rumbliegeos
Well-known
I realize that this topic has been covered in other threads, but I have some specific constraints in finding the solution to a common problem: digitizing medium format film. My goal is to create files that can be printed up to at least 11X14 at 300ppi, i.e. not just for use on the web. I know there is considerable controversy about using scanners versus cameras for digitizing, and I already have equipment that could support both approaches. I'll start by describing what I have that could be applied here. At the start I will mention a possible complicating factor and that is that I plan to shoot quite a few 6X9 format negatives.
1. A Nikon D7000 with a 55mm 3.5 AI Micro lens in freshly CLA'd condition, plus a PK-13 extension tube. I realize that the DX format makes the lens the equivalent of an 83mm focal length lens in coverage (?);
2. An SB600 flash plus TTL off camera cord for potential use as a light source;
3. An Epson V500 flatbed scanner with a Betterscanning.com original medium format negative carrier (it does not have anti-newton glass or adjustable height)...but this scanner has been used very heavily for a long time and logically could break down at any time;
4. 2 Porta-Trace lightboxes that are now quite old and likely have light distribution and color balance issues (I'd like to digitize both black and white and color films);
5. Schneider Componon-S 80mm 5.6, and EL Nikkor 105mm 5.6 enlarging lenses.
I don't know if the betterscanning.com negative holders will accommodate 6X9 negatives with an anti-newton ring glass, with anything other than single frames. This could complicate negative storage. I feel like the Epson scanner could go at any time, and the existing negative holder is sub-optimal in any case. Given this, I am considering buying a used Nikon full-frame camera with 24 megapixels (perhaps a D600 or D610) to gain more resolution and keep down working distances with the 55mm micro lens. Epson V600 scanners are not available in refurbished condition at present.
Finally, the winter utility bills have left little in the budget for acquisitions right now, so cost efficiency is important. I would also consider getting a used mirrorless camera with 24 mp minimum resolution and use adapters for the Nikon DSLR or enlarging lenses that I have.
I'd appreciate any advice on choosing among these various options for dealing with this challenge.
Thanks,
Gerry
1. A Nikon D7000 with a 55mm 3.5 AI Micro lens in freshly CLA'd condition, plus a PK-13 extension tube. I realize that the DX format makes the lens the equivalent of an 83mm focal length lens in coverage (?);
2. An SB600 flash plus TTL off camera cord for potential use as a light source;
3. An Epson V500 flatbed scanner with a Betterscanning.com original medium format negative carrier (it does not have anti-newton glass or adjustable height)...but this scanner has been used very heavily for a long time and logically could break down at any time;
4. 2 Porta-Trace lightboxes that are now quite old and likely have light distribution and color balance issues (I'd like to digitize both black and white and color films);
5. Schneider Componon-S 80mm 5.6, and EL Nikkor 105mm 5.6 enlarging lenses.
I don't know if the betterscanning.com negative holders will accommodate 6X9 negatives with an anti-newton ring glass, with anything other than single frames. This could complicate negative storage. I feel like the Epson scanner could go at any time, and the existing negative holder is sub-optimal in any case. Given this, I am considering buying a used Nikon full-frame camera with 24 megapixels (perhaps a D600 or D610) to gain more resolution and keep down working distances with the 55mm micro lens. Epson V600 scanners are not available in refurbished condition at present.
Finally, the winter utility bills have left little in the budget for acquisitions right now, so cost efficiency is important. I would also consider getting a used mirrorless camera with 24 mp minimum resolution and use adapters for the Nikon DSLR or enlarging lenses that I have.
I'd appreciate any advice on choosing among these various options for dealing with this challenge.
