How to scan your film negatives with a digital camera.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- How to scan your black and white or color negatives to make digital files using your digital camera and a macro lens. Simple DIY method to get your images to into your computer and onto your social media feed. With a few simple items, a copy stand, a light table a macro lens and your digital camera you can copy your analog negatives.
As an amazon affiliate I make commission, some links here:
Sony A7R III - amzn.to/3fL443j
Sony A7R IV - amzn.to/3fUDXqO
Sony 90mm Macro - amzn.to/2Z18dKj
64 Gig SD card - amzn.to/35W5ZgK
Nikon D850 - amzn.to/2WtKUHw
Nikon 105 Micro - amzn.to/2AsHSuN
Canon 5D Mark IV - amzn.to/3dECuCW
Canon 100mm Macro - amzn.to/2WRPrCD
SanDisk 64 GB Compact flash card - amzn.to/3ctfTJx
Light table - amzn.to/3633mtS
Copy Stand - amzn.to/3bu1rPO
Converter Sony to FD lens - amzn.to/2WqyuAg
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N4f7d0-psIc/mqdefault.jpg)
Awesome. Someone that knows how to edit in 16 and save in 8 bit. This is the best way to edit ANY image, not just scans. It adds a technique to the images that eliminates or severely reduces "print banding." There are not that many photogs out there, aware of this simple method to help eliminate banding issues. Nicely done.
I love your B&W portrait.
Thanks very much, soft simple light.
Hi Todd,
I too have been using my DSLR to "scan" my 35mm and 120 size film negatives, I have to say it works really well. I shoot almost all black and white film and not much colour film. My setup is: Nikon D850 digital camera and a Nikkor 60mm ƒ2.8D macro lens on a Kaiser RT 1 copy stand, I have my own homemade light source which is fine for black and white. As long as everything is aligned, leveled, and focused it works great.
I also have a flatbed scanner, a Microtek ArtixScan F2, which can scan up to 8x10 negatives. For my own interest, I have done some side-by-side comparisons. I have found the sharpness from digitally copied 35mm negatives using the DSLR method s quite a bit better than using the flatbed scanner. When scanning or digitally copying 120 size films the differences are less noticeable, but I would say I would go with the DSLR scan system is still better. With 4x5 film, I notice the flatbed scanner produces a slightly better scan compared to the DSLR copy method. What I have noticed is there is better edge-to-edge sharpness from my flatbed scanner does a better job with the 4x5 negatives. I have also noticed that when copying 4x5 negatives using the camera copy method the 60mm lens distorts things a bit where the 4x5 ratio is no longer quite maintains the 4:5 ratio, with the scanner it's an exact enlarged copy and there is no loss of the 4:5 aspect ratio if that makes sense.
I also sometimes notice that the 60mm lens has some sharpness issues as well from the very edge of the frame to the centre, (sharp in the centre, a bit soft at the edges) even when stopped down from ƒ8 to ƒ11. The 60mm lens was probably never designed to be used as a flat field lens to copy flat objects. I usually set the D850 camera to 1.2x crop mode when copying 35mm negatives and sometimes for 120 negatives, this way I am getting the sharpest part of the lens.
Anyway, that's my setup, digital camera copy for smaller negatives and the flatbed scanner for larger negatives, 4x5 and 8x10. I have tried stitching together various digital photos of the 4x5 negatives in Photoshop using the camera copy method to make one gigantic digital file, although it can be tedious and time-consuming everything has to be lined up perfectly but it does work.
Your videos are very good, very professional, well shot and edited, have good soundtracks, and are full of great into.
Gary
Hi Gary great info. I too was using a Canon DSLR system to originally copy my negs. I have found when I went to the mirrorless system it works better. I think the new mirrorless system with their macro lens is much sharper, all brands not just one. Try and it and see what you think.
I have found the same results as you. However, when I want to make really good scans from my 8x10 negatives, I actually tape the negative onto a piece of museum glass, set it on top of 4 washers to give it a bit of space off the glass of the flatbed then do the scan. The scanner just reads the negative and I have made some really great scans using that method. (A lot of work though)
Thanks for sharing your info and watching my channel, it's a lot of work, but just trying to keep it real and share some info and photos!
Cheers
@@toddkorolphoto Thanks, Todd, well there goes my budget! A good idea to get a mirrorless system. Thanks for the info on scanning the 8x10 negatives.
