Which method are you using to digitise your images? And addressing the people who use a DSLR or mirrorless for scanning: Do you have any recommendations for a good macro lens? ✨
Personally I bought a Minolta MD 50/55mm (I buy and forget sometimes) with its adapter to go real 1:1 and I've been super satisfied with the results. A combo like the one I mentioned plus the adapter you will need to adapt it would be around 80 to 100euros all together. Bought mine on eBay in Germany.
@@venospap2638 That sounds exactly like what I was looking for. Thanks for the recommendation of the macro lens, I will see if there are any available on eBay in my region. Thank you! :)
@@KarinMajoka No worries! As a double if you've never done macro before, the addition of this lens to your kit could also be a good entry to the macro world. By the way I like your video style! You're one of the first RUclipsrs I've stumbled upon since I started shooting film and through you I found Safelight Berlin (vid on Spätlight), my now lab of choice haha!
There are no really had macro lenses and it's good to use manual focus anyway. Anything will do, although a 180mm might not be ideal 😉 I use my Epson 4490, Epson scan software and Photoshop.
I found my DSLR scans to be much better than the lab scans primarily because it's a RAW file I'm working with. Any lens works for scanning when you buy a cheap extension tube set. The Digitaliza is a nice idea but $110 is quite pricey for a lightbox with a stick. Definitely cheaper ways to do this.
I found extension tubes to add a lot of distortion to the edges of the image, so for me it's only a temporary solution. And yes, it's absolutely right that they are cheaper (maybe even DIY) options. But evenness of the lightsource and flatness of the negative are important points to take into account that are harder to get accurate with a DIY solution :)
@@KarinMajoka That's a shame; I haven't had problems using my Canon's telephoto and extension tubes. Nothing that can't be corrected in Adobe Raw, anyway. I do use a proper lightbox and flatten as needed with glass
There is not much need to digitize film into raw. The data/hdr/colour that comes with other file formats is more than most film cameras out there can ever get into a film. If you like the controls of camera RAW then just use it as a smart filter on a jpeg. The key element of collecting data from film is the quality of light passing through and the camera or scanners sensor and focusing ability.
Really respect you and the channel, Karin, but when manually converting scans in Snapseed it would have been advised if you also went into the RGB curves (and not just the luminance) as colors will always be totally inaccurate if you don’t correct for the orange film base. I am sure you know this but this would have been a handy addition to the video and would have made for a fairer comparison of the 3 methods.
That's a great method for getting an overview and creating a preview. For 35mm I use a Plustek 8200 and for medium format an Epson V800. However I only scan the ones I think are worth it, so 80-90% get sorted out before the scanning starts. :)
For medium format copying, I bought a used Fujifilm X-T20 in excellent condition and a new 7Artisans 60mm f/2.8 Macro MKII lens. The total combined price was £525.00 (about €626.00) and this combination is permanently attached to a copying stand. I know the purists would insist on using a full-frame camera to copy negatives, but the results I get digitising my 6X6 medium format negs are excellent. I use a Lomography DigitaLIZA Scanning Mask to hold the film over an LED light table. For 35mm, I use a different method. I have an Plustek OpticFilm 8200i dedicated 35mm film scanner ( around €375 equivalent in the UK) which, although a little slow, produces great scans. I do have to say that I shoot a lot of both formats, so having the two different options is worth it for me. However, if I had to choose one, I’d go with my X-T20 setup which would copy both formats really well.
If I purist says that then he/she doesn´t understand the differences for full frame doesn´t matter here (like in many cases it doesn´t matter), and you should just answer that you only using the sharpest part of the lens this way, see how he/she will respond to that
I love that you included Lab scans and also zoomed in. Clearly the lab scans had better resolution. I am interested in how to recreate that resolution at home. Looking forward to another video. Gruss Gott!
Finding this 2 years later. Holy cats: this is...THIS is a really useful video. Thank you for sharing this info, Karin. I just got my first roll of negatives back a few days ago, and now I need to look this all over.
Hi, thanks so much for stopping by and saying hi! Glad you enjoyed the video! By now I have switched up my scanning setup entirely though, I use a digital camera in combination with the valoi easy35 for scanning nowadays.
For a quick view of my negatives (and maybe for reference when storing), I’ll use Ribsy’s technique: do a contact sheet by laying the negatives on a light table and taking a quick picture of it. That will allow to select photos and scan the worthy ones on my Epson flatbed.
That is actually genius! You will need to have a large light table for that, but if you own one anyway it's definitely the most efficient method. Thanks for sharing (to you and Ribsy of course! ☺️).
@@KarinMajoka I used just a small (video) led light that I hold behind the dried filmroll (and the Kodak mobile film scanner app, so I could already a positive image). Very crude but gives a good first look and certainly good enough to throw out some failed ones
Woooooo a Karin upload!! I use Fujifilm XT3 with their 80mm f/2.8. This lens was expensive, even used, but renders beautifully. You always get me giggling Karin, while you inspire every time.
Thanks so much for your comment James - I appreciate it a lot! :) That sounds like a really wonderful lens. If I had a digital Fuji camera I would absolutely check it out!
Thank you so much for providing these insights - it has solved a dilemma I have been dealing with: on the one hand I am still very much in the analogue world emotionally with equipment I have used for many years. Yet the reality is that digital photography just makes more sense for an amateur photographer with time and ressource constraints. As I make my way into the craft of digital photography, I miss the analogue habits and workflow which I have grown accustomed to. Using this simple set up provides an image which is good enough the evaluate the negative images quickly, almost like a contact sheet used to do. Based on this initial assessment, I can then select negatives to have either scanned professionally or go to my local darkroom and spend a day of focussed creation.
Thanks for your comment, glad this helped to get an idea of how to scan negatives in efficiently. I am sure it's a good compromise to use this method as a low-res first glance to select which images are worth being scanned in better quality.
I haven’t started scanning my negatives yet so this was great timing Karin. I own a Tamron 90mm f.2.8 and highly recommend it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. Your posts are informative, inspirational, entertaining and fun.
thank you for this video but the main reason I searched negative scanning is that I have many old 127 film negatives that I want to scan so I am so happy you mention 127 is included that is all I am interested since there so many devices doing the regular films
This was super helpful, Karin! Thanks so much! Without a macro lens either, how workable were the extension tubes on your mirrorless... did you find your results just not as good as a macro lens, or did they have problems? I'm in a similar situation, can't really afford a macrolens but I don't own the extension tubes either!
wow! finally there is a „budget“ option. These film carriers are usually super expensive. I was literally waiting for this as I started camera-scanning my film just recently. In fact, I have 3d printed a film carrier because I was to cheap to buy any of the ones available back then :D
The 3D printed solution is probably even more budget friendly though! :) But I think if you are considering an "upgrade" the Digitaliza is a great piece of addition.
Having used my Epson V800 Scanner for years I find this method very useful. I can get scans of my favorite pictures from a film in no time onto my phone., which is my photoalbum. Some photos get printed out on my Instax printer, the quality is good enough for this. And later I can do "proper" scans on my flatbed scanner if I want to (maybe, after retirement, haha).
Excellent timing for me as well, Karin. I currently pay for scans and was thinking I should take the plunge and try a scanning setup. I had already been looking at the Lomography setup, so your experiences are really valuable. Please forgive my ignorance, but did scanning Xpan negatives pose any special problems? Cheers!
