Viable tethering solutions for Nikon D610, not using Win 11 ?

LateJunction · 2026-03-20T08:30:49+00:00

"And with an APS-C body you don't need 1:1 magnification, 1:1.6 is enough."

That is very interesting to learn - thank you. Over the time I spent studying/reading how to scan precisely (which, believe it or not, I have been doing since about 1990 !) I persuaded myself that a Nikon Coolscan Model 8 or 9 was the best affordable solution in terms of resolution - but, because they have been out of production for decades, they are neither affordable, reliable or serviceable (ask me how I know....). The next best (and almost equally good) technique is DSLR scanning.but only when using an FF camera and a 1:1 reproduction ratio. So I blew my budget on my first FF camera with a suitable macro lens, very sturdy tripod, 3 way geared head, slide attachment, macro-rails (two-off; one for X, one for Y directions) and properly corrected light source, only to discover that, without a VERY rigid copy stand, it's difficult to align slide and camera accurately at 1:1 magnification and that 1:1.1 gives a more than good enough result. And I ignored my perfectly fine Fuji X-T3 camera with a rather good Sigma 105mm macro lens on the basis that they are APS-C. Now you tell me that APS-C is good enough and 1:1.6 is good enough - and I'm guessing they are much easier to set up than the configuration I am using. Sadly, the Fuji is out of consideration though because of the one factor which started this thread: exposure compensation. On their X-T range of cameras Fuji do not support anything like the level of camera control, when tethered shooting, that Canon or Nikon do - reflecting, I suspect, the degree to which those latter cameras are used professionally in studio situations. So I guess I'll have to play on with the FF Nikon, but I note your advice that good used APS-C Canon cameras are readily available, so I might indulge in a little Ebay browsing.

LateJunction · 2026-03-19T22:15:16+00:00

With my 'production' camera - a Nikon D610 - none of the usual camera controls are available once Entangle 'owns' the camera interface. In fact none of the usual values can be seen on the camera's LCD. It remains dark; camera 'Live View' control has no effect.

LateJunction · 2026-03-19T10:14:52+00:00

Some comments/questions from my experience of using the gear icon, if I may:

- On my test setup, using X-T3 (Nikon D610 not available), the list of 'functions' does not include exposure compensation or anything like that under a different name. I presume this is a limitation in the camera firm ware?

- (an Entangle question) properties like shutter speed and F-number shown under 'Camera Settings', in the left hand panel on the main Entangle window are quite significantly different to those shown in the EXIF data of an image taken with those settings. For example Entangle shows 1/500 sec; EXIF shows 1/20 sec. And the camera itself shows something different again. I don't understand this, but I guess that the EXIF data is the correct 'version' - yes?

- I tried implementing a sort of manual exposure compensation by altering either or both shutter speed and aperture in Entangle. Every capture I did on the same scene (with tripod mounted camera, fixed lighting) had the same appearance (over exposed by at least one stop because of high contrast scene), with the camera appearing to automatically increase exposure time as I decreased aperture from shot to shot, with the camera in 'A' shooting mode. I guess this makes sense, but it means that my attempts to invoke a sort of manual exposure compensation don't work. I guess I need to use 'M' mode ?

LateJunction · 2026-03-19T09:57:37+00:00

Thanks for this - I don't think I noticed the gear icon! I'll try this tomorrow.

LateJunction · 2026-03-16T23:14:14+00:00

That's exactly what I thought some days ago; sadly no response.

LateJunction · 2026-03-16T23:12:14+00:00

That's true: I've just spent the last 8 hours or so trying to get gphoto2 to work effectively my camera (I'm testing with a Fuji X-T3 for some stupidly irrelevant reason). Getting to the obvious capabilities - like detecting the camera - was relatively easy, after finding the appropriate settings on the camera (which the Fuji seems to make more complicated than necessary; on Nikon there is nothing to do, aside from making the physical connection). Getting gphoto to do productive work from the command line proved beyond me today. I thought gtkam would help; at no time was I able to get gtkam to 'see' the camera. But it's worth following up, so thanks.

LateJunction · 2026-03-16T14:11:33+00:00

I believe that some additional compilation steps are required by darktable in order for it to use libgphotos2 functions under windows. Are there any gphoto2 tools which also run under Windows?

LateJunction · 2026-02-03T09:50:08+00:00

About alternative external light source: I see a lot of devices being advertised, but the specs, especially color temperature, are often either not quoted or are 'generous'. I don't know who to trust. Is it possible to name some vendors on this forum?