@@GaryNylander Well test it out first for sure! But I sure like it.
@@toddkorolphoto I will (one of these days) Thanks!
VERY nicely done sir! Thank you for sharing. Cheers!
Thank you, Todd!
Silly question, could you share what kind of copy stand you purchased? I've been looking for a simple one I can mount my camera on!
This has really helped me! Thank you!
Perfect! Thanks.
That is one cool Fountain Pen!
Thanks, it was an anniversary gift my wife bought for me in Paris.
Led tablets show narrower color pallete then a
speedlight flash for example. Anyway, very cool video! Thank you!
Yes I agree great point. But, this video is more for just making a quick capture of your neg for Instagram, FB or just to see what the image looks like. I have a whole different process for “high res scans”. Thanks for watching.
Question: on the color negative example, I didn't see you invert that one? Did I miss that? Also, you mention that the digital captures are not as good as an Epson scan, and I have found the opposite to be true. I am using two different cameras to digitize my 4x5 film (Nikon D-850 with the macro lens, and the Panasonic S1R in high-res mode). I have found the S1R when in high res mode produces better scans than the drum scans that I was paying for. The pixel shift technology available in mirrorless cameras now is a new frontier in my opinion. I sold my Epson V850 after I got a handle on using the D-850 and the S1R.
Interesting, I need to look into that high res mode.
I was thinking of getting an S1R to get higher res scans as you mentioned. I was wondering why you still used the D850? Is the S1R overkill for 35mm? Did you give it a go? Thanks.
@@toddkorolphoto Hi I'm curious if you have tried the pixel shift mode in the A7R III yet for scanning film? I am just waiting on an essential film holder to try and scan some of my film with a similar setup. Except I dont have a copy stand but I do have a clamp and arm Im going to try
@@mrpistachios I have it works really well. I am actually going to do a more advanced digital capture video of this using that method and stitching some images together. Stay tuned.
@@milesmonroe65 The S1R is no overkill for 35mm. But the highresmode is.
That normal 46MP what the S1R resolves is more what the most 35mm negatives deliver…
Lokk for a good macrolens or an enlarger lens in bellows
Great video for digitising b&w negatives is the digital camera set to monochrome or colour many thanks John
No just to colour. That way you can also add a warm tone to it if you want as well.
Thank you for your excelent tutorial. Really really nice. I would like to put two questions. I have started to digitalize my grand father negatives which are a very valuable memory for my family as some are about 105 years old. Two questions concerning digitalization of large glass (!) negatives: 1) how to focus as the glass is 1mm thick 2) how do I know if the negative is not upside down? Thanks
HI I would always focus on the image its self. As for the image, there should always be little tell tale signs on how the image should look, flip it both ways and see what seems more natural, or look for any signs with writing in them, hope this helps. Good luck.
You are correct (in general) about quality of scans from a digital camera vs. traditional scanner. I use an Olympus Pen F camera coupled with their 60mm f2.8 macro lens, and scan the negatives on high resolution mode. You end up with a negative that is roughly a 40 mp file. That is about the upper limits of what a traditional film or flatbed scanner can resolve for a 35mm film negative. In my case the output is as good as I can get with those traditional scanners.
Yes that works very well.
Todd, using a level on the camera is a good idea. But one also needs to check the surface of the copy stand as well. First make sure the surface is level and then check the camera.
One old trick after checking levels is to place a small pocket mirror on the copy stand then look through the lens. If you see the lens and the aperture appears to be round, then the camera, lens and copy surface are most likely very close to being parallel and in alignment.
I have not tried this, but I *believe* if you shine one of those small keychain lasers into the viewfinder of the lens, it will bounce off the mirror and come back up through the lens. Make a small hole in a white 3x5" index card to shine the laser through. If the return beam is anywhere other than the source, then the alignment is off and you will see it through the card.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Digital cameras have level sensors displaying all axis now.
Really good video's enjoyed them all.Your taste in music is pretty good too. Have not used film for along time now but I decided to give it another go I have got a 4x5 camera on order and a 6x9 roll film back + Schneider 180mm lens keep up the good work Brian Weight
Thanks, music is the toughest part of the video almost.
Hello, are you from Seattle? I saw the framed Seattle Print in the background. I love Seattle . . . Will this work with 35 mm film as well?
Yes it will work with any size of film. The poster was from a great trip I made there with my family.
