DSLR Film Scanning - Negative Supply
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Michael Raso, Mat Marrash and special guest Josh Steele ( robertsdistributors.com ) have a lively discussion about film photography and DSLR film scanning in 2020 and beyond.
filmphotographyproject.com
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](/img/1.gif)
Great discussion!
I recently ordered my Negative Supply setup, no brainer really!!! I have tons of old negatives that need to be scanned.
Do you mean there's a new use for my centuries old slide copy stand??? Wow!
I was hoping that you guys were going to give us a link to where we could but this scanning equipment set up
My Negative Supply scanning setup arrived this past week. Super excited. I have everything I need.
But even for those who don't have a digital body for it, high resolution bodies are getting cheaper and cheaper. An A7rII with 42MP is $1000 used these days. A Laowa 100mm APO Macro is what, $400. That's incredible for 35mm and 120, even if you don't get the pixel shift ability for large format.
I understand that it's getting "cheaper", but $1000 for a camera body is still not "cheap", if you consider buying the camera just for scanning film, and not taking pictures or using it's advanced features, there're much cheaper options on APS-C DSLRs.
(24 MP cameras are more than enough for 35mm film)
But why would someone spend $1500 - $2000 on a DSLR/Mirrorless scanning setup, if they're ONLY shooting film and using the camera for the sole purpouse of scanning ?
I know, there're people who are actually shooting digital AND film, but for just scanning film, it's way too expensive, I might as well just shoot with the digital camera instead.
(the Negative Supply is also way overpriced, yes, it's much faster, but anything over $150 is too much to ask for that product)
Please start uploading the full podcasts to RUclips.
I've tried almost everything over the years -- Coolscan LS-2000/4000/5000/8000, Agfa flatbeds, Epson flatbeds, Flextight X1, Fuji Frontier.... with Silverfast, VueScan, anti-newton glass.... and so on.
Honestly, nothing beats current my set-up: Kaiser copy stand & lightbox, Nikon D850 & Zeiss macro, Negative supply carrier, with Adobe LR and Negative Lab plug-in.
With the DSLR solution, quality is up there, if not better than the best scanning solutions.
DSLR scanning speed and convenience is phenomenal, and for that there's no competition. An entire roll of 35mm is done in a couple of minutes, in LR and ready for processing.
I hate to burst your excitement bubble from scanning from your camera, But I have 2 film scanners - One for 35mm single strip or Batch scanning, the other one does 120 format in which I have a tone of medium format shots of landscapes, and portraits that I have shot 30 years ago, and same with the 35mm 40 years of shooting with the 35mm as the which as I am much more comfortable in controlling the Colors, and exposure, and PROFILES of the film since my scanners have the film profiles built in onto the software on both WIndows, and MAC platforms as I want to be full control in what I am scanning, and also watching either a documentary or movie to keep me busy... And last is And YES I too have a DSLR, and a Film SLR along with my Medium, and Large Format gear.. I love in what I do as now I have all the time to scan due to that I am retired as I do not think of a new process to scan film would be no different in which in what I have - so why change? Also that what really makes me Piss off that both Apple, and Microsoft when they change their OS Systems that if you get a new computer WILL NOT ACCEPT your current Scanners, Printers, and Photo editing programs like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Aftershot, Lightroom, and other programs that you have the actual CD to load will not Load to these NEW OS Systems. So I have to find computers with Older OS systems because My scanners, and Photo programs were released before Apple with OS 10, and Windows 10 or 11 will not load, and I have to find units that has Apple Snow Leopard, or Windows XP Ok - More math involved - Is this new system that your showing is it keep up with the Jones??? - which it ever lasting SUCKS, and I Have a lab that returns my film is just two words I say to them: "DEVELOP ONLY - DO NOT CUT" I am more interesting in the Image, and for what I have to use.. Love your videos....
It's interesting that there are companies spinning up to provide these products now. There's been a segment of the film Photography community that has been using digital cameras to scan their film for years. But wow that negative supply stuff is expensive. Obviously its made in small quantities largely by hand so that explains the pricing. I'll stick with my Nikon Coolscan IV.
Also, you might want to consider using a remote shutter release when doing this. You get one free with Nikon DSLRs. At least I did.
Yes, it took me aback to see him pressing the shutter button @6:20. I did not get a free remote with my Pentax DSLR, but it only cost about $10.
Or just tether to your computer and import directly to LR (or other software). Once I'm setup I don't touch my camera.
MAT MARASH!!!!!!! The legend!!!!
Yep -- I am shocked at some of my few film photographer friends who drop off their film at WalMart to get it developed -- and all that they get back are prints and a CD with terrible scans, no negatives. Yikes!!! I have some family negatives that are 60+ years old -- along with prints from that time. The prints have aged very poorly, but the negatives are very recoverable, and I can pull extremely good images from those negatives. I get the negs for all of my shots, inventory them, save a contact sheet (sometimes digital, from the scans) and definitely store them away.