Great the video was useful for you, Paul! :) Scanning XPAN images did not cause any troubles at all, it was just as easy as regular 35mm. I tried it with and without the panoramic diffusor and have to say that I did not find that much of a difference, both worked fine. :)
Thank you! I thought some of the photo's you show looked best from the flatbed. Then again; that might be post settings. Going to get one of these for sure. Thanks for the honest video. I have a pretty nifty iPhone so the camera should be up to speed. Also: I scanned a ton of wedding photos on my, very old, flatbed recently and due to the energy costs, My bill was 100 euro higher that month. So there is that as well. Anyhoe, I liked you photo's. Regards, Mac
Just ordered a Sony A7Rii to upgrade my camera scanning set up. I've been dabbling with a fuji xe-4 to scan and enjoyed the results for 35mm but decided to take the plunge on the A7Rii to get better results for 35mm and especially 120 without having to stitch or anything like that
Thank you for your review and explanation. I am in the process of deciding what scanning system I would like to purchase. Your comment regarding the time required for a flatbed method is disheartening. I was considering an Epson V600 or a Negative Supply copy system. Regarding a macro lens; Sigma makes high quality Sony compatible (E mount) at a fraction of comparable Sony glass. I'm primarily a Canon shooter with L lenses, but I'm using Sigma lenses on my Sony 6400 (everyday camera and for street photography. Recently returning to film I'm using a Mamiya 645 1000S, Bronica S2 and my Leica M3.
Really interesting video. I currently don't own a setup to scan my film. I get it done in a lab, but i think over time that is way to pricey. Did you try this one out with a proper macro lens and compared it to a lab scan? I would be really interested in those results
Great informative review. It helped me decide that this is not for me when at first it seemed a good idea. I use an Epson V600 ($220USD) and their software (Free) to scan and convert images and edit them in Lightroom ($10.95uSD a month) and am happy with my results. I only view my images on my computer or share to Instagram so don't need perfection. Mine seems to go a good deal faster than yours though. I also go over my sleeved negatives on a light table with a loupe first and rarely scan in more than half of them, only picking what looks like the best exposure and composition to edit further with scanning and Lightroom.
So, fun fact... I shot a roll of 127 yesterday 😆 One of the biggest differences was that Apple goes a bit heavy with the noise reduction in their stock app. I wonder if you use a camera app which captures RAW, you might retain some of the film grain? Good call to set the histogram straight away, as I normally set each other separately but maybe the difference is negligible. (and I'm the guy everyone hates, who uses extension tubes on a nifty fifty... but it works so 🤷🏻♂)
I enjoy your videos and find them informative. Regarding your flatbed scanner, could I ask which model you are using? I have read that the middle range Epson scanners are somehow not compatible with the latest Mac computers and operating systems. I need to scan 120 film. Even a company like BH photo in the US suggests contacting Epson before purchase, which has not helped much. Thank you!
Overall, quite good review! I think that you could achieve better colour results with different editor software, or even post-processing your phone camera scans in Vuescan, which you might have, anyway? Getting rid of the orange mask on negatives is a pain... You might also be able to use a "selfie" adapter, with Bluetooth or wired connection, to avoid jiggling the phone... You could get a tiny container of flat black paint from hobby supplier to paint the edges of all of the parts of the scanner that are in the optical path... I guess that scanning in a darker environment helps with "stray light", too... If your phone can save images in 100% JPEG, or in DNG, the saved files can be "cleaner", and please turn off any "sharpen" settings... I've used "open camera" on Android for scanning, and a decent photo editor.
Thank you! I was really waiting to see what that setup is like. Definitely an interesting idea for quick overviews. I used a rather old (and thanks to the Japanese climate a little mouldy) Canon 9000F mark 2, which is really old and was bought used for about €120 plus silverfast AI plus. I love : hate silverfast. It’s colour conversion is awesome and the negafix tool is really great, but it has a steep learning curve. After 6 years I get really really good results with near perfect colour if I adjust it enough, but dust is still an issue. I plan to update to the best of class epson scanner (around €700) plus silverfast Studio which has even more tools. My canon supports multi exposure and ICE which give some really really great colours and highlight / shadow separation, but because of its age and the mild mould I still need to use Affinity photo to clean most scans up a bit. Scans on this go: Pre-scan Scan Multi exposure scan (optional and can be also done for pre-scans but I found that takes too long, but if you need more exact representations of the results, it’s awesome! Especially on 120 film!!) File creation Per scan around 5 mins including pre-adjustments, but I scan either 12 135 or 4 to 2 120 (depending on size) images per scan run and once the first image is done I can work it while the rest is still scanning. I would definitely recommend silverfast if they have a version for your scanner. They have free trials of all their software tiers and as of now it’s a one time purchase per version with reasonable update and upgrade prices. Also: Positive scans with silverfast are really fast. Scanning positive film and documents is a blast and the results are superb. I use silverfast for all my document scanning too, for that reason. One question: doing the conversion with software like negative lab pro sounds quite laborious. How long does it take you per image?
For many years now I've been using a cheap "instant film scanner" that I got at a charity shop for 5$. You know, the kind of box with an LCD screen on it that was originally marketed towards all the aunt Ednas of the world? This is the first step in my workflow. I do that to get quick images (I can convert a roll in about 2 minutes) which then get re-numbered, EXIF tagged and made into an index sheet using a couple of Windows Batch Scripts that I wrote. I usually print the index sheets using my laser printer. For the images that I really like, then it's on to the Epson 4490 for proper high bit-depth scans. That way, I don't feel like I'm wasting time scanning images that don't turn out good.
Hahaha, loved this comment - if I ever get my hands on one of those 5€ scanners I will make a video called "Is this scanner only usable for the aunt Ednas of this world?" about it 😂 The solution with the index sheets sounds really nice, it's really practical to have the index sheet right next to the negativ sheet in the archive.
@@KarinMajoka If you are are on Windows and want a copy, I'll figure out a way to send it to you. I haven't fully tweaked it for the A4 formats and it's missing some features but the way it's written it's super simple to understand.
Obviously you need to purchase some Ilford HP5 B&W Film from Ilford's ULF (Ultra Large Film) Program in 127 (46mm) and rewind the 650mm film and backing paper in a Changing Bag (to make a 12 exposure roll) so you can use your Baby Rollei or the Yashica 44.., then you would (like me) have a use for the 127 Film Digitaliza Mask!
Not sure if someone has pointed it out already or this is just an Android phone feature but you can invert the color on the phone so that the camera app displays the negative in normal color. This setting is under Accessibility->Visibility Enhancements->Color Inversion. I haven't bought the scanner yet so don't know what the result would be but I will find out.
Epson ist great! But slow. I have made a new video about scanning on my channel trying out the Valoi easy35 (which I would nowadays see as the best option to scan 35mm film). There is also a comparison with my Epson V500 - maybe the video is interesting for you.
@@KarinMajoka slow, but quality better, also it have infrared scratch removal. For highest quality I use drum scanner it even slower but have best quality. Another tips. I use laminated light source, it not making halo!
Seems like a decent option for casual film shooters, especially with black and white. I use this with my copy stand and Nikon D810 + 60mm Micro Nikkor, it has replaced my 3d printed film holder and it's superior in every way.
Glad you enjoy using the Digitaliza as well! And that sounds like a really professional setup which probably gives way better results than my phone scans haha.
If you scan yourself, please remember to put the emulsion side of the film face up. Think that makes the photos sharper. I use a 24 or 26 Mpix camera and a Makro lens. Results are very good with self-built Repro-Stand (made of wood) and the Lomography Digita-Liza for 35mm negatives. At least, I can see the grain of the film.
I wonder if you’d get better results using something like Halide on the phone to get the images in RAW instead of after whatever processing Apple applies to them
I bought one just because I love all things Lomography ... I have yet to use mine, but u expect that i will go for a DSAL Macro combo rather that my iPhone 8!!!
I currently use an essential film holder for 35mm and 120 and an Intrepid enlarger head as the light source. If you want a cheaper solution an enlarging lens would make a great high quality alternative. I use an old sigma macro 105mm as my lens that provides high quality results.
I heard different things about the Intrepid enlarger head - did you find the light to be evenly spread? And the idea with the enlarging lens is really great, I thought about it before as well. Might not be as easy to get it converted to be mounted on a camera, but might indeed work. Thanks!