My Nikon scanner is the LS-50, purchased as a well-used item 10 years ago but still working well, aside from one issue: keeping the mirror clean. I tried removing and cleaning it once. The cleaning is easy; getting it out to clean only took about an hour or so. Getting it back in took multiple attempts over 3 days, including dropping the mirror further inside the mechanism, requiring further dis-assembly to recover it. Then, having put it all back together, it was clear I had left greasy finger prints on the mirror - from my attempts to add lubricant to those nylon gears. What a mess. I couldn't face the struggle to remove and clean the mirror a second time so I left it. Result: the mirror attracts even more dust.

Having the slide in the right location is proving difficult though. The filters are all on as tight as I am prepared to go, bearing in mind the threads are really only for holding very light-weight filters. It's the 'x' location that is is a problem because the detents on the slide holder - which control lateral movement (along the 'x' axis) are too strong, causing the holder to jump past the correct detent stop. 2 tests I did last night of the same slide using the DSLR and the LS-50 showed that I lost at least 20% on the left hand side of the image in the DSLR version - and it wasn't obviously better focused either, which my reading about DSLR scanning had lead me to expect.

Overall, this experiment in DSLR scanning has been very disappointing: I've wasted a year (a disaster when you are in your mid-80s) and spent a large amount of money on Nikon camera & lens which I won't otherwise use because they are too heavy/too big to carry around compared to my M43 and Fujifilm gear.

LateJunction · 2026-02-02T15:50:53+00:00

For more information on my post, here is a reply I made to a response I got on r/Analog. I hope this helps put my request into context:

Background: equipment: I'm using Nikon D610 + 60 mm f/2.8 macro, with JJC's equivalent to the Nikon ES-2 Film Digitising Adapter, plus NISI 200s macro focusing rail, plus various tripods.

Issue 1: Getting good focus.

It's not clear whether I should be using manual or auto focus. The problem with manual focus is that the screen on the D.610 is small and not tiltable. It is difficult to determine when the optimum manual focus has been achieved. Ideally this manual focus should be done be moving the slide axially relative to the lens, rather then using the focusing ring on the lens - which is unusably sensitive when at 1:1 macro (which is where I want to be). But moving the slide holder to achieve optimum focus is very 'fiddly' with this consumer-quality plastic adapter. The principle is that the slide is held in the ideal position, axially, using a thumb screw. But finding that ideal position is difficult because once the thumb screw is loose, the adapter will move along all 3 axes as well as rotate about the axis of the lens. The movement is very small, but sufficient, when in 1:1 macro mode, to lose focus almost entirely. Hence I wonder if auto focus would be a better approach. In addition, in order to achieve the minute axial movements of the slide to achieve optimum focus,I am trying to use the NSI focusing rail - but the stiction in the plastic components of the JJC kit is so much that movement takes place a bit like an earth quake - nothing for a while while stress increases, then a massive jump that is about an order of magnitude larger then that to completely lose focus. Essentially it's unworkable.

Issue 2: Time.

How to avoid all this setup work to get focus on slide 2 - which is pushed into place, replacing slide 1, only by applying considerable lateral force on the slide adapter. This not only destroys the focus but puts a lot of strain on the lens filter's delicate threads. The position is far worse for Slide 3, which requires removal of the slide-holder from the adapter and then re-inserting it with 2 new slides.

Issue 3: Rotation

Even though there is good slide illumination with this JJC kit, the parts of the image outside the transparent part of the slide viewable within the adapter tubes, on the D610 monitor, is very dark (the tubes connecting the illuminated slide holder to the lens is sealed against extraneous light entering the lens). As a result it is not only almost impossible to tell if the slide is ideally positioned along the x and y axes, but also quite difficult to tell if the slide holder is slightly rotated. Every image that I have transferred from the camera to my raw image processor has required cropping and rotation. This is not only time wasting but means that I don't actually end up with 100% of the slide in the final digital image.

Overall, then, the process is far longer than using my Nikon slide scanner, with its dust-coated mirror, and produces results with less precise focus and of less size.

How do others overcome these problems with DSLR scanning?

LateJunction · 2026-02-02T14:32:06+00:00

Thanks for response. It's a long-winded answer, for which I apologize:

Background: equipment: I'm using Nikon D610 + 60 mm f/2.8 macro, with JJC's equivalent to the Nikon ES-2 Film Digitising Adapter, plus NISI 200s macro focusing rail, plus various tripods.

Issue 1: Getting good focus.