Thanks,
Gerry
lukx
Well-known
I cannot tell you what is best for you, but I have gone down the road of camera scanning quite far and can share some insights. Scanning medium format negatives is a much more difficult endeavour compared to 35mm. I use a APS-C (Fuji) camera with 24mp and a Micro-Nikkor 55mm 2.8 with PK-13 (not needed for medium format). Similar to what you already have. The main challenge with medium format (camera) scanning is to make use of the large negative, i.e. extract the best image quality from it. Scanning a whole 6x9 negative in one 24mp (or less even) shot seems like a waste of negative resolution to me. So to maximize quality you want to be stitching several photos of your 6x9 negative together.
For stitching to work well, you must ensure a few things:
A sturdily mounted camera that is absolutely parallel to your negative (there are techniques to ensure that). A copy stand works well.
If the camera is fixed in its position, you want to make sure that you can move the negative along easily. If this requires too much fiddling with your hands, you will struggle to keep everything aligned. But if it isn't aligned, stitching the photos might fail. Look into negative holders/advancers that allow transport via wheels (Negative Supply or Valoi offer such holders). You could also fix the position of the negative and move the camera instead (e.g. using macro rails).
Also important is a flat negative. This is something that I still struggle with. The Valoi holder I use does an okay job holding the film flat, but on large negatives you may get some bulging depending on how curly the film is. I still hope they may release a v2 negative holder that improves flatness.
Also don't forget software! If you use a proprietary scanner, it likely comes with scanning software. Using a digital camera will require you to have some additional software installed. If you shoot color negatives, the general consensus is that Negative Lab Pro is the very best way to convert them. But you need Lightroom for that to work. So there is potentially some additional cost hidden on the software side.
For stitching to work well, you must ensure a few things:
A sturdily mounted camera that is absolutely parallel to your negative (there are techniques to ensure that). A copy stand works well.
If the camera is fixed in its position, you want to make sure that you can move the negative along easily. If this requires too much fiddling with your hands, you will struggle to keep everything aligned. But if it isn't aligned, stitching the photos might fail. Look into negative holders/advancers that allow transport via wheels (Negative Supply or Valoi offer such holders). You could also fix the position of the negative and move the camera instead (e.g. using macro rails).
Also important is a flat negative. This is something that I still struggle with. The Valoi holder I use does an okay job holding the film flat, but on large negatives you may get some bulging depending on how curly the film is. I still hope they may release a v2 negative holder that improves flatness.
Also don't forget software! If you use a proprietary scanner, it likely comes with scanning software. Using a digital camera will require you to have some additional software installed. If you shoot color negatives, the general consensus is that Negative Lab Pro is the very best way to convert them. But you need Lightroom for that to work. So there is potentially some additional cost hidden on the software side.
the_jim
human
I have a camera that I use in APS-C mode and (!) an Epson V500 (which I never use) and I sometimes shoot 6x9.
Here's what I use (and I think you could adapt your set-up fairly easily to match this) to digitize my negatives:
1. 'Cheap' copystand...which are oddly crazy expensive given how rudimentary they are.
2. Ditch the crappy head the copystand comes with and replace with knock-off Chinese three-way head to better control camera movements.
3. LED light pad.
4. Digitaliza negative holder (any negative holder will work).
5. Sony A7rII...which I use in APS-C/Super 35 mode.
6. Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro ai-s
As far as methodology, I will take 9 raw pictures of a 6x9 negative, match white balance in Lightroom, photomerge, straighten, crop and then convert using Negative Lab Pro. The resulting file is around 6000x9000 pixels which will be great for printing large.
I only have example for comparison...and it's a little tough because it's film that expired in 2003, but I think you'll see that 'dslr' scanning yields far better results than an Epson V500.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Fuji GW690II, Fujinon 90mm f/3.5, Fuji NHG 800 (expired in 2003)...I metered for ISO 64.
Next, the same image scanned on the V500 and converted in Negative Lab Pro:
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Even though, the output is of similar pixel dimensions, the amount of info you get on the DSLR scan is noticeably better (though, please ignore the strange colors one can get when shooting highspeed film that expired two decades ago.
