I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but I have been camera scanning for about two years now; and I think that 20-25 megapixels is a great sweet spot for film scanning. Compared to a 35 or 48 MP camera, you get a much better signal to noise ratio with each photo site getting a larger amount of light. That advantage can definitely evaporate somewhat if you aren't able to scan at low ISO, and for that I recommend a strobe and an enlarger mixing chamber for diffusion. That's getting a little too far down the rabbit hole for most people but if you want to scan at a high shutter speed and rock bottom ISO then there's no better option!
It is easy to DIY a horizontal copy stand similar to a graphic arts process camera if handy with woodworking tools. Just take a 1” x 8” board as the base and then make a 8” x 8” x 8” box to slide back and forth down it between two pieces of trim. The camera is attached to the box with a 1/4” - 20 bolt. The box and rails solve all the alignment issues. An LED light box can be attached the end of the board with a tape-hinged piece of glass to hold the negatives.
I have that exact same "copy stand". It's showcased in a video on my channel (together with my process for converting negatives in the free and open source software Darktable). However, it's not a copy stand. It's a modified enlarger. I bought it as an enlarger and drilled a hole to fit a tripod head through it. It's probably the easiest and cheapest way of finding a good copy stand. EDIT: I use the Lomography Digitaliza backlight and film holder. Works like a charm, is only around £50 and works for 35mm as well as most medium format sizes. It also comes with a removable spirit level to make sure everything is, yeah, level. No need for the mirror trick and whatnot. It's a great overall tool for a very very reasonable sum.
Loved the video-really enjoyed how you showed the raw process, including the hiccups and how you solved them. Super helpful! I'm considering investing in either the Epson V850 or using a mirrorless film scanning process. I'll be shooting family portraits and wedding photography, so I thought mirrorless film scanning might make more sense for efficiency. However, if I want the best resolution and high DPI, I wonder if I should stick with this plan. I have a Sony A7CII but would also need to buy a macro lens, and I'm torn between the Sigma 105mm or 70mm. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated!
You may also want to get yourself a calibration target negative from Vlads test targets. It will let you test different apertures on you lens to find out which one performs the best. It will also help you see that your film is perfectly parallel better than the mirror
Interesting video. It's always nice to see others setups. I'm using an A4 light tablet, from Wex, a Pentax K70 mounted on a tripod, and a Pentax SMC M 50mm F1.7 lens... coupled with 32mm extn tubes for 35mm and 12mm extn tube for 120/6x6/645. 3d printed neg carriers. Scan the rear of the film...emulsion side, and flip in post to reduce reflections. For software, I'm using GIMP, which does the job with batch image manipulation first, to flip and invert. Then I trim to sizes, and usually apply autolevels. Works well.
@@ianlainchbury I need to find some solution to keep negatives flat as well. Do you use this panel: Photolux A4 LED Ultra Slim Light Panel? Is it bright enough?
How interesting.. I am about to setup a permanent digital camera scanning rig along the lines that you outline here.. but with a much lower budget. I currently use a dedicated Jessop 35mm Zoom slide duplicator mounted on a Canon 5D mk2. This I have used for 35mm negatives and transparencies simply holding the rig infront of a Bestlite LED310 with pretty acceptable results (if you don't peer to close the very corners of the frame scans).Software used Rawtherapee 5.9. Total outlay for that kit has been a little under £300. I want to work with my 6x4.5 6x6 and 6x9cm media next.. hence to need for a new rig. I will be trying my Durst 605 baseboard and column fitted with a Manfrotto 3way head.. with either a 10x12in light box with the florescent gubbins removed and one of my Aputure Amaran video lights inserted.. (the latter version with 95 certified colour rating) or the upturned head of my 5x4in LPL colour enlarge. If using the enlarger I can use the film marks that came with it, which I have in all the formats I need. It also provides a dark environment for the digitizing as the bellows of the enlarger and the opening in the lens panel 'may' privide a suitable extranious light shroud. Funilly, the lens I am looking to use for my first tests is a version of the same Vivitar macro primes that I bought in the 80s for my Nikon FM2. It is the 90mm f2.5 version that focuses down to 1:1. I did think that this lens might be the achilies heel of the setup as l thought that MTF results in tests I saw (probably in Amatuer Photographer mag) for that lens were not to hot. But having looked now at a review on Pentaxforums.com of this 'Komine' version, there may be more hope to be had. Maybe the review I recall was actually of the Series 1 35-80mm 2.8 vari focus lens (which I also have). Lets see how things go. 🫡
Interesting video. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about copying the negatives in this way; it seems to me that as well as the flaws in the original film camera lens you are introducing a second set of lens flaws, aberrations etc., as opposed to using a scanner. Also there will be the flaws introduced by the camera sensor. I’m revisiting film photography now, and just investigating ways to digitize.
