absolutely agree re practice making better (not quite perfect!). Or perhaps "re-doing" rather than "practice" Here's my story:
I have been going back through a collection of Cibachrome prints I made several decades ago in a "wet" darkroom and reprints of some of the images made digitally between 15 and 4 years ago. Interestingly, in several cases I preferred the Cibas to the more recent ink jet versions. In any case I have selected about two dozen of my favorite prints for reprinting. Even looking at the not so old ink jet versions I see how to improve the prints. Or perhaps my concept of how the scene should look or how I want it to look has changed. The originals were mostly on Velvia 35 mm with a few old Kodachromes. The digital prints were made from scans on a Nikon coolscan with resolution of about 4000 dpi. For a few of my re-exams I concluded that either the resolution was not adequate and/or the scan did not capture the full contrast on the transparency. So for these I have been using a nikon slide holder to photograph the slides with a Z7 + macro lens and multiple stepped exposures (typically 0, +1, -1 f-stop, sometimes a greater range ) varying only the shutter speed on the Z7. The combination of HDR reimagine plus a resolution of about 8000 dpi on the Z7 usually results in marked improvements in the final image I use for printing.
For more details, the images were all made on NikonF2, F4, or F100 bodies with Nikon lenses. If anyone is interested i'd be happy to share further info on techniques I use. I can be contacted at
Jayfrogel@me.com my website is www.jayfrogel.com
I have a Nikon 8000 ED that does a fine job on my medium format negatives. My problem is that it is just SO SLOW. I've done the same as you have done lately and just shot the negatives with my 5DsR and macro lens using an old film carrier and a flash setup shot through some opal glass. Works great but the setup and breakdown is time consuming so I am thinking of investing in gear from these guys: https://www.negative.supply
Pretty much a negative carrier and a copy stand.
You may want to check them out or alternatively you can buy a fantastic device that Nikon used to sell (and maybe they still do) that attaches to one of their versions of F mount macro lenses and allows you to do the same thing REALLY quickly via any decent light source you point the rig at. I'd use flash myself. Absolutely zero setup time.
Exactly. My slide copier is a Nikon ES-2 that has adaptors for both slide and strip 35 mm negs. The holder for slide/ strips screw into the filter threads of the micro lens with appropriate adaptors. Then I use an LED Promaster superslim light (desgned to go onto flash shoe of cameras) as light source. It’s balanced for daylight with a small table top tripod to hold it. Works great. Set up time is minimal. For 120 transparencies I use a small light table with VERY bright light daylight balanced and mount camera looking down on it. Any small deviations from exactly parallel setup can be fixed in post processing. Even though I use a level oon the camera body it still seems to be not quite parallel to film.
Jay, thank you for sharing this with the community. I know that yours and Bob's comments will help some of our readers.
Personally I find hand holding the camera and using a soft box with a strobe head far easier and quicker as you can be far away and there's ZERO issue with parallels when it comes to the light source.
Too bad I cannot do anything similar with larger film which is why I am looking at the stuff I referenced above.
Bob and Les,
Would you be willing to share some links to sources for portfolio boxes that you like?
Thanks,
Bruce
Hi Bruce. Thanks for writing. I'd be happy to respond, but I'm traveling right now and don't have all (actually ANY) of the details with me. If you will write to me via email (you can get that from my website: lesterpickerphoto.com) after March 7, I'd be happy to give you the information you'd need. Looking forward to helping.
Les
Bruce,
You may have to wait for Les on specifics but I KNOW that the boxes we use personally and in our workshops are custom made to order and are very expensive.
Les looked at alternative sources and found a few companies that he was interested in taking a look at their products for lower end projects etc but we'll be continuing to use the custom made units for our current portfolio workshop and 80% of personal use.
He has all that info.
RB
Thanks!
Yes, it absolutely does!
Printing is good, but doesn't give enough quality to proper individual editing. Making quality prints for editing makes no sense. I used to do dummy books with paper prints, and now rarely do
I am not sure what you are saying here. I think Les (and me when I use the term editing) may mean a very different way than you are using it here? Would love to discuss but need some clarification
Thanks for contributing to our community.
No Idea about "Les"
Editing is a general term referring in general to selecting and processing your photographs.
To choose the ones you want, perhaps good to have them as a play card game as in your pic. For other purpose, no longer use nowadays
There is a lot of overload today on the term edit/editor. I think Les was using the term editor weighted heavily toward the much older use of the term of selection of images. Of course one could also use the the term edit/editor weighted more towards the less comprehensive use of today mostly meaning post processing/adjusting the image itself, which of course those would also be improved when it comes to how to make the print itself look best as well.
Up to you; my comment was about your post