Here is a cheap-n-dirty comp to show the difference:
Comp by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Hope this helps!
Here's what I use (and I think you could adapt your set-up fairly easily to match this) to digitize my negatives:
1. 'Cheap' copystand...which are oddly crazy expensive given how rudimentary they are.
2. Ditch the crappy head the copystand comes with and replace with knock-off Chinese three-way head to better control camera movements.
3. LED light pad.
4. Digitaliza negative holder (any negative holder will work).
5. Sony A7rII...which I use in APS-C/Super 35 mode.
6. Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro ai-s
As far as methodology, I will take 9 raw pictures of a 6x9 negative, match white balance in Lightroom, photomerge, straighten, crop and then convert using Negative Lab Pro. The resulting file is around 6000x9000 pixels which will be great for printing large.
I only have example for comparison...and it's a little tough because it's film that expired in 2003, but I think you'll see that 'dslr' scanning yields far better results than an Epson V500.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on FlickrFuji GW690II, Fujinon 90mm f/3.5, Fuji NHG 800 (expired in 2003)...I metered for ISO 64.
Next, the same image scanned on the V500 and converted in Negative Lab Pro:
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on FlickrEven though, the output is of similar pixel dimensions, the amount of info you get on the DSLR scan is noticeably better (though, please ignore the strange colors one can get when shooting highspeed film that expired two decades ago.
Here is a cheap-n-dirty comp to show the difference:
Comp by Jim Fischer, on FlickrHope this helps!
the_jim
human
It's definitely a tedious process, but it does allow you to take advantage of having such a large negative...you could easily print posters.
Bridget by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Fuji GW690II and Portra 400.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Fuji GW690II and Tri-X 400
Bridget by Jim Fischer, on FlickrFuji GW690II and Portra 400.
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on FlickrFuji GW690II and Tri-X 400
rumbliegeos
Well-known
Thank you very much for the advice on digitizing with a camera versus a flatbed scanner, especially the kind of low-end scanner that I can afford right how. The examples shown are pretty compelling. I had not thought about making multiple shots of a negative and then stitching them together, but it is a completely logical way to maintain high resolution for a large negative. I do not have experience in stitching images, but this seems like a worthwhile reason to learn how. I think the remaining question is the choice of camera platform and I'll have to think about that some more. I really appreciate the information, which I know is the product of time spent in experimenting with different set-ups. BTW, I have a Nikon 5000 ED for 35mm, so the main need right now is in medium format digitizing.
OlivierAOP
medium format
I've used the free Microsoft ICE to stitch camera scans (panoramic negatives). I use a Viltrox L116T light source and a pixl-latr negative holder, the rest is DIY. I think 1:2 macro is going to be fine for 6x9 to APS-C.
the_jim
human
Your D7000 + 55mm micro w/extension tube should be fine (but be mindful that extension will lower your shutter speeds...so just have a very sturdy set-up). Set the camera to it's lowest ISO and some kind of time delay on the shutter and you're good to go. Can the D7000 do live view? You'll definitely want to use live view. It is important to note that you will need to put the camera on manual mode. I'll meter off of whatever I figure is the subject/point-of-focus in the negative (not sure specifically how that will work on the D7000, but it's very easy on the A7rII) and keep the exposure the same between all frames for that particular negative.
As mentioned by Lukx, how you move the negative relative to the camera is very important (it was a lot of trial and error and error for me). It's important to make sure that you have enough overlap between frames (at least 25%) to make it easier to merge. Make sure your movements are as 'square' as possible (but you don't need 100% mathematical precision).
Merging is easy if you have Lightroom. Select the images and hit ctrl+m. Pick whichever projection looks best and boom!
hap
Well-known
Is this stitching a similar process to scan a 35 pano like from a Noblex?
the_jim
human
Yeah, for sure. Same concept. It would probably take 12+ images of the negative (with my set-up at least) to get everything from the Noblex shot. Adjust white balance, copy settings across all of images of the negative, select all images, control+m, choose the best projection then let your computer do some hard thinking, straighten/crop the result, then convert in Negative Lab Pro.