Nice video! What is the best lens size to do this? for little lens distortion
If you do it with a p[roper macro lens, you get very little distortion as they are flat field lenses and are made for this. Otherwise a slight telephoto should always have a little less keystoning.
Great video Todd! Hey one question, how did you get the color negative reversed correctly? ( I watched that segment and just didn't see anything mentioned) That's always been my big issue with scanning color negatives, with my camera. Thanks in advance! :)
I just invert in Photoshop. But I am now using Negative Lab pro, with great results.
Great method would you say that a 42mp A7r3 is to much resolution for 35mm negs showing to much film grain etc.How many mega pixels is the optimum before yo start get negative results because of to much Res. Thanks great video
No I generally don’t use the full 42 megpix because you almost always have to crop so you loose resolution. A friend uses a 150 megpix Phase one back and his files from copying negs are amazing. You don’t see more grain with more megapix you see the detail of the negative with these type of scans.
@@toddkorolphoto Interesting subject thanks for your reply and insight . I have seen another photographer get better results using 24mp v 42mp cameras so I wonder if it was the pixel concentration rather than no. number of megapixels because the 42 mp scans were picking up more grain aswell as detail so there must be a sweet spot for every format 35mm ,120 etc.
Hi Todd. I'm glad I found your vids.
A couple commenters were interested in scanning (via camera) color negatives. You hinted that you have a "hi res process" for this. Could you explain this? I guess more specifically, have you found a light source that shows equal amounts of red, green, and blue in its histogram? (I think this is what one would want.)
When I do a histogram of just my light panel, I see very little red and a tone of blue. In the past, when experimenting with an incandescent light source, it was just the opposite. Surely a balanced light is available somewhere.
Thanks!
-Kurt
Hey! Amazing video! I plan on purchasing the nikon version of that macro vintage lens - 55mm 1:3.5. I'm just wondering if it gives the sharpness we need for film scanning with modern mirrorless cams. Or it is better to go with modern macro lenses?
I’ve seen work from the old macros they are really good. I don’t think you’ll have any issues. My old Canon works great. Modern day lens always work best but at 10x the price.
I have so many questions! Can't wait for your next video on this process. I want to do this but I use CS6 and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) for my everyday workflow (I'm one of the weirdos that doesn't own Lightroom!). It looks like you're just using PS?
I use PS all the time. I find it faster than Lightroom. You always have to import photos into Lightroom. I just use that for bigger projects to get photos out. But I’m still a big fan of ACR. 😉
great work mate!!!! thank you a lot.
Christophe j. d. claire thanks so much! And thanks for watching!!
Hello Todd. Thank you for this video. In your experience what's the quality difference between dslr scanning and epson scanner?
This video is really for doing quick “scans” for social media. But, if you get the negative very flat and slightly off the glass you can do very, very good scans. I have made big prints from this method and have had photos published in books and magazines. It’s better for 35 mm, 120 is great on both, but hard to get a flat neg with the Epson. 4x5 is also great on both, although an Epson shows more dust. I am about to start a new video on doing the best scans possible using both methods.
@@toddkorolphoto Todd thank you so much for this answer. Looking forward for the video.
Really enjoying your videos. Would love to see how you work in the darkroom. Many thanks.
Thanks, I just finished a walk with my son, who is into photography, and he just told me the same thing, you should do one about working in the darkroom. So that will be coming up soon! Thanks for watching.
To say it is foolproof may be a little optimistic. But it does seem to be the logical, best way to digitize film, slides and prints. Those who have compared the DSLR method against flatbed scanners found the flatbed scanner method to be lacking. Probably due to the fact that you can't easily adjust to a fine focus.
Yes but also remember, this video is just for quick “scans” to see the image on maybe get it on social media. I have another method that is more involved for really high quality scans.
A great series, thank you.
Thanks so much and thanks for watching!
Really nice video !
Wonderful! Thank you.
Great video,
Thank you very much. Nice tip on using a level (in both directions).
I find that after I invert (black and white negatives) they come out pretty much like yours did -- quite low contrast, needing a decent amount of work, and directionally, nearly always in the same "direction" as you did with the levels and the histogram. Is this normal? I had thought that I was doing something wrong or had developed the negatives incorrectly, but your video made me think maybe this is just the way it is.
Yes you need to work on the images. You don’t want the photos too contrasty, too hard to fix. You can add contrast to the flat images.
@@toddkorolphoto Thank you so much for the advice! I'll work on this.