Thank you for the video, I'm trying to figure out what process works best for me and I don't really get on with my flatbed scanner so this is really interesting. Maybe a silly question but do you scan/photo a roll with the room overhead light on or off? Does it make any difference to the image? I'm guessing having the light on just makes the process easier and is preferable, but only if it doesn't impact the scan quality.
I have a similar setup (not that overkill in terms of the camera of course) and from my use, I can tell you it's pretty alright when scanning colour negative film, since the light source is pretty bright (15+ EV). If you're scanning slides, though, it's worth thinking about doing it at night, or with your curtains completely shut. Also, if you happen to own any led light strips, don't forget to turn them off completely, as they can give some ugly colour casts.
No, your lenses are unsuitable for this purpose. A macro lens (if it is really a macro, not just one so labelled as a sales pitch) is designed to have a very flat image field, so a flat subject will focus accurately across the whole image. They also tend to have higher resolution when focused close to the subject. Regular lenses do neither. In the video, his choice of an old Canon short focal length "macro" seriously limited the potential of his result, compared to modern macro in the 100mm or longer range. Generally, all zooms and probably all wide angle lenses are hopelessly inadequate. Before taking the plunge on this type of copy rig, note that the lens is the limiting factor in all of these set-ups, and the better lens is still going to cap your results to less than 20% better than a well focused Epson flatbed scanner for medium format, In 35mm, at least half of all the dedicated, quality scanners made in the 1990s will significantly out-perform this rig. You might want to first consider $300 - $500, less than a quality macro lens, for such an automatic 35mm scanner plus a copy of Vuescan to update its XP drivers to Win10/11. The great misunderstanding in almost all video presenting these "copy-camera" set-ups is that the best close up lens money can buy (excluding multi-thousand dollar commercial lenses) is going to give an image with resolution abut equal to 26 megs. You can use a camera with higher resolution than 26 megs, but the lens isn't going to give you more image data, so the rest of that image file is just noise.
I found camera scanning really awful for darker images / night photography, it’s so hard to get consistent results with any stray light and lens reflections etc. Something to be aware of for anyone who shoots at night
Very confused how you can get better scans at the lab than doing it yourself. Lab scans from even the Noritsu are only around 32MP i think and most labs never set the shadows or highlights properly. You have complete control over the whole process! Think youre doing something wrong. Also most scanning set ups dont have masks for 4x5 which is just crap. All they cater for are 35 and 120 mostly.
Personally have never shot 4x5 - something I hope to do some day! Still learning and adapting with home scanning, so my scans are definitely going to be better as I move forward - just lacking in some detail compared to a lab scanner.
@@DanielJamesBird yeah but lab scanners use a ccd sensor just like that of a dslr. The sensor moves though. Theres no reason if youre using a good quality dslr above 30mp that scans will be poorer than the lab scanner? Lab scans are generally over sharpened and most operators especially in the UK havent a clue how to get a quality scan if their life depended on it.
Fantastic! Welcome to the club.
I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but I have been camera scanning for about two years now; and I think that 20-25 megapixels is a great sweet spot for film scanning. Compared to a 35 or 48 MP camera, you get a much better signal to noise ratio with each photo site getting a larger amount of light. That advantage can definitely evaporate somewhat if you aren't able to scan at low ISO, and for that I recommend a strobe and an enlarger mixing chamber for diffusion. That's getting a little too far down the rabbit hole for most people but if you want to scan at a high shutter speed and rock bottom ISO then there's no better option!
Very interesting - seems like my setup will be absolutely fine for my needs then. Thank you!
It is easy to DIY a horizontal copy stand similar to a graphic arts process camera if handy with woodworking tools.
