If you would like to practice converting and color editing with my photo scan files, the link below contains 4 Hasselblad X5 scans and 2 Canon R5 Raw scans. FREE DOWNLOAD: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/br2ntphrym5ciylbkts5k/AHBU1ZFrdtX41SABiihEkK0?rlkey=lyug9frcr80xcxqmfqv0dky3y&st=vuel8g3h&dl=0
I had the same situation on the begging of my film photography journey. Doubting, compearing different types of scanning and converting negatives... The same was for different film stacks...😅😊😊 Eventually, not without debates and discussions with my friends, who happened to be professional photographers😮 I sticked with Epson GT-X980 film scanner and it's original Epson Scan software, scanning into TIFF... As for film all search boiled up to Portra 160, Provia 50 for pos. and neg. colour photography...And Across 100ii, ADOX Scala 50 for pos. and neg. BW photography😊 This set up will let you pull maximum dynamic range, resolution and colours from your work/film/photos...😊 Sometimes I use Negative Lab Pro in my lightroom, just because I purchased it😅😜 But trust me Epson pro level scanner to TIFF and than play in tte LightRoom it's all what you need... PS. For development, especially colour, I would suggest to stick with Pro level labs, for colour consistency and max Dynamic Range😊
Very nice presentation... Having worked in photography for more than 50 years, I've concluded that if the viewer has no basis of comparison, a well-balanced image (color and contrast) will suffice. They will never be concerned with "what if this... or what if that." We can agonize ad nauseam over subtle variations, but in the end, how does that matter?
Honestly, I prefer your edits in most cases. I haven't checked in with you for a while and I'm blown away by how good your videography and editing have gotten
Great video! I stumbled on this while looking at consumer grade "good" scanners. Then I saw the part about using the Canon R5. Why am I looking at other scanners when I have a good one already and did pay a small fortune last spring, for a nice 100mm macro. I got that for scanning negatives with my Canon DSLR. The day or two of playing with that showed me, there's a lot of potential. It was nice to hear you saying how sharp the camera scan was. I think I need to get back to trying the camera.
Thanks for sharing this. Like you said, it's shocking how big the differences can be, particularly 16:31 - there's so much more detail in the background in the photo on the right. Also the foreground-background separation is much better.
Thanks for sharing these insights. I love that the analog world is very deep and goes far beyond of just taking the picture. From the lens, film stock, to the chemistry process, method of scanning, to the technician colour correcting and final edits you NEVER get the same result. I got into scanning my own film (mainly to save money too), and I find that my final results are also heavily influenced by the music I'm hearing when I'm editing 🤣 my mood and time of day also affect. At the end I've learned to appreciate the whole process as an artistic process rather than an exact science. There is no right/wrong just what you like 💛 and that's what make it so special. Loved the video
A fellow on another post (Nick from 5 yrs ago) preferred using a positive setting on the 'legs' of his Epson scanner film holders, in tweaking the 'film to glass' height for sharper imaging. My V850 Pro, like yours, has sliders for adjusting film height (instead of the neg/positive settings he referred to). Maybe adjusting the sliders on your Epson film holders might get sharper scans, too? Nice presentation, very informative, and I thank you.
Love the tests and seeing the difference. @Captured by Sam I recently shot some Kodak Vision 3 250D! I got it scanned from a lab that uses a motion picture scanner (a Black Magic Cintel), the scans they give are purposely scanned to be like LOG footage (flat) with tons of image Data in order to self color-grade. I was very pleased with the results and the ability to add back the needed/desired look. I do enjoy editing my film afterwards.
I just found your channel and its amazing to see a channel focused on film and deep diving and exploring it!! Can I propose a video suggestion? haha You/photographers reviewing the different scans and judging it based on it's quality (resolution, dynamic range etc) VS asking random people on the street/friends which scan they like the best. Think it would be interesting to see how people how people perceive "beautiful photos" and if there's a certain scan that is more preferred. the Frontier sp3000 set has a very interesting appeal - reminds me of olden 80s 90s hong kong cinema for some reason.
