Scanning with a digital camera

You trash my scans because of some fixable banding and then post these as counter examples? I can't tell if this is hilarious or some kind of absurd farce.

DSLR copy work can't properly compensate for the orange mask, and you'd need to do HDR work to bring back the available dynamic range. A pixel shift camera would be better for this but you still have the color issues. DSLR work is only decent for B&W and Chrome. Even then you would benefit from a wet scan because slides even in their mounts are not flat. Who cares if you can AF on the center if the edges are out of focus. Even if you can get them in the DoF you'd have a warped image.

I think you're seeing your camera resolve detail and deciding that it's then ok if the sand is green and the skin tones are some kind of sickly orange. And for the 35mm image, if you think that's what Portra 400 is supposed to look like, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
SaveKodak said:
You trash my scans because of some fixable banding and then post these as counter examples? I can't tell if this is hilarious or some kind of absurd farce.

DSLR copy work can't properly compensate for the orange mask, and you'd need to do HDR work to bring back the available dynamic range. A pixel shift camera would be better for this but you still have the color issues. DSLR work is only decent for B&W and Chrome. Even then you would benefit from a wet scan because slides even in their mounts are not flat. Who cares if you can AF on the center if the edges are out of focus. Even if you can get them in the DoF you'd have a warped image.

I think you're seeing your camera resolve detail and deciding that it's then ok if the sand is green and the skin tones are some kind of sickly orange. And for the 35mm image, if you think that's what Portra 400 is supposed to look like, then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...



scanning is better? yes: for dedicated scanners and no: for most of scanner

using a 60 micro nikkor an f8-11, a d810, a color enlarger head and negative carrier (correcting towards green-blue), repro column and i get decent fast raw scans (pretty decent and pretty fast) and it´s hard to pull out more things from 35mm color negs (color, tonality, detail)

if you are doing things well you can get good things

nothing substitutes a imacon or drum scanner though
 
ruilourosa said:
a color enlarger head and negative carrier (correcting towards green-blue),
Click to expand...

This is a good idea, is it dichroic, or some kind of colored filters? I don't know much about these, and I wonder if this could be done with some gel filters..

edit:actually, I'd still have to invert it and all the rest of it. I guess I'll stick with my V500.
 
I agree that scanning color film or slides with a digital camera may not be the best solution. I can eventually get colors I like in post processing - I have and know how to use Affinity Photo, Lightroom and Photoshop - but doing so is such a PITA that it's not worth it for me. I use the Plustek 7100 for 35mm color negatives and the V700 for larger b&w or color negatives and for slides of any size.

But all of my current photography is with 35mm b&w film and scanning with the X-E2 is far and away the fastest and easiest solution for me, and it produces the best results. The BEOON mask holds the film, even Tri-X, absolutely flat and the resolution of the film grain with the X-Trans sensor and Iridient X-Transformer conversion is very very good.
 
SaveKodak said:
I think you're seeing your camera resolve detail and deciding that it's then ok if the sand is green and the skin tones are some kind of sickly orange. And for the 35mm image, if you think that's what Portra 400 is supposed to look like, then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Color shift is from Fuji 160NPS expired in July 2000 and Kodak Portra 400 expired in 2010.

Zero banding. Perfect sharpness corner to corner with no warping. Easiest one to see this on is the black and white image - look at the giraffe head on the left edge. Took me 20 seconds per image.

I understand that things like color reproduction is a matter of taste. And it is valid to say you do not like these colors. I shoot expired film for fun.
When it is serious work, then fresh film it is.

But a banding scanner that produces out of focus images is not a matter of taste. It's defective.

It is interesting that you point to defects that are not there such as warped images. That everyone can see are not there. But you denied banding and focus issues in your images. That everyone can see are there. And then you got a little, umm, upset. A tone that is reflective here.

I guess I would be defensive too if I made the mistake of cracking open the case of a $1300 scanner so I could not return it.

This thread shows what can be done with equipment that many people already have, in a matter of seconds.

I'm glad you found time to comment and enjoy.
 
ruilourosa said:
nothing substitutes a imacon or drum scanner though
Click to expand...