@@KarinMajoka I’ve got the Intrepid 4x5 head which may be more even. The colour balance is very warm so I use a blue filter to even things a bit if I’m scanning colour. I think the Nikon 50mm enlarging lens can be had for a good price
@@KarinMajoka There’s a Nikon 50mm F2.8 enlarging lens at West Yorkshire Cameras for £45 only, great lens, the only reasonI’m not buying is because I already have one.
I like using the digitaliza holder for 120 film scanning but I do it using my digital camera (Olympus EM5ii with Oly 25mm macro lens) it turns out pretty great on 6x6 negatives, but not as good for 35mm and total yuck on my cell phone camera. It looks like you got your 35mm scans to work on your phone way better than what Ive ever managed to get, woo hoo!
Thanks for sharing your process! :) It's always harder to scan 35mm in than medium format, it's actually the same with the flatbed scanner. Glad to hear you found something that works for you. ✌🏻
What did you use to mount your camera to scan? Is there an easy/cheap way to mount a DSLM (like my A6000) for a setup like this? I think the smartphone option lacks a bit of image quality so I am leaning toward getting a second hand dedicated film scanner but I think your video might convince me otherwise! 🐱
I preordered the digitaliza (without the phone stand) a few months back but while waiting for it to be shipped I came across a used epson v600 for 100€.It is indeed slow but I think it's a great compromise for 120 scans, I still let the lab scan my 35mm for now. I cancelled the preorder of the digitaliza+ also because I was previously planning to scan everything with my camera and a vintage Nikon macro 55 but I think it's just not as practical as the flatbed scanner, I honestly get amazing results for 120
Wow, an Epson V600 for 100€ is an absolute steal! Lucky you, I would have probably made the same decision as you. The flatbed is amazing for medium format film!
I think the setup looks good in terms of speed and small footprint, if the reflexion issue is fixed. Not sure how it compares to other setups, as they are a lot out there. The issue in terms of quality is really the phone. However, even with a dedicated mirrorless camera, I'm not a big fan as what I've seen is that the digitalized pictures pick up the colour profile of the camera you are using (Nikon vs Canon for example) and the overall pictures lose a bit of their film look. That's why I still prefer a flatbed but, yeah, it's long, tedious and a real pain. That and the price of film have made me go back to digital actually.
I am happy that it has the 127 mask. Labs rarely develop that format and those who do don't scan it. There are people that still use that format or Shanghai would not produce it. With millions of affordable cameras out there and a negative format that is between 50 and almost 300% larger than 35mm it's always an alternative even if film stocks are limited. So when you produce something that can scan 135 and 120 why not add a 127 mask for a few cents? Thanks from the Unicorns for it.
The quality is surprising for just an iPhone 7, at least! I think it's time for you to get a $100 old film macro lens and your own Digitaliza. :) I'm a camera scanner evangelist, but also hate when people berate others for using flatbeds. ha ha. Not sure if you caught my Digitaliza review, but my first ever YT video was about camera scanning, actually!
I was surprised as well what that old iPhone 7 could do. But I think it's time for a new phone at some point haha. Do you have any recommendations for an affordable (vintage) Macro lens? I must have missed your review on it but will surely check it out, thanks :)
@@KarinMajoka Ohh! Mine was just a couple of episodes ago. I think I would still go for the Canon 50mm FD macro with an extension tube. Mine wound up being free, but they still go for pretty cheap. A little Sony adapter and you're set. A good alternative might be the Canon 100mm macro FD or the Nikon 55mm macro. They're all nice and sharp, and pretty cheap. My one complaint is that the 100mm has focus creep when pointed down, so I have to tape the lens. The 50mm is nice and stiff, so it's super easy to lock in the focus. I'll send pictures of mine if you want more info!
Hey Karin, try to get a Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro, its only 50€ used, and you don't ned AF for Macro. I used it with the two Meike Extension Tubes to get 26mm Extension and the Lens to 1:1 Magnification. 62mm Distance from the Front end of the lens to the Film is a very good distance, f8, 1/30 and a cheap IR Remote for Sony and you will be blazing fast without touching the Camera
Thanks for the tip, I will absolutely check out the lens and see if there are any for sale locally. :) I actually have a Remote for the Sony, so the only thing missing is a Macro lens (and maybe adapter to get it on Sony E-Mount).
The lab scan is obviously the sharpest, but personally I prefer the colours from the Epson scans. Question, if anyone can help, I would appreciate it. I'm thinking of purchasing a second hand V500, but fear that in the near future, there won't be any updates to the drivers and I will essentially be left with nothing but a large paper weight. Is this a possibility or unlikely?
Actually there is no driver available from the Epson V500 for my operation system (MacOS Monterey). So instead of using the original Epson driver I am using Vuescan to run my scanner which works like a charm. Vuescan has drivers available for almost every scanner out there - but it's not free, you will have to purchase a license for that.
would there be a way to project and enlarge the negative and take a picture of that enlargement? could that yield a better result? sad there is not a simple way. i saw someone using a slide projector and mounting a slr camera to the end of it, receiving the projection directly in the camera wit a macro lens.
I spend a lot of money for my analog cameras, and I think I would loose the quality of my negatives with a scan with a phone. I’m using my old Sony A7R3 with a sigma 2.8 70mm macro lens. So I get 28 mp images from a 120 negative and 42 mp from a 135. If I want more, I’m unwind the pixelshift mode. I own a cheap copy stand and marked 120 and 135 position on the column. That system works very well for me, I need 10 min for scanning 36 negatives. To develop the negatives with NLP and Lightroom needs definitely one or two hours for 36 photos. So the scanning process is not a big deal.
Is the Sigma 70mm Macro lens a native Sony E-Mount lens or do you adapt it? That setup sounds really really nice and 10 minutes for a whole rolls is fantastic. :) Currently it takes me 1,5h only for scanning (without taking the editing into account) for a roll of 35mm - which can be really annoying.
@@KarinMajoka yes, the sigma is a native Sony lens. The AF is terrible, but I only use the MF and the sharpness is amazing. Used price is about 350€, new 500€. I also spend (just) 50€ for the BRESSER BR-CST Copy Stand and 25€ for the 135 mask and the 120 mask from digitaLiza. My Kaiser lightpanel is 35 years old and works very well. A rocket blow is also helpful.
..cool, aber ich würde es für das scannen mit einer kamera nutzen, btw. meine scanning-kamera ist eine sony a6000 mit dem 30er macro auf einem alten umgebauten durst vergrößerer gebaut...... lg
I have the Digitalizer Max and use my Olly EM-1 with a 60mm macro lens. 16MP is good, but I will be getting a camera with a better resolution to get more out of my scans. A 60mm is a good compromise between film formats as it can handle both 35mm and 120 film pretty well. A smartphone is a waste of time. I've never got good results with one. They're too much of a compromise, with those tiny sensors, no matter how well the algorithms in the phone tweak the image you get. But, each to their own. If you like the scans you get with your phone, then fire away!!
Haha, love the nickname for your Olympus! :) I totally agree, scanning with my phone is also not an option for me - I will either continue with my V500 or buy a Macro lens. But I wanted to test phone scanning out anyway to see if it was "good enough" for people who have no other option available.
What's the best (fastest with best quality) way to scan photos? I'm worried about getting all of the family photos scanned before it's too late (also the home-movies on VHS). Scanning photos with a scanner isn't practical since there are many hundreds if not thousands, and capturing from VHS with my old capture-card is a pain at best. I have a bad feeling I'll have to pay lots of money for a lab to do it. 😕
Digitising movies is a whole different topic. But regarding photos: If you own a digital camera, digitising with a Macro-lens might be the fastest ans best way possible. If not it will be hard to find a cheap and high-quality way. You will either have to sacrifice some more money to get a proper setup like a flatbed scanner or sacrifice some quality like I do in this example when scanning with the phone. Good luck!
