Holders I have used: Valoi: Uses bevelled edges and matte finish to minimise edge vignetting and prevent stray reflections. Seems pretty good to me though I’ve still had some issues in certain scans.
Skier: Attempts a somewhat matte finish on the metal, however to me this one casts a shadow onto the negative, I’ve seen one or two other examples on here of people having similar issues with the Skier.
Digitaliza: I always had issues with stray reflections with this mount, though it does have a matte finish.
Holders I have not used: EFH: Previous versions have reportedly caused some edge vignetting. Someone posted here that the newest version is supposed to correct this by making the bottom layer of the mask a bit wider?
Negative Supply: Uses matte finish, but I don’t know anything else? You can obviously now get full border scan mount that would prevent any vignetting.
Valoi, Skier and Digitializa I have used (largely with 35mm and some 120), the other ones I have only heard word of mouth on. Can anyone report more information on the above holders and other less popular ones that they have had experience with? I’m interested to hear more particularly on the new EFH and the Negative Supply but would be useful to collate others experience with these holders.
There does seem to have been a spate of reports of this on here recently, it’s very surprising that commercially produced holders should suffer from this problem. Could it also be a combination of the holder together with the light source and/or the focal length of the lens used I wonder?
You are right that there may be alternate reasons for this. Personally, I use a Fuji XT2 with Nikkor AI macro lens 55mm (and adapter mount) and a Skier copybox light source. It is possible that the adapter mount may also influence this, I don’t have a method to test otherwise. I don’t believe this light should impact given what I’ve read about it but would be interesting to know if others have suffered similar issues.
there is a full border mount variant on the negative supply 35mm pro mount, excess light around the edge will reduce the opportunity for darkened vignetting on the border of the image, though may cause the opposite effect from stray light around the edge of the image.
I’ve just read your other thread ‘Lens vignetting and flat field correction’. I hadn’t read it before but weirdly this afternoon I was experimenting with my own Fuji X-T2 with a 55mm. Micro-Nikkor f2.8 and a 14mm PK-12 extension tube, and a Fuji to Nikon adapter of course. I wanted to see if there was an optimum distance between the Cinestill CS-Lite source and the negative/slide as I’m going to make a permanent enclosure to use for 35mm and 120 stitching. For testing I put a blank colour negative frame in a slide mount and tried it at 15mm, 30mm & 45mm. They were all very even, a tiny amount of vignetting which I will attend to with a positive +1 correction if I’m doing negatives, not noticeable with positives at all, I don’t in any case have flat field correction on my Lightroom 6.14 though it was at one time available as a download plugin.
So I didn’t get any of this effect of darkened edges (before inversion), I do rather suspect the Skier box. I’m going to have my CS-Lite 30mm below the negative though 15mm would have been fine I think and 45mm just unnecessary. I wouldn’t want it closer than 15mm though as I want it to be well out of focus, particularly for 120.
I have both the older and newer versions of version 3 and 3.2 of the EFH. The latest version is somewhat better, as it holds film flatter and tighter and provides a better light seal at the edges. The earlier version was fine, though. I never had significant vignetting issues with it. I did have a little flare, but that could be corrected with the vignetting tool in LrC.
I know this is super old but just wanted to chime in here.
I was previously scanning with EFH + nikkor 55mm lens and had some heavy vignetting. Community had me thinking it was the EFH’s fault but honestly, it was the lens.
I switched to a 90mm macro lens from Tamron, all other elements are the same such as light source and EFH. The results were significantly better with no vignetting.
Whoever is saying the nikkor 55mm is ideal for scanning, I’d argue that the vignetting is not worth it.
I don’t get noticeable vignetting with my 55mm Micro-Nikkor f2.8 and so I’m wondering if instead it might be the fact that you are further away from the EFH with your 90mm Tamron? There have so many people recommending the 55mm Micro-Nikkor for 1:1 on here and FB groups, and providing examples, that it would be very surprising if vignetting was a problem, but they haven’t necessarily been using it with the EFH. I don’t in any case think it is the fault of the EFH, just that in certain circumstances you can get a situation where you get undesirable edge effects, it’s curable though, and it’s shading rather than vignetting, gives pale edges on converted colour negatives.
I find it odd we have conflicting reports on the nikkor 55mm, I still have not quite resolved this issue. I need more lenses, light sources and holders to narrow down the appropriate cause.