The R5 files edited by you were by far the best ones! The Flextight X5 (also edited by you) and the Epson colors were a close second and third. The clarity from the R5 files is ridiculously good. Now I want one 😂
@@itscapturedbysam Don't, even if you think the scan looks better, as part of jpeg processing, etc. you dump some of the information (colours/dynamic range), whereas the Flextight is still digital, if you strip it back, but importantly, its whole ethos is for max quality to the scan, so it doesn't dump anything (except dust, etc. When you tell it to in the settings). Hint: this is the reason it takes 30 minutes to scan a shot!, it literally scans it 1mm at a time, hence the iconic status of the scans.
Why would u scan in jpeg lmao. Raw files have just as much dynamic range if not more then most scanners outside of drum scans or super luxury scanners. There are tons of comparisons online proving this
I used to use Epson flatbeds for film but I eventually transitioned to camera scanning with NLP for 120 negatives. I use a Nikon Coolscan with Vuescan for 35mm. Great photos btw. I have yet to try the Reflex Lab 65mm film.
Great comparison! I have a Plustek scanner that I use for 35mm and also a DSLR Setup for medium format with a macro lens. The dedicated plustek scanner is definitely an old device and the results are slightly worse then my DLSR setup but much less tedious to set up (dust is a major pain in the A). I am curious to see what the future brings. Many labs use devices that are decades old by now and dedicated scanning solutions have become very rare and the ones being sold are often also very old tech.
This is a really great and informative video! Having worked in a lab with Agfa and Fuji scanners and tried my hand at DSLR scanning, I still haven't found what I am looking for. Your photos are very beautiful and clear and the post-processing you do in Lightroom is really useful to see especially for people new to the process. Thank you for sharing your way!
As someone who is on the journey of scanning their own film, this is very interesting. I am also exploring camera 'scanning' and buying a dedicated film scanner (such as the budget Plustek models) to see what could work best. However, what really interests me here is how these options compare to a dark room print - which is the option that I think would give the most 'true' look. I put true in quotation marks as I agree that these options are all individual and that I do not think there is a right answer.
Seven minutes into my first of your videos and it already seems criminal to me that you don't have more subs. Please keep it up, keep it up, keep it up
I must say I have a liking for the Frontier scans. I like the deeper shadows, pure black without any tint, and the more restrained highlights. It also looks way more natural to me. Looking back at my own family's printed photos from the film era, it seems to be more like that: deep blacks and no blown out highlights anywhere.
Loved this video! I struggle getting the colors as beautiful when camera scanning, so I almost gave up on using it for color. But looking at the scans your friend made, gave me hope that it is possible!
A lot here. Your v850 film holders do have micro height adjustments. You will need to test at different heights and figure out which will give you the best sharpness for your scanner. This should be a one and done for your scanner. I have a v700 and I am actually going to start experimenting with fluid mount scanning. This may have changed but there were some differences with results you could get with CCD scanners that you could not with CMOS. With digital camera setups I see a lot of people not putting much effort to flatten out the negative when capturing. If is much easier to get a flat negative with a dedicated scanner. To each their own but I kind of feel if you are going to shoot film you may as well try to go those extra steps to get the best results out of your negative. When converting film to digital there are two things that are going on 1) scanning / capturing 2) inverting the negative, and these are taking place even if you use software that does both in one step. For scanning I like to use VueScan to scan a "RAW" tiff that I can later invert. I say RAW with quotations because I do apply the digital ICE cleanup to the RAW so there is minimal corrections to the dust and scratches. VueScan has options that allow me to get the most detail out of that negative vs SilverFast or the vendor app. Now if you want to invert when you scan, VueScan has horrible color inversion. Silverfast has some of the better inversion out there if you want to go that route. To invert I will use either XnView MP with custom processing settings (which to my surprise actually works very well) of ColorPerfect. The only problem I have with XnView MP is that it will only export 8bit and not 16bit images. ColorPerfect is made to invert from negative to positive and has profiles for different films. I can get results very similar to Silverfast. Now considering all that... the inversion part is going to differ a lot (as you stated) depending on who is converting. Scanning at home can take a long time but I would say it is worth it if you want to control the quality. Now if I can only get my hands on a drum scanner, hahahahahahaha.