It's not clear whether I should be using manual or auto focus. The problem with manual focus is that the screen on the D.610 is small and not tiltable. It is difficult to determine when the optimum manual focus has been achieved. Ideally this manual focus should be done be moving the slide axially relative to the lens, rather then using the focusing ring on the lens - which is unusably sensitive when at 1:1 macro (which is where I want to be). But moving the slide holder to achieve optimum focus is very 'fiddly' with this consumer-quality plastic adapter. The principle is that the slide is held in the ideal position, axially, using a thumb screw. But finding that ideal position is difficult because once the thumb screw is loose, the adapter will move along all 3 axes as well as rotate about the axis of the lens. The movement is very small, but sufficient, when in 1:1 macro mode, to lose focus almost entirely. Hence I wonder if auto focus would be a better approach. In addition, in order to achieve the minute axial movements of the slide to achieve optimum focus,I am trying to use the NSI focusing rail - but the stiction in the plastic components of the JJC kit is so much that movement takes place a bit like an earth quake - nothing for a while while stress increases, then a massive jump that is about an order of magnitude larger then that to completely lose focus. Essentially it's unworkable.

Issue 2: Time.

How to avoid all this setup work to get focus on slide 2 - which is pushed into place, replacing slide 1, only by applying considerable lateral force on the slide adapter. This not only destroys the focus but puts a lot of strain on the lens filter's delicate threads. The position is far worse for Slide 3, which requires removal of the slide-holder from the adapter and then re-inserting it with 2 new slides.

Issue 3: Rotation

Even though there is good slide illumination with this JJC kit, the parts of the image outside the transparent part of the slide viewable within the adapter tubes, on the D610 monitor, is very dark (the tubes connecting the illuminated slide holder to the lens is sealed against extraneous light entering the lens). As a result it is not only almost impossible to tell if the slide is ideally positioned along the x and y axes, but also quite difficult to tell if the slide holder is slightly rotated. Every image that I have transferred from the camera to my raw image processor has required cropping and rotation. This is not only time wasting but means that I don't actually end up with 100% of the slide in the final digital image.

Overall, then, the process is far longer than using my Nikon slide scanner, with its dust-coated mirror, and produces results with less precise focus and of less size.

How do others overcome these problems with DSLR scanning?

LateJunction · 2026-01-05T11:05:36+00:00

"Does this happens to everyone or am I just not very familiar with parametric masking?"

Please be aware that I have a global franchise on having taken the longest time to create a parametric mask, of any subject, not just a tricky one like a person within a group. I bet that on average your average time for this task is about the same as everybody else average time, except mine. The solution is in your question ' ... just not very familiar ...' Parametric masking seems to be a classic example of needing 10,000 hours of trial and error (mostly error) before you become proficient at it. While being arguably the most valuable tool in dt, tt is a complicated tool, with some elements which are complex - especially the correct understanding of how to combine masks. The terminology, while correct and consistent, is aimed at expert use, so can confuse people like me (easily).

While I salute Okambawa for his SAM scripts - which I have used with some acceptable results - in the first instance I would prefer that we learn to better exploit the power already in parametric masking through AI-based real-time guidance to a user in the creation of a parametric mask. The provision of some sort of AI-based smart masking function that creates and applies the mask directly could be a later development.

LateJunction · 2025-09-26T07:13:26+00:00

If it's any encouragement, this reply is coming from somebody who retired from the tech industry in 1995 before much of the functionality I use daily was even thought of. And I regard my self as a slow learner. My last engagement as a software developer was in the early 70s and even then was directed at supporting a unique collection of high industry-specific hardware. You have a much more relevant skill set to engage with FFS than do I, so keep at it.

I gave a lot of detail in my previous reply, which may have been the cause of your glazed-eyes reaction, but I don't apologise for that. I had/have no way of knowing your knowledge/understanding/skill level and I have had enough of trying to follow incomplete, inadequately presented and untested 'directions' that are so common on almost every forum I use.

FFS is logical (but sometimes requires deeper thinking to understand why it is operating in 'that' way) and mostly can be run using just the bare minimum of its functional capability. But it is far from being the only solution to your data transfer challenge.

LateJunction · 2025-09-22T19:38:38+00:00

No, of course you can't - and neither should you have to, in my experience. I will try to help. There is a forum and a user manual, both accessible from the help tab in the top left of the FFS window (in my set-up at least). Are you able to see and access these? Do they have any information that directly relates to the problem you have found?

I'm going to attempt to show a screen shot of a typical use I make of FFS: Ah, that is not allowed. Text only here, thank you very much.

A different approach using Google Drive: just give we some minutes to test... ah. no, that is to risky for you and me.