Because I shoot a little 70mm I can't use the medium format holders of my Epson for these, they're too wide. I simply got some standard window glass cut to size and diffused them on one side by gently lapping with cerium oxide. Weight of the glass keeps the film flat on the scanner platen. Diffused surface prevents Newton rings. Cost = $4. I'm not implying this is the road to scan nirvana. But if your Epson film holders are toast, it is an effective option that will achieve excellent film flatness for very little outlay and a just a few minutes work. Works just as well with 35mm or 120 as 70mm. FYI.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
I'm still working on an optimal strategy that is realistic for my budget, but I made a general step forward yesterday that will have general utility beyond the scanning project. I found an old Durst enlarger with a wrecked head, but it attaches to the column with a sturdy 3/8" bolt setup. I also have a choice of two Manfrotto two-way tripod heads that can go on that, so now I have copy stand for $10.
punkzter
Established
Valoi has a complete dslr/negative scanning solution, including a negative transit system. But they also sell, for a much cheaper price, just the MF holder. This would keep the (up to) 6x9 negative flat for taking the shot.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
A few passing thoughts, from one who has been there and done it...
When I retired in 2012, one of my long-standing projects was to 'digitise' some 20,000 120 film negatives (or the best of) from my Rolleiflexes and a Zeiss Ikonta 6x9 folding camera, which I used from 1966 until the late 2000s. For brevity's (and sanity's) sake I will leave the 35mm archive out of this post, suffices to say it is even larger than the MF one. For the record, I also still have all the cameras, but I now shoot very little film.
For me, scanning with a digital camera was never an option. As other posters in this thread have confirmed to my satisfaction, it's too complex and complicated for me. A lot of work, fuss and bother for an end product I could get easier by a direct means - scanning.
After pondering the 'situation' for a few months, I decided the easiest option was to go with a scanner. Which of course set me off on yet another data-gathering experience. More months passed. I tried several scanners owned by friends - and finally decided the easiest situation for me was to buy a secondhand Epson. As luck would have it, someone I knew was disposing of an Epson V600, little used and almost as new, and I acquired it.
This scanner has suited me ideally. I've not used it much for 35mm as I have a Plustek for this format, but my 120 images, 2400 dpi scans are idea. I can print up to A3/11x14" (and probably bigger, but as I've never gone beyond this size I decided to set this as my limit).
The quality I get in my scans is entirely acceptable, as has been confirmed by several publishers I've sold architectural images to. One of my Rollei slides has been used as a two page spread in an architectural book published in Germany, also several in France and others in Britain. But let me also say I've also had images taken with a Nikon D90 with the kit 18-55 lens, published in books as well. Publishers' art directors are wizards who are well able to pull wonderful rabbits out of their hats, in preparing images for book use.
I quickly learned that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' scan. Every scan I make needs some post-processing work to pull it together into a final image I consider a good reproduction of the original scene. Oddly, many of my old color negatives from th 1960s and 1970s, which I then had processed by Kodak labs, have kept their colors intact to a remarkable degree. Other color films I had processed in labs in Malaysia and (by far the worst place) Indonesia, haven't survived as well. With all these old negatives, a certain amount of after-scanning work will be needed. Black-and-white negatives scan quickly and need very little post-processing work.
To me, photo-scanning segments of an image and then stitching together into a panorama of a sort, is too much work. At my age, time is precious and it's all fiddling around when easier ways of getting a satisfactory final product can be done more easily. I mean, let's face it, scanning is a chore and a bore - and seemingly endless, even if it gives me a little time between the actual image scanning by the Epson to do other tasks for a minute or two each time - even then, how much critical other work can I do in 60 seconds or less?? Good time management is the way, and for me using a digital camera to stitch together an image like my grandmother used to make quilts, is investing too much time to do something I can achieve more easily.