@@kwacou4279 yeah I started some wet scanning and it really great. I still need to test and will probably go back and rescan some of my favorite 120 film negatives.
I agree, personally i work on SP3000 and although it doesn't have best resolution or dynamic range, colors are always sooo clean. And its fast and comfortable if you know what you're doing.
Nice comparison! I used to have an Epson V700 and they are never going to be able to match the sharpness of a modern macro lens on a full frame camera. The big plus was jus bulk scanning the film even though it took longer. Its nice to be able to set it and let it scan and you can do something else while it works. I really like the edits you made though. I was getting a bit frustrated with NLP because I have been having a hard time with consistent colors but this made me want to get back in there and work on tweaking settings more to get something I like. Thanks for the video!
Thank you so much for this video, the comparaison is amazing ! I would love to have a setup for my digital camera, did you mention somewhere what kind of gear your friend used ? I'd love to know what tripod, light and film holder he's using :) Thank you so much !! Oh and by the way, your work is beautiful
wow this video is amazing ive never seen these concepts conveyed in such clear and easy way to understand ive been doing film for around 12 years but still learned a lot, your the best !!! also those jepg lab scans are going to give me nightmares lol, im so glad i scan my own film now i would of never of known the the versatility being lost to them i wish i seen a video like this years ago !
Cool video! I had way too many issues with camera scanning personally, tried my best to block stray light etc, but internal lens reflections are a pain, it was almost impossible for night/dark photos. I definitely find the scanning has way more of an impact than the film itself, I found that really surprising as well!
The R5 has 45 megapixels and it is very good camera, especially for digitizing films. I used my 24 megapixel EOS M3 to digitize thousands of film negatives last year, and they were super clear.
Great video thanks! To my taste I preferred the way the Frontier scans look. It got like a "mature" looks. Especially on the contrast for the girl under the tree. The branch's shadow looks like a face tattoo and I do like that. I think the issue with camera scans and flat-bed scanners is that people tends to edit them like digital pictures, and it does remove some of the specificity of film in my opinion. One thing is for certain, I really hate Noritsu looks. I have scanned my two first rolls on negatives with those scanner and green shadows are atrocious. Never again. You don't need a TIFF file anyway, they usually do not contains more infos than JPEG.
emmm.. interesting... maybe I should one day go to a lab and ask the lab people what exactly they do differently with JPEG and tiff.. And you are not the only one who like the Frontier look, we all see color differently, that's the fun part of doing these tests~ :) thank you for watching
Is there any old school slow scanner available for that format? Like the Nikon scanners for 35mm films? Those still produce incredibly good raw file scans. Better then camera scans.
Historically, the biggest issue with slide or negative copying (onto film) was one of contrast. The duplicates rapidly became too contrasty. It was interesting to see your results as, with one exception, this did not appear to be the significant problem I remember. It is, however, quite possibly my own lack of effort to develop my technique … I refer to the pre-digital age and, at the time, I had little need to copy much. I purchased a pretty basic copier and rapidly became frustrated by the investment in film needed to support development of optimal back lighting .. nor did I experiment with benefits of different film stock. I simply recall my results being very contrasty such that shadow detail was lost and poor uniformity of the backlighting (either from daylight or flash). I did dally with a Nikon Coolscan … but it was an early model and needs a scsi interface which I no longer have access to (especially as I now use a laptop). However, although I liked using the Coolscan, with excellent sharpness and colour reproduction, I still struggled with the problem of contrast. I would very much like to get the Coolscan recommissioned, but have no idea how to get around the scsi interface requirements or how to make it compatible with current windows platforms (I think it required a firmware update to be compatible with Windows XP … but the firmware could only be updated via a Win98 OS .. again, my memory could be playing tricks on me. Moving to current time, I have become interested in the method of using the camera above a backlit mount … results appear to be good from what I gather (including your tests) .. but am concerned about compatibility with a range of different film stock sizes I wish to digitise (family photos dating from the early 1900s up to and including normal modern 35mm … a mix of B&W negatives, colour negatives and colour transparencies in a variety of mounts and media, including glass). However, I am being cautious as whatever route I choose will be quite costly. Any suitable scanner (be it dedicated 35mm scanner or flatbed with backlight facility) will be costly, but even using something like the Valoi kit becomes costly as I will need to purchase a suitable macro lens. On the other hand, I used to have quite an interest in macro work, though I always used extension tubes … perhaps there could be added benefit in splashing out on a dedicated macro lens for my precious OM-D and get back into the groove of macro work again … I even have an old ring flash somewhere that it’d be cool to recommission too … 🤔 Thank you for sharing your investigation and test results … as you may gather, your report does inspire me to make the effort to get back into digitising and archiving the family history.