I'm using a flatbed (CanoScan 9000F) for 120 and a dedicated Filmscanner (Reflecta ProScan 7200) for 35mm, both with Silverfast SE Plus. With the ProScan I'm still very pleased, quality is good and it's fast, but 120 on the Canon takes forever - often 15 mins or more with dust removal. The film holder is fiddly and I'm having problems with curved film constantly, so I'm still looking for an inexpensive way to get faster and better medium format scans. Those should be printable, and with only 16MP and no macro lens I'm thinking the camera method isn't for me and I'd throw away a good chunk of resolution. Unfortunately while there are 3rd party film holders for Epson that would at least help with the curved film, there's no such thing for my Canon (besides, those holders are really expensive too). If I had all the money in the world I'd probably get a Reflecta for medium format too, but that's way out of my league. :(
I always wanted to try one of those Reflecta scanner for 35mm since I heard that they are way cheaper than the flatbed. I think something like a Pakon scanner would be ideal for scanning 35mm (speed-wise) but it's also way out of my price range.
@@KarinMajoka Oh no, definitely not cheaper. You maybe think of those cheap consumer ones for below 100 Euros that basically also take a photo (Lidl just has a similar one for just 39€), but they get really bad reviews. My ProScan was about 450 Euros way back in 2012, they have a cheaper model of a similar type that's a little fiddlier to use, but that's also more expensive than your average flatbed. But just for fun, maybe that Lidl scanner would be a video idea? It was still available there last week. :)
@@chrissoclone Ahhh, I did not mean cheaper but faster - sorry! The price was actually why I am hesitating to get a Reflecta. I saw that Lidl scanner the other day actually. I wonder if it's any better than the phone scans though 😂😬
@@KarinMajoka Oh yes, definitely faster, especially with dust removal in color - even mine that must be advanced manually, and the quality is much better without the glass. As for the Lidl thing, I was tempted to try it even though I know it must be really bad. Resolution is 5MP IIRC, I believe every smartphone at least triples that today. :)
Hi Karin- Here is a video describing my set-up- ruclips.net/video/1uwv3oYotnk/видео.html . This video was done before I had figured out how to get better sound quality by using a lav microphone. Sorry for the background humming sound. Since making this video, I now use a Canon R6 camera and the RF 100mm Macro lens. As a result, I had to get a 67mm-52mm step ring to connect the spacing tubes to the lens. I also discovered that I don't need as many spacing tubes between the lens and Nikon ES-1 adapter. I have had many people ask me where I got the spacing tubes and I don't remember. I have not been able to find them on-line, so far. The phone set up with the Lomography stand looks slick and very easy to use, however, as you found out, the quality is not the best. I always enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work. ~Earl
Sehr interessant.. Spannend wäre, wie die Resultate wären, wenn man dieselbe Hardware benutzten würde, jedoch mit einem aktuellen Smartphone wie iphone13 und dann das Negativ am PC weiterbearbeiten würde...
Fände ich auch sehr spanned zu sehen wieviel besser ein iPhone 13 im Gegensatz zum iPhone 7 abschneiden würde. Dann wären wir allerdings nicht mehr so ganz im low-budget Bereich :D
@@KarinMajoka Das ist wohl war... Ich werde mir die Hardware mal kaufen und mit meinem IPhone 13 mal testen. Ich lass es dich gerne wissen wie es abschneidet...
This is actually the cheapest method, but it can only be used as illustrative material, because the quality is terrible compared even to a cheap flatbed scanner. I don't even mention the set of a mirrorless camera + a good macro lens, because it's like comparing a scooter to a Mercedes.
Nikon D800E, Nikkor 105mm 1:1 macro lens, Negative Supply copy stand, light box, and negative holders from my enlarger. I wouldn't waste my time with a phone.
It might be just me, but the phone scans look way sharper than the Epson scans. Yes, the colours are out of whack, but that’s down to editing, not resolution or sharpness, one could edit the phone scanned negatives using the same software as the epson scans.
That's just our human brain smoothing things out. It fails at faces though... You can see how bad the phone scans really are at 6:07. Look at how blurry that mans face is.
...not if Epson Scan does not work on your system anymore (MacOS Monterey) 😢 That is true, back in my student days I used to use Gimp a lot as an alternative to photoshop. However, Negative Lab Pro is a plugin for Lightroom Classics and does not run on any other program (at least to my knowledge)
@@KarinMajoka I mainly use Rawtherapee, they have a basic setting for film negatives (only used it for B/W which make it a bit easier). Also never tried Negative lab pro, so can´t compare them. Also darktable has a module for film negatives. Don´t know if they work well enough. But hey, they are free to try out I guess darktable is a bit easier a program to get into. But I love some of the options of rawtherapee.
@@KarinMajoka haha I don't know, I have Premiere on my Windows machine but never used it. I hate video editing, I have been thinking about doing something with RUclips and already filmed more or less 2 "episodes" of material, now 1,5 year ago . By the way, I was thinking of you last week... Some guy on Facebook sold two crates of cameras (around 100) for €100. I haven't had time to go through them, but the camera that was like on top, clearly visible what it was, was the Druh(?) you once told about in a vlog!
I thought I’d be the 50th person to say this…. Never take a photo on an iPhone with the digital zoom. There is a reason why the phone shots look so mushy and digital zoom is it…
Yes, you are totally right, the digital zoom is usually a bad idea to use. However, when scanning with the phone you only have two options to get close to the negative, since you are limited with the minimum focusing distance of the phone: either getting as close as possible (which is not close at all) and cropping in post or using the digital zoom. And between these two options I found the zoom to work a little bit better than cropping in post.
I kinda don't understand the usecase of that tool. 100€ is too much for someone that just casually wants to see what's on some old negatives. And the quality is too low for anyone that is enthusiastic enough to take photos on film. Maybe just to quickly check which photos are good, and worth scanning properly? It would maybe be a good thing if it was made for real cameras with a macro lens as you showed at the end.
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N4f7d0-psIc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](/img/tr.png)
Which method are you using to digitise your images? And addressing the people who use a DSLR or mirrorless for scanning: Do you have any recommendations for a good macro lens? ✨
Personally I bought a Minolta MD 50/55mm (I buy and forget sometimes) with its adapter to go real 1:1 and I've been super satisfied with the results.
A combo like the one I mentioned plus the adapter you will need to adapt it would be around 80 to 100euros all together. Bought mine on eBay in Germany.
@@venospap2638 That sounds exactly like what I was looking for. Thanks for the recommendation of the macro lens, I will see if there are any available on eBay in my region. Thank you! :)
@@KarinMajoka No worries! As a double if you've never done macro before, the addition of this lens to your kit could also be a good entry to the macro world.
By the way I like your video style! You're one of the first RUclipsrs I've stumbled upon since I started shooting film and through you I found Safelight Berlin (vid on Spätlight), my now lab of choice haha!
Any good lens you already have + macro rings or bellows.
There are no really had macro lenses and it's good to use manual focus anyway. Anything will do, although a 180mm might not be ideal 😉
I use my Epson 4490, Epson scan software and Photoshop.
This is the best video I have come across in regard to this piece of hardware. Thanks for the breakdown.
I found my DSLR scans to be much better than the lab scans primarily because it's a RAW file I'm working with. Any lens works for scanning when you buy a cheap extension tube set. The Digitaliza is a nice idea but $110 is quite pricey for a lightbox with a stick. Definitely cheaper ways to do this.