Your needs may differ, but for me, the V500 was and remains the way to go. Buy used if you can find a reliable one. I paid AUD$300 for mine with several extra holders. It had been well, even lovingly looked after and it came in its original box with all the instruction manuals and the software and even the plastic wrappers were included. In almost a decade of regular use, I've had no problems at all with it. A friend's V500 developed one pattern of banding in the centre of the images after about five years of use, but he was able to get that repaired not expensively. So the Epson is a reliable option.
As they say, there are many roads to Rome. For me, I decided the way to go was to find the most comfortable seat on the fastest bus, and it was the Epson.
When I retired in 2012, one of my long-standing projects was to 'digitise' some 20,000 120 film negatives (or the best of) from my Rolleiflexes and a Zeiss Ikonta 6x9 folding camera, which I used from 1966 until the late 2000s. For brevity's (and sanity's) sake I will leave the 35mm archive out of this post, suffices to say it is even larger than the MF one. For the record, I also still have all the cameras, but I now shoot very little film.
For me, scanning with a digital camera was never an option. As other posters in this thread have confirmed to my satisfaction, it's too complex and complicated for me. A lot of work, fuss and bother for an end product I could get easier by a direct means - scanning.
After pondering the 'situation' for a few months, I decided the easiest option was to go with a scanner. Which of course set me off on yet another data-gathering experience. More months passed. I tried several scanners owned by friends - and finally decided the easiest situation for me was to buy a secondhand Epson. As luck would have it, someone I knew was disposing of an Epson V600, little used and almost as new, and I acquired it.
This scanner has suited me ideally. I've not used it much for 35mm as I have a Plustek for this format, but my 120 images, 2400 dpi scans are idea. I can print up to A3/11x14" (and probably bigger, but as I've never gone beyond this size I decided to set this as my limit).
The quality I get in my scans is entirely acceptable, as has been confirmed by several publishers I've sold architectural images to. One of my Rollei slides has been used as a two page spread in an architectural book published in Germany, also several in France and others in Britain. But let me also say I've also had images taken with a Nikon D90 with the kit 18-55 lens, published in books as well. Publishers' art directors are wizards who are well able to pull wonderful rabbits out of their hats, in preparing images for book use.
I quickly learned that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' scan. Every scan I make needs some post-processing work to pull it together into a final image I consider a good reproduction of the original scene. Oddly, many of my old color negatives from th 1960s and 1970s, which I then had processed by Kodak labs, have kept their colors intact to a remarkable degree. Other color films I had processed in labs in Malaysia and (by far the worst place) Indonesia, haven't survived as well. With all these old negatives, a certain amount of after-scanning work will be needed. Black-and-white negatives scan quickly and need very little post-processing work.
To me, photo-scanning segments of an image and then stitching together into a panorama of a sort, is too much work. At my age, time is precious and it's all fiddling around when easier ways of getting a satisfactory final product can be done more easily. I mean, let's face it, scanning is a chore and a bore - and seemingly endless, even if it gives me a little time between the actual image scanning by the Epson to do other tasks for a minute or two each time - even then, how much critical other work can I do in 60 seconds or less?? Good time management is the way, and for me using a digital camera to stitch together an image like my grandmother used to make quilts, is investing too much time to do something I can achieve more easily.
Your needs may differ, but for me, the V500 was and remains the way to go. Buy used if you can find a reliable one. I paid AUD$300 for mine with several extra holders. It had been well, even lovingly looked after and it came in its original box with all the instruction manuals and the software and even the plastic wrappers were included. In almost a decade of regular use, I've had no problems at all with it. A friend's V500 developed one pattern of banding in the centre of the images after about five years of use, but he was able to get that repaired not expensively. So the Epson is a reliable option.