I also embarked on the film photography not too long ago. I wasn't satisfied with the scan result from the lab, so i went on a bit of a search journey myself too. Wish i could have seen your video earlier. I started with a Epson V600 scanner that i already own. The result was not satisfactory. I find the image was very soft and often not in focus. Eventually 2 contenders were on my list, Plustek OpticFilm 8200/8300, and Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA Plus. Both scanner only do 135 negatives and slides. At the end i picked up Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA Plus, which won the race due to its auto-focus feature. This feature alone has make all my scanner so much clearer.
I would like to know if you ever tried to make a print in a darkroom with a color enlarger. I started photography in the film era before digital, I made my prints the old fashioned way. I liked this video, I’m writing a book on film photography, and it answered a question I had about scanning. I tell people all the time. Taking the photos is only one half of photography. The other half is in the darkroom. Now the darkroom and the computer.
Lovely video! Not to be one of those 'wElL aCtUaLlY' types, but both the Noritsu and Frontier are designed to work with C-41 and E-6 films, not ECN-2 films. Assuming you had your 250D cross-processed in C-41, so not only did you use a film type those scanners aren't calibrated for, but you've even used chemistry the film wasn't designed for. It's not likely you would get decent results in that scenario. That being said, flat profile scans out of the Hasse and home conversions using DSLR/DLSM and NLP show huge advantages of being incredibly flexible with any and all film types. Just the same reason people were getting such hit-or-miss results sending Harman's Phoenix to labs while those who converted at home were getting lovely and warm images without issue. I mean it's about time that modern cameras finally start to compete with scanners made over 20 years ago. The future looks lovely for us home scanners. I hope one day Fuji will update and license the conversion software used in their famous scanners!
Thank you for the notes, I also had doubt about the ECN-2 process the lad did, although I didn't ask them to cross process, however I have no idea of what process they did with my film tbh... so yeah.. that's the moving parts I'm not very sure about... that's also the reason I'm doing these tests, to just narrow down the possibilities~ there are so much to learn still!!
one tip Sam, I use a H2 with this back, I convert them {3F/FFF} using flexcolor v 8.6 (current version?) ,this gets them to DNG or Tiff to allow lightroom to see it, as otherwise we can't use the computers' photo viewer to even preview them (PS: this software is FREE!!!!)- if a bit clunky, it's main purpose was for the Flextight scanner {a user interface for it}, so you have to dig around a bit to get to the file convertor, but it's basic enough, at least for a primary edit.
@@itscapturedbysam also the reason I say 3F and FFF is they are different, from my understanding of the manuals, 3F is the converted Tiff of the camera back, FFF is the RAW of the sensor itself, sometimes H1 uses one, and X1D etc uses the other, as one is 33x44 (under 6x4.5), the other is smaller, but still a raw file type, BOTH are used in Flexcolor as the primary raw format; Phocus has superseded Flexcolor now (2024)- my recollection is 2002/3? when flex was discontinued, aka updates, etc.
Interesting. I feel I am an outlier with my film processing. I only shoot B+W and Ilford HP5+. I scan using an Epson V800 scanner using Silverfast. I scan using the lowest resolution setting Less Auto Sharpness(-) and I don't use Lightroom - only Photoshop Elements to remove dust as I self develop.With colour there is no control over the developing process. However, with B+W developing the choices of developer, temperature, agitation all impact the final image. I use the developer DD-X or Rodinal if I want a very grainy image. It depends what the reason for shooting film vs digital is. By using a digital camera you are getting a super sharp image very close to digital and these days sharpness seems to be perceived as better quality. If sharpness is the goal then why use film at all? A digital camera will give you a 'better' image . By using Lightroom you are just trying to convert your film image into a digital image so what is the point? By keeping every step of my processing as analogue as possible - low res scan and only using Silverfast to tweak exposure, contrast and balance IMO I am creating an image where softness, grain, light and shadow are much more important than sharpness and that is the essence of using film as art. It certainly is not the sharpest scan or the aggressive Lightroom sliders. Regards.