I found extension tubes to add a lot of distortion to the edges of the image, so for me it's only a temporary solution. And yes, it's absolutely right that they are cheaper (maybe even DIY) options. But evenness of the lightsource and flatness of the negative are important points to take into account that are harder to get accurate with a DIY solution :)
@@KarinMajoka That's a shame; I haven't had problems using my Canon's telephoto and extension tubes. Nothing that can't be corrected in Adobe Raw, anyway. I do use a proper lightbox and flatten as needed with glass
@@danem2215I’d love some more information on this, totally new to film and my current device to shoot raw would be an iPhone 15ProMax
There is not much need to digitize film into raw. The data/hdr/colour that comes with other file formats is more than most film cameras out there can ever get into a film. If you like the controls of camera RAW then just use it as a smart filter on a jpeg. The key element of collecting data from film is the quality of light passing through and the camera or scanners sensor and focusing ability.
Really respect you and the channel, Karin, but when manually converting scans in Snapseed it would have been advised if you also went into the RGB curves (and not just the luminance) as colors will always be totally inaccurate if you don’t correct for the orange film base. I am sure you know this but this would have been a handy addition to the video and would have made for a fairer comparison of the 3 methods.
That's a great method for getting an overview and creating a preview.
For 35mm I use a Plustek 8200 and for medium format an Epson V800. However I only scan the ones I think are worth it, so 80-90% get sorted out before the scanning starts. :)
For medium format copying, I bought a used Fujifilm X-T20 in excellent condition and a new 7Artisans 60mm f/2.8 Macro MKII lens. The total combined price was £525.00 (about €626.00) and this combination is permanently attached to a copying stand. I know the purists would insist on using a full-frame camera to copy negatives, but the results I get digitising my 6X6 medium format negs are excellent. I use a Lomography DigitaLIZA Scanning Mask to hold the film over an LED light table.
For 35mm, I use a different method. I have an Plustek OpticFilm 8200i dedicated 35mm film scanner ( around €375 equivalent in the UK) which, although a little slow, produces great scans. I do have to say that I shoot a lot of both formats, so having the two different options is worth it for me. However, if I had to choose one, I’d go with my X-T20 setup which would copy both formats really well.
If I purist says that then he/she doesn´t understand the differences for full frame doesn´t matter here (like in many cases it doesn´t matter), and you should just answer that you only using the sharpest part of the lens this way, see how he/she will respond to that
I love that you included Lab scans and also zoomed in. Clearly the lab scans had better resolution. I am interested in how to recreate that resolution at home. Looking forward to another video. Gruss Gott!
Finding this 2 years later. Holy cats: this is...THIS is a really useful video. Thank you for sharing this info, Karin. I just got my first roll of negatives back a few days ago, and now I need to look this all over.
Hi, thanks so much for stopping by and saying hi! Glad you enjoyed the video! By now I have switched up my scanning setup entirely though, I use a digital camera in combination with the valoi easy35 for scanning nowadays.
@@KarinMajoka ohhhh! I'll have to learn even more. Fun!
For a quick view of my negatives (and maybe for reference when storing), I’ll use Ribsy’s technique: do a contact sheet by laying the negatives on a light table and taking a quick picture of it. That will allow to select photos and scan the worthy ones on my Epson flatbed.
That is actually genius! You will need to have a large light table for that, but if you own one anyway it's definitely the most efficient method. Thanks for sharing (to you and Ribsy of course! ☺️).
@@KarinMajoka I used just a small (video) led light that I hold behind the dried filmroll (and the Kodak mobile film scanner app, so I could already a positive image). Very crude but gives a good first look and certainly good enough to throw out some failed ones
What cool idea !
Woooooo a Karin upload!! I use Fujifilm XT3 with their 80mm f/2.8. This lens was expensive, even used, but renders beautifully. You always get me giggling Karin, while you inspire every time.
Thanks so much for your comment James - I appreciate it a lot! :) That sounds like a really wonderful lens. If I had a digital Fuji camera I would absolutely check it out!
Thank you so much for providing these insights - it has solved a dilemma I have been dealing with: on the one hand I am still very much in the analogue world emotionally with equipment I have used for many years. Yet the reality is that digital photography just makes more sense for an amateur photographer with time and ressource constraints. As I make my way into the craft of digital photography, I miss the analogue habits and workflow which I have grown accustomed to. Using this simple set up provides an image which is good enough the evaluate the negative images quickly, almost like a contact sheet used to do. Based on this initial assessment, I can then select negatives to have either scanned professionally or go to my local darkroom and spend a day of focussed creation.
Thanks for your comment, glad this helped to get an idea of how to scan negatives in efficiently. I am sure it's a good compromise to use this method as a low-res first glance to select which images are worth being scanned in better quality.
I haven’t started scanning my negatives yet so this was great timing Karin. I own a Tamron 90mm f.2.8 and highly recommend it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. Your posts are informative, inspirational, entertaining and fun.
Glad to hear the video was useful for you! :) And thanks for the lens recommendation - I will absolutely check it out!
thank you for this video but the main reason I searched negative scanning is that I have many old 127 film negatives that I want to scan so I am so happy you mention 127 is included that is all I am interested since there so many devices doing the regular films
I love your voice and accent! Also, super cool video! Thank you for showing us.
This was super helpful, Karin! Thanks so much! Without a macro lens either, how workable were the extension tubes on your mirrorless... did you find your results just not as good as a macro lens, or did they have problems? I'm in a similar situation, can't really afford a macrolens but I don't own the extension tubes either!
If you use a DSLR, I recommend a remote shutter release to avoid camera shake. You could save up to 3 seconds per photo. 📷🙂
You could also use a remote shutter release for your cell(mobile)phone.
wow! finally there is a „budget“ option. These film carriers are usually super expensive. I was literally waiting for this as I started camera-scanning my film just recently. In fact, I have 3d printed a film carrier because I was to cheap to buy any of the ones available back then :D
The 3D printed solution is probably even more budget friendly though! :) But I think if you are considering an "upgrade" the Digitaliza is a great piece of addition.
Having used my Epson V800 Scanner for years I find this method very useful. I can get scans of my favorite pictures from a film in no time onto my phone., which is my photoalbum. Some photos get printed out on my Instax printer, the quality is good enough for this. And later I can do "proper" scans on my flatbed scanner if I want to (maybe, after retirement, haha).
Excellent timing for me as well, Karin. I currently pay for scans and was thinking I should take the plunge and try a scanning setup. I had already been looking at the Lomography setup, so your experiences are really valuable. Please forgive my ignorance, but did scanning Xpan negatives pose any special problems? Cheers!
Great the video was useful for you, Paul! :) Scanning XPAN images did not cause any troubles at all, it was just as easy as regular 35mm. I tried it with and without the panoramic diffusor and have to say that I did not find that much of a difference, both worked fine. :)
Thank you!
I thought some of the photo's you show looked best from the flatbed. Then again; that might be post settings.
Going to get one of these for sure. Thanks for the honest video.
I have a pretty nifty iPhone so the camera should be up to speed.
Also: I scanned a ton of wedding photos on my, very old, flatbed recently and due to the energy costs, My bill was 100 euro higher that month. So there is that as well.
Anyhoe, I liked you photo's.
Regards,
Mac
Just ordered a Sony A7Rii to upgrade my camera scanning set up. I've been dabbling with a fuji xe-4 to scan and enjoyed the results for 35mm but decided to take the plunge on the A7Rii to get better results for 35mm and especially 120 without having to stitch or anything like that
I was curious about this, thanks for the video. I use an Epson V600 (and their scanning software) + NLP since I don't have a digital camera.
Thank you for your review and explanation. I am in the process of deciding what scanning system I would like to purchase. Your comment regarding the time required for a flatbed method is disheartening. I was considering an Epson V600 or a Negative Supply copy system. Regarding a macro lens; Sigma makes high quality Sony compatible (E mount) at a fraction of comparable Sony glass. I'm primarily a Canon shooter with L lenses, but I'm using Sigma lenses on my Sony 6400 (everyday camera and for street photography. Recently returning to film I'm using a Mamiya 645 1000S, Bronica S2 and my Leica M3.