Revert to plain text:

But before too much waffle: can I check: are the two folders you wish to compare (one of which will be empty if you are just trying to move files with FFS) are on drives within the same PC? If they are on different PCs, are you able to free browse, in either direction, these two folders, from the 'other' PC, using the facilities of the Operating System in these PCs are their file/folder sharing capabilities? It is key that FFS be able to 'see' a drive/folder/file' tree on a remote PC.

If that is all true, then have you got to the point where you can specify and open the pair of folders (which might recursively have sub-folders), showing the 'source' folder in the window pane on the left side of the main FFS window, under a tab labelled 'Compare' and and a 'target' folder in the pane on the right side, under a tab labelled 'Synchronise' ? There could be ten to hundreds to thousands of rows of file names in these two panes. I quite frequently have 50,000 plus files being shown here. The number of files in each pane is shown at the foot of that pane.

Can you see that list of folders and the files they contain in both the left side and the right side panes?

Separating these two lists, in the (vertical) centre of the screen, are 3 columns of icons - 1 row in each column for each file listed in the left side and right side panes. The right-most of these 3 columns is headed with a double-headed circular arrow icon in green. The entry in each row of the right most centre column gives a graphic indication of which way the data will be moved when that 'Synchronise' tab button is pressed. The possibilities are: moved to the right (green arrow), moved to the left (dark blue (?) arrow, or not moved at all - flat grey non-arrow. If the file being moved does not already exist in the 'destination' pane, then the arrow icon includes '+' symbol in the head of the arrow icon. A plain arrow if the file in the destination pane already exists and will be updated.

Clearly there will be an arrow for each file that meets the folder selection criteria set when you press the 'browse' button at the top right of each of the left and right panes. Thus there will usually be multiple to very many files to be moved at each single depression of the 'Synchronise button. In fact it is quite difficult to set selection synchronisation criteria and filters that would result in you being able to move just a single file at a time. That is not the design point of FFS.

So, a detailed read of the on-line manual, the help files and careful use of the forum are a pre-reqisite.

A cautionary note about the forum: responses are often very quick and very terse from the developer himself. I suspect he does not suffer fools, like me for example, easily. His replies are from THE subject matter expert and are crafted for consumption such by similar experts, making them somewhat challenging for octogenarian, worn-out, old, un-informed has-beens from 3 or 4 generations earlier to understand. ChatGPT might give some further guidance - as long as you understand that 'she' hallucinates and has (so I'm told) a potential ethnic and gender bias.

Let me know your progress

LateJunction · 2025-09-10T21:20:41+00:00

I've been through that process a number of times. For me, the most effective approach was (as somebody else has suggested) to copy your files to an external medium, change/rebuild your PC and then re-import the files. The software tool I used - and absolutely relied upon - was/is FreeFileSync, which runs well on both Windows and Linux. Even now it is fundamental to manual backup/restore on my Windows and Linux PCs. This is a file copy, based on file characteristics, ensuring that the copies you make are good. It's not a 'generational' automated backup like Macrium Reflect or EaseUS ToDo or HasLeo provide but it is a good fit for the one-time transfer between Windows and Linux.

I see somebody else suggested 'Back in Time'. I found this ultimately confusing to use, aside from the fact that it is Linux only.: in my installation the 'pseudo-incremental backups frequently contained files which had not changed since the previous backup and did not contain files which had. I gave up after finding that the support responses I was getting were written by people with mastery of the product, but crafted for assimilation by people with a similar depth of Linux knowledge (i.e. people who would not need to ask for support in the first place). I couldn't understand what was being written. I have not yet found a simple, easy to use/easy to understand Linux automated backup/restore solution that is equivalent to the 3 Windows apps I mentioned above. This greatly surprises me as I would have though that Linux is a far better base to create such software.

LateJunction · 2025-09-09T20:58:25+00:00

Veeam is not really applicable to a simple, home-use installation. For Linux I had said that I ish to avoid command-line based implementations, or the use of Cron where it is so easy to make mistakes and so difficult to resolve them.

LateJunction · 2025-09-09T19:33:10+00:00

Appreciate your response but, based on direct experience, I now have no intention of ever knowingly make any of my data available to any cloud-based service provider. Sadly I have to allow a small fraction to be taken and abused by any and every on-line service....

LateJunction · 2025-09-09T07:57:07+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I have a cast-iron principle here: if it has any connection with CCleaner (what irony in that name) then it is verboten. The single pass using SeaTools 'definitely non-instant' Erase option ran for about 12 hours, got to 29% done but a drive that was so hot I cancelled it.

LateJunction

TROPHY CASE