I’m so happy I didn’t see all the results as I was scanning cause it would’ve made me do things differently, but wow even between you and I getting different results with the same raw files is kind of wild.
I shared the unedited files with people who interested in try it out themselves, it’s soooo interesting how other people edit the photo soooo differently!! all sorts of color style hahahaha
Sam, when you say you scan with the Epson V850 scanner, do you do it with the bundled software, or things like silver fast? and have you seen any difference between these, as far as output (to photoshop/lightroom).
I use silver fast, just because it came with the scanner. it really shouldn't matter coz I'm scanning it as negative.. I haven't use other softwares, but I would imagine there aren't too much difference, if you scan them as negatives ..
I am also considering switching to DSLR scanning; the problem with flatbed scanning is that it's hard to achieve the right focus as easily as with the former, at least for me
Thanks for the video Sam, I enjoyed it along with many others since I subscribed. Just a thought that came from the fact that some of your scans were done on the Hasselblad scanner in the FFF format. It's just a guess but if you use the Phocus software the FFF format will allow you to use the reproduction processing > "Reproduction Low Gain: Linear but without the gain to match ISO. This will utilize the full dynamic response of the sensor but at an ISO response that is slightly lower than nominal." Hasselblad sensors have between 14 and 16 stops and true 16bits to leverage. It is also my assumption that the sensor in that scanner is calibrated the same way as the digital sensors of their camera, i,e; each is individually calibrated. If this is correct, in Phocus you would be able to use both the default Hasselblad RGB, as well as Hasselblad L* RGB color spaces and tweak the scans in Hassy's natural color science algorithms. :) Again these are just guesses but worth some investigating Cheers Sam
The lab told me to change the FFF to tiff with the file name, since Lightroom cannot process FFF format, I doubt that’s the correct way to do it… and I think by doing so I might lose some depth of the original file… I guess I could install the Hasselblad software to reprocess it again and see the difference 🤓
@@itscapturedbysam You're correct. Look the Hasselblad program Phocus is like most imaging software, it just take a bit of time to familiarize oneself with it. That said, a large portion Hasselblad's clientele are institutional; Museum's and for archival purposes they make the full data captured by the sensor available, similar to video log files. There's isn't a lot on line about processing those types of files and most folks who have a digital Hassy are very happy using the Hasselblad RGB, however the Hasselblad L*RGB is a much larger color space. Sensors do capture a lot more data than those propitiatory color spaces make available throw their raw formats. I know as an example; that the Sigma FP sensor, is a % or two short of the entire Rec 2020 color space and that is also a Sony sensor which leads me to imagine it's probably true of most sensors in most cameras, but few camera manufacturers make it available, after all our monitor are way behind... and need to catch up. Anyway, download the Phocus software and get the Phocus users guide, you'll find the relevant info page 60 under Reproduction, a section well worth playing with. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter :)
Thanks for this great video! Love it ❤ I still use my old Minolta ScanDual IV film scanner, but with color negatives (not b/w) it is quite cumbersome to nail the colors etc. I am thinking about switching to camera scanning, but as long as my film scanner is still working I hesitate to do so. 😂
Those photographs are stunning! From what I’ve seen, flatbeds are generally the least sharp scanning options. Very informative test; I’d be curious to see a test between Canon, Fuji and Sony cameras to see what sort of color differences each sensor imparts.
It’s the biggest reason I haven’t gone dslr scanning, not sure how the camera brand’s color design will render the film. Then again, I guess the same is true for scanners. :-)
I shoot 35mm, medium format, and large format black & white film. I develop my own film and use an Epson V850 flat-bed scanner to digitize my images. I am very satisfied with my results.
Thanks for the video Sam! Did I miss the Noritsu scan? I was wondering if you instructed the lab technician to not make adjustments to the scans? That could make a significant difference as well.