Really interesting video. I currently don't own a setup to scan my film. I get it done in a lab, but i think over time that is way to pricey. Did you try this one out with a proper macro lens and compared it to a lab scan? I would be really interested in those results
Great informative review. It helped me decide that this is not for me when at first it seemed a good idea. I use an Epson V600 ($220USD) and their software (Free) to scan and convert images and edit them in Lightroom ($10.95uSD a month) and am happy with my results. I only view my images on my computer or share to Instagram so don't need perfection. Mine seems to go a good deal faster than yours though. I also go over my sleeved negatives on a light table with a loupe first and rarely scan in more than half of them, only picking what looks like the best exposure and composition to edit further with scanning and Lightroom.
So, fun fact... I shot a roll of 127 yesterday 😆
One of the biggest differences was that Apple goes a bit heavy with the noise reduction in their stock app. I wonder if you use a camera app which captures RAW, you might retain some of the film grain? Good call to set the histogram straight away, as I normally set each other separately but maybe the difference is negligible.
(and I'm the guy everyone hates, who uses extension tubes on a nifty fifty... but it works so 🤷🏻♂)
I enjoy your videos and find them informative. Regarding your flatbed scanner, could I ask which model you are using? I have read that the middle range Epson scanners are somehow not compatible with the latest Mac computers and operating systems. I need to scan 120 film. Even a company like BH photo in the US suggests contacting Epson before purchase, which has not helped much. Thank you!
Digitalizer + camera makes a good job. With phone is quite shitty, maybe just as a preview.
Overall, quite good review!
I think that you could achieve better colour results with different editor software, or even post-processing your phone camera scans in Vuescan, which you might have, anyway? Getting rid of the orange mask on negatives is a pain... You might also be able to use a "selfie" adapter, with Bluetooth or wired connection, to avoid jiggling the phone... You could get a tiny container of flat black paint from hobby supplier to paint the edges of all of the parts of the scanner that are in the optical path... I guess that scanning in a darker environment helps with "stray light", too... If your phone can save images in 100% JPEG, or in DNG, the saved files can be "cleaner", and please turn off any "sharpen" settings... I've used "open camera" on Android for scanning, and a decent photo editor.
Thank you! I was really waiting to see what that setup is like. Definitely an interesting idea for quick overviews.
I used a rather old (and thanks to the Japanese climate a little mouldy) Canon 9000F mark 2, which is really old and was bought used for about €120 plus silverfast AI plus. I love : hate silverfast. It’s colour conversion is awesome and the negafix tool is really great, but it has a steep learning curve. After 6 years I get really really good results with near perfect colour if I adjust it enough, but dust is still an issue.
I plan to update to the best of class epson scanner (around €700) plus silverfast Studio which has even more tools.
My canon supports multi exposure and ICE which give some really really great colours and highlight / shadow separation, but because of its age and the mild mould I still need to use Affinity photo to clean most scans up a bit.
Scans on this go:
Pre-scan
Scan
Multi exposure scan (optional and can be also done for pre-scans but I found that takes too long, but if you need more exact representations of the results, it’s awesome! Especially on 120 film!!)
File creation
Per scan around 5 mins including pre-adjustments, but I scan either 12 135 or 4 to 2 120 (depending on size) images per scan run and once the first image is done I can work it while the rest is still scanning.
I would definitely recommend silverfast if they have a version for your scanner. They have free trials of all their software tiers and as of now it’s a one time purchase per version with reasonable update and upgrade prices.
Also: Positive scans with silverfast are really fast. Scanning positive film and documents is a blast and the results are superb. I use silverfast for all my document scanning too, for that reason.
One question: doing the conversion with software like negative lab pro sounds quite laborious. How long does it take you per image?
For many years now I've been using a cheap "instant film scanner" that I got at a charity shop for 5$. You know, the kind of box with an LCD screen on it that was originally marketed towards all the aunt Ednas of the world? This is the first step in my workflow. I do that to get quick images (I can convert a roll in about 2 minutes) which then get re-numbered, EXIF tagged and made into an index sheet using a couple of Windows Batch Scripts that I wrote. I usually print the index sheets using my laser printer. For the images that I really like, then it's on to the Epson 4490 for proper high bit-depth scans. That way, I don't feel like I'm wasting time scanning images that don't turn out good.
Hahaha, loved this comment - if I ever get my hands on one of those 5€ scanners I will make a video called "Is this scanner only usable for the aunt Ednas of this world?" about it 😂 The solution with the index sheets sounds really nice, it's really practical to have the index sheet right next to the negativ sheet in the archive.
@@KarinMajoka If you are are on Windows and want a copy, I'll figure out a way to send it to you. I haven't fully tweaked it for the A4 formats and it's missing some features but the way it's written it's super simple to understand.
Really useful. Thankyou!
Obviously you need to purchase some Ilford HP5 B&W Film from Ilford's ULF (Ultra Large Film) Program in 127 (46mm) and rewind the 650mm film and backing paper in a Changing Bag (to make a 12 exposure roll) so you can use your Baby Rollei or the Yashica 44.., then you would (like me) have a use for the 127 Film Digitaliza Mask!
Not sure if someone has pointed it out already or this is just an Android phone feature but you can invert the color on the phone so that the camera app displays the negative in normal color. This setting is under Accessibility->Visibility Enhancements->Color Inversion. I haven't bought the scanner yet so don't know what the result would be but I will find out.
Epson is the best! Proove me that Epson V850 not good for scanning slides and negatives? or you have better options?
Epson ist great! But slow. I have made a new video about scanning on my channel trying out the Valoi easy35 (which I would nowadays see as the best option to scan 35mm film). There is also a comparison with my Epson V500 - maybe the video is interesting for you.
@@KarinMajoka slow, but quality better, also it have infrared scratch removal. For highest quality I use drum scanner it even slower but have best quality. Another tips. I use laminated light source, it not making halo!
@@KarinMajoka I wonder how much faster the flatbat scanner would be if you lower the DPI to match the (real) resolution of the phone scan.
Seems like a decent option for casual film shooters, especially with black and white. I use this with my copy stand and Nikon D810 + 60mm Micro Nikkor, it has replaced my 3d printed film holder and it's superior in every way.
Glad you enjoy using the Digitaliza as well! And that sounds like a really professional setup which probably gives way better results than my phone scans haha.
If you scan yourself, please remember to put the emulsion side of the film face up. Think that makes the photos sharper.
I use a 24 or 26 Mpix camera and a Makro lens. Results are very good with self-built Repro-Stand (made of wood) and the Lomography Digita-Liza for 35mm negatives. At least, I can see the grain of the film.
I got my epson V500 for 50€. I like it. Is good for 120 and Polaroids.
I wonder if you’d get better results using something like Halide on the phone to get the images in RAW instead of after whatever processing Apple applies to them
Might be worth a try, thanks for the suggestion. :) But I guess the inevitable next step for me will be to upgrade my phone at some point 😂
I bought one just because I love all things Lomography ... I have yet to use mine, but u expect that i will go for a DSAL Macro combo rather that my iPhone 8!!!
Scan with iPhone 14 or above in 48mp mode.
I currently use an essential film holder for 35mm and 120 and an Intrepid enlarger head as the light source. If you want a cheaper solution an enlarging lens would make a great high quality alternative. I use an old sigma macro 105mm as my lens that provides high quality results.
I heard different things about the Intrepid enlarger head - did you find the light to be evenly spread? And the idea with the enlarging lens is really great, I thought about it before as well. Might not be as easy to get it converted to be mounted on a camera, but might indeed work. Thanks!
@@KarinMajoka I’ve got the Intrepid 4x5 head which may be more even. The colour balance is very warm so I use a blue filter to even things a bit if I’m scanning colour. I think the Nikon 50mm enlarging lens can be had for a good price
@@KarinMajoka There’s a Nikon 50mm F2.8 enlarging lens at West Yorkshire Cameras for £45 only, great lens, the only reasonI’m not buying is because I already have one.