The whole point of doing film photography is having your images on the negative so I dont understand folks who dont care about their negatives?
Plus if I dont like the scans from the lab, I can re-scan them myself at a higher resolution OR overscan them (with the perf holes).
Im also pretty sure Sams Club destroyed all my dads Kodachrome 8mm movies when my (not so bright) step-mother took them to get digitized and did not request them back. All I ive ever been able to locate is empty reels and boxes....No Film! This happened before I got into photography. So pissed.
@@practicalimagination0909 -- Yup. I can't imagine what money or time is actually saved by the developer *NOT* returning negatives, or the original movie films. Hopefully the scans of the films were decent (I have seen examples of really poor quality from many people -- luckily places like the FPP and Pro8mm do very high-quality (and expensive!) scans from movie film).
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 yes were very lucky to have FPP and Pro8mm as well as all motion picture labs
Same setup as the Velvia example, this time with Lomo CN800 in an RZ67. Color inverted with the NegativeLabPro 2.2 LR plugin www.amazon.com/photos/shared/tPK-FzMqQfuBJ3xcWeNMKA.Wp_9SYz6A4GW4Am-p7EV8t
Stunning!! Great examples.
Results using a homebrew copy stand and light source, the film carrier 120, the A7Riv and 90 mm macro I already owned, and Velvia 50 in a GW690: flic.kr/p/2jPLhF8
I looked at their site and the Tech is great. I agree. But you presented this as an affordable alternative to using an Epson scanner because you use your own Camera. This should be CHEAPER! But this is not the case. They are more expensive. I shoot both 35mm and 120mm and to buy their "solution" is 1699. A BIT more than an Epson scanner.
Now what is the *BEST* actual resolution of 35mm negatives? It might be that anything over 20-24MP might be overkill -- for 35mm, yes 120 is definitely going to be higher res.
Good question! The old adage I went by was anything over 24MP was excessive, but with some of the newer DSLR and mirrorless models, I think upwards of 40MP for fine grain B&W films the difference is noticeable. Now, an A7R IV (61MP) for high speed 35mm...that's a bit too much!
@@MatMarrash -- I did some research earlier this year on actual grain sizes to try to determine the max resolution of a 24mmX36mm 35mm negative and I came up with 20-24MP for the very finest grain. Typical consumer films worked out to be 16MP-20MP. Now I have been having my 35mm film scanned by The Darkroom at their highest res -- 4492×6774 -- which is appr. 29MP -- but of course it is also JPG -- and in *many* cases I can zoom in and see the grain, but not always -- sometimes I get the compression artifacts. And these have been good enough to do some tweaking with my photo editing software and make prints up to 8x10 that looked great to me. So I would think that in general 35mm scanned *raw* at 20-24MP should be perfectly fine for archival purposes as well as editing and printing. So you don't need the latest/greatest DSLR or mirrorless to get that resolution. In fact you don't need stabilization, or fantastic ISO performance -- so a second-hand digital camera should really suffice.
@Mat Marrash Quality negative film has a theoretical (and very close to attainable with good optics, tripod and optimum light and aperture) resolution from 100 - 200 line pairs per millimeter.
Some special films far in excess of that.
That translates to from 34 MP to 138 MP.
Stuff like Ektar, Portra and Velvia being around 90 MP.
This is apparent from the data sheets and from independent tests done by Zeiss and Henning Serger among others.
Some people might say that the contrast is below the, to the halfschooled digital naive, magical 50% contrast.
Forgetting that the negative was never meant as the final result.
It was always meant to work with contrast enhancing photo paper.
Slide can be projected so absurdly big so you’ll have plenty ability to study every detail, even if the contrast is only 20% and slide also is self sharpening to a degree, when projected, because the contrast edges are physically raised on the film.
A gently landing MTF curve is also a lot more pleasant in an image than the abrupt drop common with digital.
Also have you ever seen the MTF curve (sharpness curve with increasing detail) of the direct output of a sensor‽
I guarantee you that image both projected on the sensor, and picked up by the sensor sites, is way below the 50% contrast that automatic, non optional, demosaicing and sharpening algorithms raise it to.
Even if your particular exposure didn’t resolve the detail possible it pays off to scan at as high resolution as possible.
Among other things because of a phenomenon called grain aliasing.
Apparent grain is not the end of resolution!
@@Frisenette -- Yikes! Now you have given me research envy!!!! :-) Point taken. But I still would say that for many amateur/home photographers 20-24MP raw would be a good resolution for scanning 35mm negatives -- for most purposes. If magazine covers, double-page spreads and even poster-sized prints have been successful from early digital cameras of 6+MP, then, I think that 20-24MP scans should suffice -- *BUT* -- yes, for true archiving of every last bit of info from the negative, much higher MP sensors would need to be used.