I scanned the Portra800 film with Noritsu, I only showed a few in the video. the difference is not as big as Frontier. I didn’t instruct the lab anything, I just picked the scanner and file size. They do scan them in small, medium, large sizes… I just chose to scan large 😂
That's why every time someone shows their scanned film, my question is always "How did you scan it?" Scanners/macro lens scanning, backlight, development chemicals, development time, scanning software, and calibration all have their respective impact on the final image. The difference between film stocks, for example, Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak ColorPlus is negligible when you use different software and scanner combo.
damn such a difference between the camera scan and the epson ! There are so many variables (film choice, scanner method, editing) that sometimes i'm really asking myself how we should choose our film stock! But yeah I tend to say to myself, now just shoot and don't overthink it haha
solution: shot digital, that is why i only shot medium format film recently only, not only because of color whatever but for the experience, just because the format size is physically bigger than digital. This process is very similar to using lightroom and Capture One to open the same RAW file, they could be interpreted differently. So please shot film not because of its color, it is the photographer to make it look good by the end of the day.
I use Epson V550 since 2018, but now I'm also interested with the camera scan. It would save lots of time and get the sharper image, compare to the flatbed scanner. If I wallet is big enough, I would get Fuji GFX to scan those of my films 😆 I also have not good result from lab. It's hard to find the right lab with my right taste. Getting TIFF from lab is also very expensive. That's why I still prefer my own scan instead.
The biggest problem with camera scanning is dust. My goodness, I've been cleaning my film with PEC-12 and PEC-PAD and I still need to spend 10+ minutes cleaning the dust of a single frame. The advantage of camera scanning is most significant when you shoot Ektachrome, Provia, and Velvia, especially when your camera is calibrated with a Colorcheckr Passport like I did. Most low-end film scanners have poor-quality CCD sensors (I have no idea what the expensive ones were made of), so the images scanned with these scanners have lower quality. But who am I to judge? Turns out people like CCD sensors because "it gives the film look". On a side note, it's also abundantly clear how silly it is to emulate negative film stocks since the film negatives would look completely different anyway. The only film stock worth emulating are color reversal films such as Ektachrome, Provia, and Velvia.
Interesting!! In my experience I thought flatbed scanners has more dusk problems.. it takes so long to clean the negative and the scan.. the camera scans turned out more clean than my own scan.. I don’t know, the camera is just soooo fast, I’m so attempted 😂
Tremendous amount of work! Keep going! Just to add up a bit to your point, that's what most people joined the film train don't understand: motion picture film is designed to be graded (for ex. Matrix movie), color *print* film is designed to be printed (so you need to adjust magenta, yellow and cyan on a printing head; for ex. RA-4 printing process) and color *reversal* film is designed to be viewed right away using pretty simple projectors (color is baked in by purpose). So all of these discussions about "film color" need to be narrowed down to a film type purpose first, and then to our memories of "film color" from truly analog days: movies, printed books, holding slides from our parents.
I don't know a lot about scanners but they use lens. Just look at photography lens they all have their own look and colors can even be different. Same with the lens in the scanner. If you know about Minolta lens is well known about three nice warm colors they have and Nikon has cooler colors. So who really knows what film looks like? There are so many different labs with different gear one lab your photos so look different from another lab.
this is why I have 30 different cheap cameras . I like to see what a camera can do FOR me. And I always shoot jpegs. I am a printer of lithography and I have been mixing color and printing lithography for artist for 30 years and I don't believe anyone can learn editing very fast. Its like tasting chocolates or wine. You need a lifetime to learn. Thats why I shoot jpegs cos the people creating the jpeg engines were not born yesterday.
Once upon a time I would spend hours wet mounting my negatives on my epson v850. A single roll would take at least an hour to scan… now I have a highly optimized scanning setup that uses a flash and a bunch of custom parts I made. My record is 28 rolls of medium format on one night! DSLR scanning gets a lot of hate on the internet for some reason, everyone wants to stick with the old scanners that creat those colors everyone founds over on instagram. But I think more and more people are learning that sometimes it’s okay to introduce some new technology into this archaic art we all love so much.
there are so many moving parts when come down to DSLR scan, the lighting, the camera sensor, the lens and so on... but different scanners also has the same amount or if not more parts.. So I always love to try different things and try to find the best way for me and my workflow.. there is really no absolute right or wrong ways of doing thing :)
If you would like to practice converting and color editing with my photo scan files, the link below contains 4 Hasselblad X5 scans and 2 Canon R5 Raw scans.