I like using the digitaliza holder for 120 film scanning but I do it using my digital camera (Olympus EM5ii with Oly 25mm macro lens) it turns out pretty great on 6x6 negatives, but not as good for 35mm and total yuck on my cell phone camera. It looks like you got your 35mm scans to work on your phone way better than what Ive ever managed to get, woo hoo!
Thanks for sharing your process! :) It's always harder to scan 35mm in than medium format, it's actually the same with the flatbed scanner. Glad to hear you found something that works for you. ✌🏻
Use the macro lens on your phone. better results to use a DSLR with the right lens
What did you use to mount your camera to scan? Is there an easy/cheap way to mount a DSLM (like my A6000) for a setup like this? I think the smartphone option lacks a bit of image quality so I am leaning toward getting a second hand dedicated film scanner but I think your video might convince me otherwise! 🐱
I preordered the digitaliza (without the phone stand) a few months back but while waiting for it to be shipped I came across a used epson v600 for 100€.It is indeed slow but I think it's a great compromise for 120 scans, I still let the lab scan my 35mm for now. I cancelled the preorder of the digitaliza+ also because I was previously planning to scan everything with my camera and a vintage Nikon macro 55 but I think it's just not as practical as the flatbed scanner, I honestly get amazing results for 120
Wow, an Epson V600 for 100€ is an absolute steal! Lucky you, I would have probably made the same decision as you. The flatbed is amazing for medium format film!
@@KarinMajoka What is your preferred scanning method for 35mm? Does your V500 give good enough results or do you prefer lab scans for 35mm?
Well I have an iPhone 7 as well and consider it, well yeah it's old. I also have an A7II which i, I'll upgrade if you do.
What a coincidence! Well, I will probably have to upgrade my phone before I upgrade my mirrorless camera.
I think the setup looks good in terms of speed and small footprint, if the reflexion issue is fixed. Not sure how it compares to other setups, as they are a lot out there. The issue in terms of quality is really the phone. However, even with a dedicated mirrorless camera, I'm not a big fan as what I've seen is that the digitalized pictures pick up the colour profile of the camera you are using (Nikon vs Canon for example) and the overall pictures lose a bit of their film look. That's why I still prefer a flatbed but, yeah, it's long, tedious and a real pain. That and the price of film have made me go back to digital actually.
I am happy that it has the 127 mask. Labs rarely develop that format and those who do don't scan it. There are people that still use that format or Shanghai would not produce it. With millions of affordable cameras out there and a negative format that is between 50 and almost 300% larger than 35mm it's always an alternative even if film stocks are limited. So when you produce something that can scan 135 and 120 why not add a 127 mask for a few cents? Thanks from the Unicorns for it.
The quality is surprising for just an iPhone 7, at least! I think it's time for you to get a $100 old film macro lens and your own Digitaliza. :) I'm a camera scanner evangelist, but also hate when people berate others for using flatbeds. ha ha. Not sure if you caught my Digitaliza review, but my first ever YT video was about camera scanning, actually!
I was surprised as well what that old iPhone 7 could do. But I think it's time for a new phone at some point haha. Do you have any recommendations for an affordable (vintage) Macro lens? I must have missed your review on it but will surely check it out, thanks :)
@@KarinMajoka Ohh! Mine was just a couple of episodes ago. I think I would still go for the Canon 50mm FD macro with an extension tube. Mine wound up being free, but they still go for pretty cheap. A little Sony adapter and you're set. A good alternative might be the Canon 100mm macro FD or the Nikon 55mm macro. They're all nice and sharp, and pretty cheap. My one complaint is that the 100mm has focus creep when pointed down, so I have to tape the lens. The 50mm is nice and stiff, so it's super easy to lock in the focus. I'll send pictures of mine if you want more info!
Hey Karin, try to get a Canon FD 50mm f3.5 Macro, its only 50€ used, and you don't ned AF for Macro. I used it with the two Meike Extension Tubes to get 26mm Extension and the Lens to 1:1 Magnification. 62mm Distance from the Front end of the lens to the Film is a very good distance, f8, 1/30 and a cheap IR Remote for Sony and you will be blazing fast without touching the Camera
Thanks for the tip, I will absolutely check out the lens and see if there are any for sale locally. :) I actually have a Remote for the Sony, so the only thing missing is a Macro lens (and maybe adapter to get it on Sony E-Mount).
@@KarinMajoka yes! And keep us informed. New Video idea? ;)
nice review!! 👍
The lab scan is obviously the sharpest, but personally I prefer the colours from the Epson scans. Question, if anyone can help, I would appreciate it. I'm thinking of purchasing a second hand V500, but fear that in the near future, there won't be any updates to the drivers and I will essentially be left with nothing but a large paper weight. Is this a possibility or unlikely?
Actually there is no driver available from the Epson V500 for my operation system (MacOS Monterey). So instead of using the original Epson driver I am using Vuescan to run my scanner which works like a charm. Vuescan has drivers available for almost every scanner out there - but it's not free, you will have to purchase a license for that.
@@KarinMajoka thank you so much Karin, I had no idea! Interesting. Worth checking into. Thanks once again! ❤️📸
would there be a way to project and enlarge the negative and take a picture of that enlargement? could that yield a better result? sad there is not a simple way. i saw someone using a slide projector and mounting a slr camera to the end of it, receiving the projection directly in the camera wit a macro lens.
I think the image quality issue when using your Iphone is in the app you used and not the quality of the Iphone camera itself.
Are there any problems holding the film flat apart from the end frames?
Dozy (Doof) Frage about who uses 127 film ... For many people, they might want to scan 110 or 127 film that their parents took... Oder?
Have you tried Darktable with its built-in Negadoctor negative processing tool? 100% free and open source
I have not heard about it before, but I will check it out. Thanks! :)
I spend a lot of money for my analog cameras, and I think I would loose the quality of my negatives with a scan with a phone. I’m using my old Sony A7R3 with a sigma 2.8 70mm macro lens. So I get 28 mp images from a 120 negative and 42 mp from a 135. If I want more, I’m unwind the pixelshift mode.
I own a cheap copy stand and marked 120 and 135 position on the column. That system works very well for me, I need 10 min for scanning 36 negatives. To develop the negatives with NLP and Lightroom needs definitely one or two hours for 36 photos. So the scanning process is not a big deal.
Is the Sigma 70mm Macro lens a native Sony E-Mount lens or do you adapt it? That setup sounds really really nice and 10 minutes for a whole rolls is fantastic. :) Currently it takes me 1,5h only for scanning (without taking the editing into account) for a roll of 35mm - which can be really annoying.
@@KarinMajoka yes, the sigma is a native Sony lens. The AF is terrible, but I only use the MF and the sharpness is amazing. Used price is about 350€, new 500€.
I also spend (just) 50€ for the BRESSER BR-CST Copy Stand and 25€ for the 135 mask and the 120 mask from digitaLiza. My Kaiser lightpanel is 35 years old and works very well. A rocket blow is also helpful.
..cool, aber ich würde es für das scannen mit einer kamera nutzen, btw. meine scanning-kamera ist eine sony a6000 mit dem 30er macro auf einem alten umgebauten durst vergrößerer gebaut...... lg
Das klingt nach einer super Lösung! :)
I have the Digitalizer Max and use my Olly EM-1 with a 60mm macro lens. 16MP is good, but I will be getting a camera with a better resolution to get more out of my scans. A 60mm is a good compromise between film formats as it can handle both 35mm and 120 film pretty well. A smartphone is a waste of time. I've never got good results with one. They're too much of a compromise, with those tiny sensors, no matter how well the algorithms in the phone tweak the image you get. But, each to their own. If you like the scans you get with your phone, then fire away!!