Cool process - I like the top about crating a mask. Can I use my iPad as a light table and the ‘normal’ canon 50mm lens adapted to my Fuji x-T3?
Sean Chandler I have heard of some people using an iPad. I e never tried, not sure if you might capture a refresh’s if the screen. But worth a shot!
Sean Chandler - I have digitised several thousand positives and negatives, b&w & color that method some month ago. concerning ipad use, principally yes but make sure your transparencies are not directy on the display, there need to be a good distance otherwise you will see the display pixles, after doing some with the ipad I bought the lightpanel for 30€, this is much better. Changing color negatives was not explained in the video, see other videos. I used lightroom inverting rgb and synchronise, after some trials you will be able to make it. a mask is a must and for some bending tranparencies you need a clear non reflecting glas as used in the lab before (enlarger, projector). good luck
Todd, why would you shoot several images of the same negative? If you want no camera shake, isn't it much better to just set the camera on a 2 second timer?
Well, I am an impatient guy😆 And for these type of scans these are what I call quick and dirty just to look at or for social media. I haven’t done a video on my process to make the best “scans” I can. When I do that I do use the 2 sec timer.
@@toddkorolphoto An impatient film photographer! I'm not going to question it. Your videos are stellar!
@@Brenby Many thanks!
hi Todd, I have the a7III and the canon FD 50 macro lens. I don't have the canon extension tube that usually came with the lens, do you suggest getting one? what's going to change?
You can buy Extensiontubes for Sony.
You need 25mm Extension (for the 50mm 3.5).
Do you ever print from these scans? Or do you use them only for posting online?
Both, I do make work prints that I tape to the wall or even give to people with these scans. Of course these are super quick scans for online and prints like that. I am going to do a video of getting the highest quality scans using this system where you can make large prints. I have a friend and she just published a book using this system.
@@toddkorolphoto - Great! Can't wait. Thanks so much
Does it make a difference whether you fill a full frame sensor say in a Nikon or in your Sony or a smaller one like in a Fuji XT3?
The XT3 has 26MP, my Nikon D700 has 12.1, a Fuji ME1 has 16.3. Does size or number or both make the difference for a better file??
It really doesn't matter. You will be using a low iso anyways so quality should be close, and if its just for online no one will tell the difference. But if you want to try and make a larger print the more megapixels the better.
@@toddkorolphoto Thank you so much for you r helpful information.
HI TODD! what is the model of the particular copy stand that you're using?
There is no name on it. It’s a cheap stand that I had to modify. I would suggest buying a good sturdy one.
So you just flatten it with your hand?
Old fashion tricks that will never ever gets old!
Todd, I have everything to do this except for a macro lens. Do you have to use a 1:1 macro lens?
leafsfan71 No but you will need an extension tube on a 50mm lens or similar lens. Extension tubes are cheap and will give you macro capabilities.
One question. Given that scanners use super old CCDs and that modern lenses can resolve so much resolution, wouldn’t a more elaborate setup best any scanner ever made?
Well PhaseOne now has a set up just like this to copy negatives and create amazing 150 MegaPixel files, the results are amazing.
I have a question about sharpness of the digitized negative relative to the size of the negative. Do you find that you achieve better resolution with 120mm negative as opposed to a 35mm negative, using a full-frame camera with 50mm macro lens? I use a porte trace light panel.
Yes for sure, the large the negative the more resolution you seem to have, although up to a certain size 35mm looks great. I find everything has to be perfect for a 35mm negative.,
@@toddkorolphoto thanks so much for your prompt reply. I am making comparisons with my flat bed epson scanner and found that image quality for the 35mm negative was better there. Negatives are 40 years old BTW. Next I will make a comparison of my 120mm negs. I am also wondering if the quality of the macro lens may play a part. The camera is a Canon 7 MK II
@@andialexander1056 Yes absolutely having a proper macro lens is key.
@@toddkorolphoto it’s a Canon compact macro 50mm EF lens 1:2.5
When you loaded the colour neg and hit some button, there was an immediate positive that looked somewhat respectable. Not sure what you did but my experience has been more difficult
You invert it in photoshop.
Always great at explaining things. For a small cost using something like the digitaliza holder would help to keep film flat. Another trick to align the camera is to use a small mirror.
A small mirror, great tip!!
What film ( 35mm) seems to scan the best for contrast, full range of whites, grays to black and maintaining detail?