Just take a 1” x 8” board as the base and then make a 8” x 8” x 8” box to slide back and forth down it between two pieces of trim. The camera is attached to the box with a 1/4” - 20 bolt. The box and rails solve all the alignment issues. An LED light box can be attached the end of the board with a tape-hinged piece of glass to hold the negatives.
Thanks for the advice! Maybe something I'll look into in future - though I think my woodwork skills could be a little lacking.
I have that exact same "copy stand". It's showcased in a video on my channel (together with my process for converting negatives in the free and open source software Darktable).
However, it's not a copy stand. It's a modified enlarger. I bought it as an enlarger and drilled a hole to fit a tripod head through it. It's probably the easiest and cheapest way of finding a good copy stand.
EDIT: I use the Lomography Digitaliza backlight and film holder. Works like a charm, is only around £50 and works for 35mm as well as most medium format sizes. It also comes with a removable spirit level to make sure everything is, yeah, level. No need for the mirror trick and whatnot. It's a great overall tool for a very very reasonable sum.
Very interesting! Thanks for the info about it.
Loved the video-really enjoyed how you showed the raw process, including the hiccups and how you solved them. Super helpful!
I'm considering investing in either the Epson V850 or using a mirrorless film scanning process. I'll be shooting family portraits and wedding photography, so I thought mirrorless film scanning might make more sense for efficiency. However, if I want the best resolution and high DPI, I wonder if I should stick with this plan. I have a Sony A7CII but would also need to buy a macro lens, and I'm torn between the Sigma 105mm or 70mm. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated!
Great video, can't wait for the next!
You may also want to get yourself a calibration target negative from Vlads test targets. It will let you test different apertures on you lens to find out which one performs the best. It will also help you see that your film is perfectly parallel better than the mirror
Great idea! Thank you - I'll do some research.
Interesting video. It's always nice to see others setups. I'm using an A4 light tablet, from Wex, a Pentax K70 mounted on a tripod, and a Pentax SMC M 50mm F1.7 lens... coupled with 32mm extn tubes for 35mm and 12mm extn tube for 120/6x6/645. 3d printed neg carriers. Scan the rear of the film...emulsion side, and flip in post to reduce reflections. For software, I'm using GIMP, which does the job with batch image manipulation first, to flip and invert. Then I trim to sizes, and usually apply autolevels. Works well.
What negative carrier do you use?
@sebastiangajewski5532 I 3D printed one for 6x6 and 645. They're not perfect... but they work OK. I need a better one for 35mm and 6x9
@@ianlainchbury I need to find some solution to keep negatives flat as
well. Do you use this panel: Photolux A4 LED Ultra Slim Light Panel? Is it bright enough?
@sebastiangajewski5532 Yep... bought mine from Wex photo. When imaging I have it on brightness 2. It has 3 settings. 3rd is too bright I find.
@@sebastiangajewski5532My dslr, I set to iso 200, 1/8th sec at f8 if I remember correctly.
How interesting.. I am about to setup a permanent digital camera scanning rig along the lines that you outline here.. but with a much lower budget. I currently use a dedicated Jessop 35mm Zoom slide duplicator mounted on a Canon 5D mk2. This I have used for 35mm negatives and transparencies simply holding the rig infront of a Bestlite LED310 with pretty acceptable results (if you don't peer to close the very corners of the frame scans).Software used Rawtherapee 5.9. Total outlay for that kit has been a little under £300. I want to work with my 6x4.5 6x6 and 6x9cm media next.. hence to need for a new rig. I will be trying my Durst 605 baseboard and column fitted with a Manfrotto 3way head.. with either a 10x12in light box with the florescent gubbins removed and one of my Aputure Amaran video lights inserted.. (the latter version with 95 certified colour rating) or the upturned head of my 5x4in LPL colour enlarge. If using the enlarger I can use the film marks that came with it, which I have in all the formats I need. It also provides a dark environment for the digitizing as the bellows of the enlarger and the opening in the lens panel 'may' privide a suitable extranious light shroud. Funilly, the lens I am looking to use for my first tests is a version of the same Vivitar macro primes that I bought in the 80s for my Nikon FM2. It is the 90mm f2.5 version that focuses down to 1:1. I did think that this lens might be the achilies heel of the setup as l thought that MTF results in tests I saw (probably in Amatuer Photographer mag) for that lens were not to hot. But having looked now at a review on Pentaxforums.com of this 'Komine' version, there may be more hope to be had. Maybe the review I recall was actually of the Series 1 35-80mm 2.8 vari focus lens (which I also have). Lets see how things go. 🫡
Really lovely content
POLAND MENTIONED🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱
Interesting video. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about copying the negatives in this way; it seems to me that as well as the flaws in the original film camera lens you are introducing a second set of lens flaws, aberrations etc., as opposed to using a scanner. Also there will be the flaws introduced by the camera sensor. I’m revisiting film photography now, and just investigating ways to digitize.