Haha, love the nickname for your Olympus! :) I totally agree, scanning with my phone is also not an option for me - I will either continue with my V500 or buy a Macro lens. But I wanted to test phone scanning out anyway to see if it was "good enough" for people who have no other option available.
Stulle & Pulle Sticker aufm Scanner 👌
Na sichi 😬🥖
No support for slides tho?
What's the best (fastest with best quality) way to scan photos? I'm worried about getting all of the family photos scanned before it's too late (also the home-movies on VHS). Scanning photos with a scanner isn't practical since there are many hundreds if not thousands, and capturing from VHS with my old capture-card is a pain at best. I have a bad feeling I'll have to pay lots of money for a lab to do it. 😕
Digitising movies is a whole different topic. But regarding photos: If you own a digital camera, digitising with a Macro-lens might be the fastest ans best way possible. If not it will be hard to find a cheap and high-quality way. You will either have to sacrifice some more money to get a proper setup like a flatbed scanner or sacrifice some quality like I do in this example when scanning with the phone. Good luck!
I'm using a flatbed (CanoScan 9000F) for 120 and a dedicated Filmscanner (Reflecta ProScan 7200) for 35mm, both with Silverfast SE Plus. With the ProScan I'm still very pleased, quality is good and it's fast, but 120 on the Canon takes forever - often 15 mins or more with dust removal. The film holder is fiddly and I'm having problems with curved film constantly, so I'm still looking for an inexpensive way to get faster and better medium format scans. Those should be printable, and with only 16MP and no macro lens I'm thinking the camera method isn't for me and I'd throw away a good chunk of resolution. Unfortunately while there are 3rd party film holders for Epson that would at least help with the curved film, there's no such thing for my Canon (besides, those holders are really expensive too). If I had all the money in the world I'd probably get a Reflecta for medium format too, but that's way out of my league. :(
I always wanted to try one of those Reflecta scanner for 35mm since I heard that they are way cheaper than the flatbed. I think something like a Pakon scanner would be ideal for scanning 35mm (speed-wise) but it's also way out of my price range.
@@KarinMajoka Oh no, definitely not cheaper. You maybe think of those cheap consumer ones for below 100 Euros that basically also take a photo (Lidl just has a similar one for just 39€), but they get really bad reviews. My ProScan was about 450 Euros way back in 2012, they have a cheaper model of a similar type that's a little fiddlier to use, but that's also more expensive than your average flatbed. But just for fun, maybe that Lidl scanner would be a video idea? It was still available there last week. :)
@@chrissoclone Ahhh, I did not mean cheaper but faster - sorry! The price was actually why I am hesitating to get a Reflecta. I saw that Lidl scanner the other day actually. I wonder if it's any better than the phone scans though 😂😬
@@KarinMajoka Oh yes, definitely faster, especially with dust removal in color - even mine that must be advanced manually, and the quality is much better without the glass. As for the Lidl thing, I was tempted to try it even though I know it must be really bad. Resolution is 5MP IIRC, I believe every smartphone at least triples that today. :)
Hi Karin- Here is a video describing my set-up- ruclips.net/video/1uwv3oYotnk/видео.html . This video was done before I had figured out how to get better sound quality by using a lav microphone. Sorry for the background humming sound. Since making this video, I now use a Canon R6 camera and the RF 100mm Macro lens. As a result, I had to get a 67mm-52mm step ring to connect the spacing tubes to the lens. I also discovered that I don't need as many spacing tubes between the lens and Nikon ES-1 adapter. I have had many people ask me where I got the spacing tubes and I don't remember. I have not been able to find them on-line, so far. The phone set up with the Lomography stand looks slick and very easy to use, however, as you found out, the quality is not the best. I always enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work. ~Earl
Top! 👍
Never use "digital zoom" if your phone camera can get closer! Digital zoom decreases real resolution, maybe introduces more artifacts?
Sehr interessant.. Spannend wäre, wie die Resultate wären, wenn man dieselbe Hardware benutzten würde, jedoch mit einem aktuellen Smartphone wie iphone13 und dann das Negativ am PC weiterbearbeiten würde...
Fände ich auch sehr spanned zu sehen wieviel besser ein iPhone 13 im Gegensatz zum iPhone 7 abschneiden würde. Dann wären wir allerdings nicht mehr so ganz im low-budget Bereich :D
@@KarinMajoka Das ist wohl war... Ich werde mir die Hardware mal kaufen und mit meinem IPhone 13 mal testen. Ich lass es dich gerne wissen wie es abschneidet...
Came here for photography stayed for German accent 😍
This is actually the cheapest method, but it can only be used as illustrative material, because the quality is terrible compared even to a cheap flatbed scanner. I don't even mention the set of a mirrorless camera + a good macro lens, because it's like comparing a scooter to a Mercedes.
If they had a 4x5 version I would get one 100%
Nikon D800E, Nikkor 105mm 1:1 macro lens, Negative Supply copy stand, light box, and negative holders from my enlarger. I wouldn't waste my time with a phone.
Thanks for sharing, that sounds like a good setup! :) Scanning with a phone is also not for me, but it was surely fun to try it out.
It might be just me, but the phone scans look way sharper than the Epson scans. Yes, the colours are out of whack, but that’s down to editing, not resolution or sharpness, one could edit the phone scanned negatives using the same software as the epson scans.
That's just our human brain smoothing things out. It fails at faces though... You can see how bad the phone scans really are at 6:07. Look at how blurry that mans face is.
If you use Epson scan it saves €170. Also for Adobe Photoshop there are free alternatives, or alternative ways to get it 😉
...not if Epson Scan does not work on your system anymore (MacOS Monterey) 😢 That is true, back in my student days I used to use Gimp a lot as an alternative to photoshop. However, Negative Lab Pro is a plugin for Lightroom Classics and does not run on any other program (at least to my knowledge)
@@KarinMajoka aha, then you can even save more by not using Apple stuff 😜
@@Uwe_Ludolf Hahha, touché! 😂 I would have to quit RUclips then though, because it's what I need to edit my videos 😬
@@KarinMajoka I mainly use Rawtherapee, they have a basic setting for film negatives (only used it for B/W which make it a bit easier). Also never tried Negative lab pro, so can´t compare them.
Also darktable has a module for film negatives. Don´t know if they work well enough. But hey, they are free to try out
I guess darktable is a bit easier a program to get into. But I love some of the options of rawtherapee.
@@KarinMajoka haha I don't know, I have Premiere on my Windows machine but never used it. I hate video editing, I have been thinking about doing something with RUclips and already filmed more or less 2 "episodes" of material, now 1,5 year ago .
By the way, I was thinking of you last week... Some guy on Facebook sold two crates of cameras (around 100) for €100. I haven't had time to go through them, but the camera that was like on top, clearly visible what it was, was the Druh(?) you once told about in a vlog!
I thought I’d be the 50th person to say this…. Never take a photo on an iPhone with the digital zoom. There is a reason why the phone shots look so mushy and digital zoom is it…
Yes, you are totally right, the digital zoom is usually a bad idea to use. However, when scanning with the phone you only have two options to get close to the negative, since you are limited with the minimum focusing distance of the phone: either getting as close as possible (which is not close at all) and cropping in post or using the digital zoom. And between these two options I found the zoom to work a little bit better than cropping in post.
I kinda don't understand the usecase of that tool. 100€ is too much for someone that just casually wants to see what's on some old negatives. And the quality is too low for anyone that is enthusiastic enough to take photos on film. Maybe just to quickly check which photos are good, and worth scanning properly? It would maybe be a good thing if it was made for real cameras with a macro lens as you showed at the end.
Zooming in with the phone loses resolution.
the epson feels like it's out of focos
>paying for software
ngmi
Retirer ce truc de votre nez cela ne vous embelli pas c est dommage
nice review!! 👍