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 but by scanning at just the frequency/resolution you “need” you get the aforementioned grain aliasing (that is the appearance of grain and low resolution waaay before you need to).
It also gets a lot harder to raise the contrast of the high resolution, low contrast detail.
For Instagram posting you might scrape by, because the resolution is still so rediculously low on IG.
But if you want to do anything else with the photo, it’s advisable to at least initially scan at the highest resolution you can, and then downsample.
The most important takeaway is that there is *a lot* more information in film per square millimeter than it is usually given credit for.
And to be conscious of this fact when you handle it.
Scanning film is more problematic than you’d initially think.
At it’s not just a simple magnification operation.
Good news is that it can be done very well with a cheap DSLR, a strong macro lens and a sturdy setup.
I did buy this light box and tested it. The device was dusty (machining plastics, etc.), top aluminum plate is not flat, white plexiglas is glossy and the surface is scratched (it's easy to see bare eye, not the best quality I believe), in advertisement is used word "bulb", but this is simple LED strips on two sides. The intensity of light fades toward the center. The film holder is rocking on uneven top plate. I was expecting to get ready to use device I could be sure I get good results with. But it is big disappointment and lost time and money.
The only problem, is everywhere you turn, all film equipment is super expensive. £800 for a high end Epson V800 and £500++ (and there’s a lot of additions for digital camera scanning. 🙀😿
The scanner pricing and availability problem is one of the drivers of this move towards DIY scanning with DSLR/mirrorless cameras.
You can make your own copy stand/light table with some basic woodworking skills. Places like a Home Depot in the US sell excellent CREE high CRI white LEDs now. The acrylic diffuser plastic can be had in 1/4 inch thick sheets cut to size via mail order. Use the inexpensive Amazon Arca Swiss rails and hardware for positioning the camera. That’s what I did.
@@F9FCJ429 can you elaborate a little more on this.
@@jordanhayes7348 Sure; it’s not easy to post photos here and I don’t want to use this as a cheap way to drive traffic to my Instagram account where I have a post permanently highlighted which details how I did it; so I’ll try to describe it. I took some engineered wood shelving, not particleboard but actual wood glued together and formed in such a way that it’s nice, flat and dimensionally stable. I made a rectangular box out of it which sits atop a slightly larger base piece. Inside the box or an array of Waveform Lighting high color rendering index 5000K white LEDs. That’s probably the only pricey thing in the entire bill of materials. You can do almost as well with CREE High quality 5000k white LEDs available at Home Depot for around $10 each. They replace a conventional household Edison base lamp and you’ll need three or four. The box is about a foot deep, enough to space the light source away from the quarter inch thick piece of translucent plexiglass which I used to form the top surface of the box. The vertical section is just another piece of shelving material held in place with six hefty capscrew carriage bolts. That thing isn’t going anywhere. No vibration whatsoever once everything is tightened down. On this aforementioned vertical piece I have an Arca Swiss dovetail. If you know anything about that system, you know it’s trivial to amass the hardware needed to suspend and adjust the camera with ease. The Arca Swiss system used to be expensive but now there are any number of knock offs available. They are fine for this application. That’s pretty much it. I have a copy stand that is a whole lot more stable than anything I’ve seen on the market for less than $1000 and the whole thing cost me less than $200 assuming the use of the Home Depot CREE LED lamps instead of the spendy Waveform Lighting ones.
The Negative Supply items seem cool but they are very expensive. Shouldn't it work with a) a tripod as camera stand, b) LED light table (or even a phone) as light source, and c) almost anything as a negative holder (not glass due to reflection issues) -- but like a cut piece of cardboard with an opening the size of the image? Oh yeah -- a macro lens *or* the correct focal length lens and distance from the negative to catch focus.
Yes it would work, but it will take you forever. Tripod and camera need to be leveled, your tablet needs to be leveled. Every time you scan with the DIY it will become a pain in the ass.
No way on your cardboard idea, you risk scratching your negs!!! While you do save money on all of these DIY ideas, it comes at a cost of time and possible damage to your negs. I have thousands of negatives, I’m not fiddling with cardboard, a tripod, a light tablet that isn’t pure white, etc. Negative Supply is about scanning your film correctly from the start. I sure don’t want to scan my old archive twice because I tried to save money and the results were only good enough for instagram.
@@MIRRAPIX -- That was just a quick, off-the-cuff idea. Something to look at would be many of the old 35mm slide-copying adapters/bellows for 35mm cameras, using a macro lens. Or a product like pixl-latr which is a plastic adjustable holder for negatives for scanning, and has a light diffuser on the back (40 British pounds) -- and an older copy stand, or even convert an old film enlarger stand.