What you say is true but it also applies to scanners - in simple terms they also have lenses and sensors.
How is it a downgrade on your lab scans? Is the resolution of your Sony the limiting factor?
I scan my 120 6x6 with a Nikon Coolscan 8000. I wonder what the comparison of quality is like. My colour scans come in at 459MB at 4000dpi
Thank you for the video, I'm trying to figure out what process works best for me and I don't really get on with my flatbed scanner so this is really interesting. Maybe a silly question but do you scan/photo a roll with the room overhead light on or off? Does it make any difference to the image? I'm guessing having the light on just makes the process easier and is preferable, but only if it doesn't impact the scan quality.
I have a similar setup (not that overkill in terms of the camera of course) and from my use, I can tell you it's pretty alright when scanning colour negative film, since the light source is pretty bright (15+ EV). If you're scanning slides, though, it's worth thinking about doing it at night, or with your curtains completely shut. Also, if you happen to own any led light strips, don't forget to turn them off completely, as they can give some ugly colour casts.
@@Dewree69 Thank you!
should i use spesific macro lens or "macro-capability" lens ? i own Tamron 17-70 and TTartisan 25mm?
No, your lenses are unsuitable for this purpose. A macro lens (if it is really a macro, not just one so labelled as a sales pitch) is designed to have a very flat image field, so a flat subject will focus accurately across the whole image. They also tend to have higher resolution when focused close to the subject. Regular lenses do neither. In the video, his choice of an old Canon short focal length "macro" seriously limited the potential of his result, compared to modern macro in the 100mm or longer range. Generally, all zooms and probably all wide angle lenses are hopelessly inadequate. Before taking the plunge on this type of copy rig, note that the lens is the limiting factor in all of these set-ups, and the better lens is still going to cap your results to less than 20% better than a well focused Epson flatbed scanner for medium format, In 35mm, at least half of all the dedicated, quality scanners made in the 1990s will significantly out-perform this rig. You might want to first consider $300 - $500, less than a quality macro lens, for such an automatic 35mm scanner plus a copy of Vuescan to update its XP drivers to Win10/11. The great misunderstanding in almost all video presenting these "copy-camera" set-ups is that the best close up lens money can buy (excluding multi-thousand dollar commercial lenses) is going to give an image with resolution abut equal to 26 megs. You can use a camera with higher resolution than 26 megs, but the lens isn't going to give you more image data, so the rest of that image file is just noise.
the valoi easy 120 is under dev
I thought you were going to show difference between the LAB scan and your scan in detail at 400%, 800% and 1600%.
I found camera scanning really awful for darker images / night photography, it’s so hard to get consistent results with any stray light and lens reflections etc. Something to be aware of for anyone who shoots at night
Very confused how you can get better scans at the lab than doing it yourself. Lab scans from even the Noritsu are only around 32MP i think and most labs never set the shadows or highlights properly.
You have complete control over the whole process! Think youre doing something wrong.
Also most scanning set ups dont have masks for 4x5 which is just crap. All they cater for are 35 and 120 mostly.
Personally have never shot 4x5 - something I hope to do some day! Still learning and adapting with home scanning, so my scans are definitely going to be better as I move forward - just lacking in some detail compared to a lab scanner.
@@DanielJamesBird yeah but lab scanners use a ccd sensor just like that of a dslr. The sensor moves though. Theres no reason if youre using a good quality dslr above 30mp that scans will be poorer than the lab scanner? Lab scans are generally over sharpened and most operators especially in the UK havent a clue how to get a quality scan if their life depended on it.