I find Kodak Tmax scans really well.
How large can you print if the negative has good sharpness and exposure. I have negatives and would like to print to 11x14 or larger.
Can you say what blues music play at 6.20 in video?
Jestem z Polski. Interesuje mnie panel led. Jakiej to firmy gdzie można kupić. Proszę o odpowiedź.
GOOD AFTERNOON SIR, THE SET UP THAT YOU HAVE IN THE STAND , YOU HAVE A ADAPTER, THE LENS , ALSO YOU HAVE A EXTENSION TUBE
It depends, I am using an old Canon FD 50mm macro lens, if I am shooting medium format, 4x5 or 8x10 then I just use the lens. If I am going to shoot 35mm, then yes I also have an extension tube that allows me to shoot 1:1.
Can we do the same thing with colorful negatives?
Absolutely. You just need to work getting the colour out of them in photoshop or Lightroom.
@@toddkorolphoto Thank you !
great video! i am trying to use same method but it is so hard to find cheap copy stand! :(
It is actually. I came across these a few years ago for only $20. Also check used office equipment places.
@@toddkorolphoto ok thanks for your advice!
If you have a sturdy table maybe you can use an articulating arm, I have an old double articulating arm I am going to try and use for this
@@mrpistachios yes or you can use a tri-pod as well. As long as the camera is level.
@@mrpistachios thanks for the tip! I will definitely try that method :D
I 'm no photographer but I understand some film shooter shoots film because of the look that is very different from bayer filter look. So why then subjecting your film to the bayer filter interpolation instead of buying or using affordable full rgb color dedicated scanner.
Well you can still get that film look from a shot with a digital camera. I just use this method for posting on my social media channels. For me, I shot film because I still love to make actual silver prints. That's where it's at.
hi, how comes that you don't get a pixel grid from the light table ?
i've tried with an ipad and had to move up my negatives by 2cm to get rid of
then comes the problem of the negative to be flat...
thanks
I am not using an iPad. I am using a small light table that is evenly lit.
@@toddkorolphoto and no problem with the glass ? is it special glass ?
@@gerardbellouard9696 No issues, it's a glass/plastic panel that is smooth and evenly lit all the way across.
Do you use same setup for 4x5? if not, how do you do it?
Yes same way.
@@toddkorolphoto
i tried it but got light leaks. strange.
@@or8171 Did you try building a little Matt around it? Get a black piece of paper and cut out a hole to fit the 4x5 negative then put the negative in that. I have never had a problem with light leaks. Also make sure there is no other light shining on or hitting the negative. Keep me posted.
why you shot more than one photo to get rid of camera shake over using the inbuilt self timer or a cable release? :s
Benjohns89 yes that’s exactly why, and I don’t have a cable release for that camera😉
@@toddkorolphoto Get one! :) lol. Ive just started using this method to scan my negatives, that 10sec timer kills me by the time Im at the end of a roll!
Do you scan 4x5 the same way? I'm the in the process of getting my first 4x5 as we speak
Benjohns89 yes I scan all formats up tp 8x10 like that.
Todd Korol I’m starting DSLR scanning for 4x5 format. From the video and this particular discussion, do I understand correctly that you take one capture of the larger negative just the same way as 35mm or 120? I thought with larger negative you would keep the DSLR at the same height and capture parts of the image and later stitch them together in Lightroom or whatever software you’re using to get better resolution.
Paul Smith I just move the camera and capture the negative in one shot. Some guys I know do that, shoot two or 4 photos and then stitch them together.
How do I make negatives from my digital images ?
Do you mean an actual black and white negative to go in an enlarger?
This is Photography Witchcraft! 🤣
😂Yes indeed!✌️
You would get better results by masking the negative
Yes for sure, I show masking at 10:45 of the video.
Ah I am sorry, missed that part...
@@etienneportail5122 No worries, thanks for watching!
And did you say that was a coffee stand?
No, a Copy stand, used for coping or photographing photos.
He went to some pains to level the camera, but he didn't even check the level of the light panel. the base of the copy stand might be out, and/or the table the rig sits on may not be level. This leads to a why bother to level the camera conclusion.
That confused me too.
What the confused me more that he was editing his film photo that much, even going as far as adding a vignette.
Why not shoot digital from the start at this point.
Your taking a digital image of a negative or slide (positive).
Your not scanning anything.
yep, that's what he said.