As they say, there are many roads to Rome. For me, I decided the way to go was to find the most comfortable seat on the fastest bus, and it was the Epson.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I forgot how long I have mine V500. Used a lot for sure. It just works. Nice and easy.
joe bosak
Well-known
I used to have an old Epson scanner (before they used V's in the same) and I recently printed a 120 scan (taken from a Kiev 60 with an Arsat which I remember had awful coating and a few scratches) I had scanned with that, to poster size. And the poster looks sharp. So it seems not only did the crappy lens coating and scratches not make an appreciable difference, the scanner did a decent job too.
Vince Lupo
Barely Known
I’ve been considering a scanner for a while now. For those of you in the know, is it worth the extra $$$ to get the V850 over, say, the V600? I’m not planning on printing poster-sized images, but I’m hoping to at least extract a bit better quality out of my 120, 127 and glass plates than I’ve currently been getting out of my Nikon Z7 with the 60/2.8 micro lens setup and a lightbox. Or would the quality difference be negligible for prints up to 11”x16” and I should just stick to the way I’m doing it? I’m presently just doing a one-shot with the Z7 and really have no interest in the ‘stitching’ technique, so that’s one reason why I’m thinking of getting a proper scanner. Plus I’ve also been using my Hasselblad 907x like the Z7 and I really haven’t noticed much of a qualitative difference between the two cameras’ output. Any knowledgeable advice you can share would appreciated!
And speaking of glass plates, would a V600 / V850 be able to scan glass plates okay?
And speaking of glass plates, would a V600 / V850 be able to scan glass plates okay?
Larry H-L
Well-known
My experience with medium and large format negatives on an Epson v700 with Betterscan holders has been very good as long as you take the time to properly “focus” by adjusting the height of the holder above the glass. Tedious, but once dialed in you will have good results.
That said, I have mostly moved to a digital camera with a high-resolution “pixel shift” mode for medium format negatives. One shot gives an 80mp file, plenty for an 11x14 print.
That said, I have mostly moved to a digital camera with a high-resolution “pixel shift” mode for medium format negatives. One shot gives an 80mp file, plenty for an 11x14 print.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I've experimented with the camera scan and flatbed for MF. Comments:
- For APS body and 55 f/3.5 Nikkor to cam-scan 6x9 you won't need the extension tube. You'll be at 1:3, well within the lens' limits and in it's sweet spot range. You'll need the PK-13 for 35mm.
- I doubt you'll be able to focus accurately enough with the D7000, unless you focus with live-view. With this body, I'd rather have an AF lens. The manual focus micro-nikkors can make terrific images; I prefer to use with mirrorless bodies.
- A 24MPx body will do fine for 11x14 prints.
- The flatbed will make a "good enough" print at 11x14 from 6x9, not so from 35mm.
- For APS body and 55 f/3.5 Nikkor to cam-scan 6x9 you won't need the extension tube. You'll be at 1:3, well within the lens' limits and in it's sweet spot range. You'll need the PK-13 for 35mm.
- I doubt you'll be able to focus accurately enough with the D7000, unless you focus with live-view. With this body, I'd rather have an AF lens. The manual focus micro-nikkors can make terrific images; I prefer to use with mirrorless bodies.
- A 24MPx body will do fine for 11x14 prints.
- The flatbed will make a "good enough" print at 11x14 from 6x9, not so from 35mm.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
I had not visited this thread for a while, and I really appreciate all of the advice that has been given on the medium format scanning question. I have had a number of expenses that have prevented getting more gear for this project, so I think I will run some experiments with both my current flatbed and camera scanning option equipment and look at the results. I do plan to get a 24mp mirrorless camera at some point so that will be added to the options eventually.
leolab
Member
A 24mp camera would do fine. I use an older Olympus EM5ii, which has pixel-shift feature, creating a much higher res image with fewer color artifacts and less noise, these cameras are pretty inexpensive nowadays and may also be an option for you.