I know this depends on many different things, but I am experiencing 1/15 of a sec average shutter speeds with the combination above when dslr scanning at f8 and iso 100.
I would be interested in hearing from other people as although the camera is steady enough I was hoping to get to 1/60 at least. I did scan 7 rolls of 120 color negative yesterday and never seen the shutter speed ( i am Aperture priority ) above 1/50.
Hi. I have that same setup (EFH & same Raleno 192 light). I get an average of around 1/60 @ f/8 @ ISO 100 using a D750 and 60/2.8 AFS. Always +1 exposure in manual.
I see, that’s a pretty decent shutter speed. I am wondering why I am getting half of that, this obviously depends on many factors, but it seems to be a constant for me.
When you say +1 exposure in manual, what do you mean?
A slight overexposure can reduce noise in the shadows, which will in turn be the bright parts after converting with NLP. Find more details here and in other posts that you find when searching for ETTR.
I shoot in manual mode and set the aperture to F/8. I then adjust the shutter speed until it’s at +1 over exposure, As @Digitizer mentioned, it helps to overexposed a little.
To ask the obvious … you do have the brightness of the Raleno panel set to 100%?
Yep, 100% and 5600 kelvin. And I am not overexposing either. If I do that I would probably get shutter speeds north of 1/8 which is not ideal really.
I am not sure what’ s missing in here, I have emailed Andrew Clifforth (the person behind EFH) who has been super helpful, but essentially confirmed he believes these numbers.
This is the breakdown of my findings:
Raleno 116: f8, iso 100 => I get 1/500th
Raleno with EFH on top: f8, iso 100 => I get 1/360th
Raleno with EFH and 120mm film: f8, iso 100 => I get 1/15th
Now, my question is whether this is for everyone or not, as to me despite EFH looks super promising, I don’ t get everyone shoots 1/15
Do you move your rig farther away from the EFH when you switch to 120 film? Might be interesting to see if it is a distance effect. You could shoot 35mm at the 120 distance only filling part of image, and then see if the 1/15 sec exposure still holds…
Nope, I did not move the 120 holder from where it is. At the moment is right above the diffuser, and one of the good things about EFH is that you should not need to switch the holders around. Under normal circumstances the 120mm holder is above the diffuser in fact and the 135mm above the 120. This allows you to scan both independently.
I was thinking about the distance between the camera/lens and the EFH. When shooting 35mm you would get close to fill the frame. Then back up to a longer distance to fill the frame when your shooting 120. At least that is how I picture what your doing. I sure could be wrong.
Did an experiment in order to see the dependencies involved. This is what I found:
Exposure is independent of the distance between light panel and camera.
Condition: The camera only sees the panel.
Exposure depends on the distance setting of the lens
In case of a Canon Macro EF 100 mm f/2.8 USM lens, the difference in exposure is ±2 stops
When I add a diffusor between light panel and lens, the position of the diffusor matters
Depending on the position of the second diffusor, I lost up to 3+ stops.
Both the Raleno light panel and the EFH feature a diffusor. Stacking diffusors eats light.
Some light is lost - even if the diffusor sits flat on the panel
More light is lost when the diffusor is moved closer to the lens
Draw your own conclusions.
Equipment used:
Kaiser Plano light panel (8x11 in approx.); Canon Macro EF 100 mm f/2.8 USM attached to a Canon EOS M6 camera; a piece of paper as a second diffusor.
Low light levels are a common problem as everyone talks about CRI and color temp, but lighting manufacturers rarely quote the output levels. For example I used to have the Kaiser planar and had same low speed issues as you, then I had a skier which has phenomenal output (of both light and heat) and I averaged 360th sec at F9 and ISO 100. I now use the negative supply pro light where I average around 200th sec at f9 / 100 and this one is fantastic.
It has little to do with the holder as above posts suggests, yes a diffuser reduces a little and this really doesn’t matter if your speed drops from 200 to 160, but if it drops from 40 to say 25, then yes it will unless your set up is stable and doesn’t shake at all. Diffusers are essential as Andrew Clifforth has found, as is a distance between the diffuser and film, all of which are solved in the EFH and neg supply holders, but they will reduce the lights output, so it’s back again to light output - the lumen or in the US ft candle outputs. Try and find the output of your current panel, or measure it with a light meter (most will do lux levels which is the no of lumens falling on a m2 of area), and get a higher powered one. But getting these figures from manufacturers may be hard.
I would look at an alternative light that has high CRI greater than 95, good colour rendering 5500 k say and has a high output. But also be aware high light output means heat generation. The skier just got hot whereas the neg supply unit has a fan. This is why the led panels etc have low outputs, they would get hot otherwise. In terms of output, negative supply say their entry basic panel is 2x output of a standard panel, I tried one of these and found average speed was about 60th at f9 / 100 iso. They quote their pro models having 9.5x the output, mine has an average speed of 200 at f9 / 100 iso, so this gives some idea of the output increases to look for if you can find any manufacturers data.
Cheers!
Given I like the EFH quite a lot, I am now looking into another light source. Ideally one which would allow me to take adavantage of the EFH diffuser without bringing the shutter speed to damn low.
I have a same setup, and my shutter speeds are similar. About 15-25-30, never higher than that. I did wonder about that, but shooting with timer and mirror lock or mirror less camera seems to be quite ok anyway. All of my images are sharp.
Unless you feel like your results aren’t as sharp as they can be and it’s a real issue, I wouldn’t bother with upgrades.
Hope it helps.
When I shoot the Kaiser plano without negatives, the exposure meter proposes 0,2 seconds (average grey and f/8 at 100 ISO) which means that I get exposure times of more than one second with a negative. I’ve never had any issues with motion blur with the self-timer set to 2 seconds and a mirrorless camera attached to a good stand like shown with a DSLR: Let's see your DSLR film scanning setup! - #56 by Digitizer
I’ve also used a “reversed” setup, where a lamp shines from above to the camera pointing up: Let's see your DSLR film scanning setup! - #35 by Digitizer
This setup provides ample light, only limited by the wattage of the bulb I install. It’s speciality bulb though, which means that it’s expensive, gets really hot and has a CRI of 100.
My third setup is still sleeping and waiting to get a device for the negative holder from the enlarger shown above: Let's see your DSLR film scanning setup! - #71 by Digitizer
While this setup has the most powerful backlight, it is uncomfortable for the eyes until the light is put in a box.
All in all, I have no problems with longer exposure times - if the setup is stable/rigid/heavy.
There will be variations in actual brightness of the light output in the same unit and naturally from similar sizes from different manufacturers, regardless of CRI ratings. I think the light output is measured in Lumens. I have Viltrox 116T and it’s “advertised” brightness is 987 Lumens. Not sure how far away from the light source it was measured at, so they’ll be variations in the how each manufacturer test and reports their numbers. Couldn’t find info on Raleno 116.
I’ve seen pricier lights advertise brighter light output. My budget said the Viltrox was good enough.