Results from drum scanners are insane!
A colleague has done some for me that are in my gallery from 4by5 negatives (images of Elvis Presley the summer before he became famous never seen before by anyone - long story but the photog who took them was an 18yr old kid in the AirForce at the time who then 'lost' them but were found last year by his son who is a friend). Anyway, these are printed at 40 by 60 and have zero grain and insane richness and sharpness. You can put your nose against the print and see the wear marks on his guitar and pick!
Nothing beats drum scans.
 
gnuyork said:
Interesting. I actually have a slide copier that was given to me and that I have never used. Always wondered what I would ever do with it.... this might be the ticket....though I already have a very good film scanner.
Click to expand...

I quit using this because of the logistics of my computer, copier, and cables. And I have a scanner that is good for 120 and 4x5. I do 35mm for small prints with my scanner but if I want to do anything larger than 5x7 I use the digital plus the slide copier.
 
DrMcCoy said:
Does anyone know of a good slide copier for Canon cameras? Or will the Nikon one work just as well?
Click to expand...

The Nikon one I mention will work as long as you can connect its 52mm filter thread to your lens. My lens has a 62mm thread and so I use a 62-52mm step down ring.
This only works for 35mm film (regular or pano - you can stich the pano images in LR).
For 120 you will need the copy stand and light pad.

And no matter what, you will need a macro lens!
 
If anyone in the LA area wants a hands on demonstration or would like to check out the set up (and see if it can work w/ your outfit), you can swing by my gallery in San Pedro. I'm always there on Saturdays.
People have already done this to try out lenses!

Just let me know ahead of time. You can pm me off line.
 
I put a piece of mylar over the screen and it worked great, no more pixels.
Also added a 4" piece of pvc pipe around the slide/lens to cut out the room light and things got even better then.
 
DrMcCoy said:
Not exactly copy-printing negatives but, from my cine work, I would say, if you're using LEDs, it pays to buy a lightpad with a CRI of 90+. My guess is that you'll get even better color results (as well as black and white, but it is less important overall). Much better DR and accuracy. I've been using LiteGear's panels on film and digital shoots - they're great. Not sure if they make anything smaller than 20in, but I know they have a custom shop.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks!
 
Man, a lot of posts are gone. Hard to follow the thread. I'm assuming they were whiny and counter-productive. Oh well.

I'm using a Macro/DSLR setup for my 120 film, and my killer of a deal Coolscan 5000 for my 35mm scans. Best of both worlds. I like seeing other peoples info on the Macro method. Very informative.
 
Shac said:
Originally I was using a Leica 60/2.8 lens but recently switched to an OM 80/4 auto macro. Looks like it gives better IQ than the Leica and curiously less degradation of the corners but I need to investigate more as it doesn;t make sense to me.
Click to expand...

The Olympus OM 80/4 auto macro is one of few lenses optimized for 1:1, most macro lenses are optimized for more like 1:3 or 1:5. The net result is what you observe: better edge to edge. Not as important for shooting a flower or a bug, but makes a difference for shooting stamps, coins, other flat objects and for this application.

Another is the APO-Rodigon D 1:1 lens.
 
I've been scanning with my DSLR for a few years. I'm using a Canon 1Ds Mark III, Canon 100mm f2.8, Huion lightpad and a 35mm and 120mm negative holder to keep the film flat.

My steps are to.

- Place the film mounted in the holder on the light pad at its highest setting on the floor.
- Mount DSLR on tripod and aim straight down at the film.
- Set camera to manual, turn on mirror lock up and 10 second timer, adjust negative to lens distance so the negative fills the DSLR viewfinder, set lens to f8 and adjust shutter speed for proper exposure (usually somewhere around 1/8 sec)
- Focus and take the photo.

- After all the shots are taken load them into Lightroom and adjust the histogram accordingly. For B&W film I set Lightroom to B&W and reverse the histogram. For colour film I adjust the RGB histograms individually.
- The process I use is very similar to THIS YOUTUBE TUTORIAL version.

I never could find a good price on a dedicated flatbed scanner so this technique has been my go to and I've been happy with the results so far.

Bonus: If you want a huge print you can take several close shots of different parts of the negate, edit them as a batch and stitch them together (using the stitching program technique of your choosing) to make a super high resolution scan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top