FREE DOWNLOAD: www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/br2ntphrym5ciylbkts5k/AHBU1ZFrdtX41SABiihEkK0?rlkey=lyug9frcr80xcxqmfqv0dky3y&st=vuel8g3h&dl=0
I had the same situation on the begging of my film photography journey. Doubting, compearing different types of scanning and converting negatives... The same was for different film stacks...😅😊😊
Eventually, not without debates and discussions with my friends, who happened to be professional photographers😮 I sticked with Epson GT-X980 film scanner and it's original Epson Scan software, scanning into TIFF...
As for film all search boiled up to Portra 160, Provia 50 for pos. and neg. colour photography...And Across 100ii, ADOX Scala 50 for pos. and neg. BW photography😊
This set up will let you pull maximum dynamic range, resolution and colours from your work/film/photos...😊
Sometimes I use Negative Lab Pro in my lightroom, just because I purchased it😅😜
But trust me Epson pro level scanner to TIFF and than play in tte LightRoom it's all what you need...
PS. For development, especially colour, I would suggest to stick with Pro level labs, for colour consistency and max Dynamic Range😊
Very nice presentation... Having worked in photography for more than 50 years, I've concluded that if the viewer has no basis of comparison, a well-balanced image (color and contrast) will suffice. They will never be concerned with "what if this... or what if that." We can agonize ad nauseam over subtle variations, but in the end, how does that matter?
Honestly, I prefer your edits in most cases. I haven't checked in with you for a while and I'm blown away by how good your videography and editing have gotten
Welcome back, and thank you :)
Great video! I stumbled on this while looking at consumer grade "good" scanners. Then I saw the part about using the Canon R5. Why am I looking at other scanners when I have a good one already and did pay a small fortune last spring, for a nice 100mm macro. I got that for scanning negatives with my Canon DSLR. The day or two of playing with that showed me, there's a lot of potential. It was nice to hear you saying how sharp the camera scan was. I think I need to get back to trying the camera.
Very beautiful photos & comforting video to watch. Awesome work!
Thanks for sharing this. Like you said, it's shocking how big the differences can be, particularly 16:31 - there's so much more detail in the background in the photo on the right. Also the foreground-background separation is much better.
This is the first video I watch from your channel, and I love it. Thanks for your hard work!!
I hope you get the recognition you deserve. Your videos are very informative and on the subject. MORE, YES PLEASE 🤭
Thank you!! Glad you enjoy it~
@itscapturedbysam always a pleasure 🙏
Thanks for sharing these insights. I love that the analog world is very deep and goes far beyond of just taking the picture. From the lens, film stock, to the chemistry process, method of scanning, to the technician colour correcting and final edits you NEVER get the same result. I got into scanning my own film (mainly to save money too), and I find that my final results are also heavily influenced by the music I'm hearing when I'm editing 🤣 my mood and time of day also affect. At the end I've learned to appreciate the whole process as an artistic process rather than an exact science. There is no right/wrong just what you like 💛 and that's what make it so special. Loved the video
I agree!! The whole process is fun, why mainly why I shoot film...
Thanks for sharing dear!
A fellow on another post (Nick from 5 yrs ago) preferred using a positive setting on the 'legs' of his Epson scanner film holders, in tweaking the 'film to glass' height for sharper imaging. My V850 Pro, like yours, has sliders for adjusting film height (instead of the neg/positive settings he referred to). Maybe adjusting the sliders on your Epson film holders might get sharper scans, too? Nice presentation, very informative, and I thank you.
Beautiful work. But, how does one CONTROL print enlargements, without printing yourself?
I prefer your editing, love the 'vintage' look. Makes me want to do something similar.
Excellent presentation and humour! Great seeing the different scans.
Love the tests and seeing the difference. @Captured by Sam I recently shot some Kodak Vision 3 250D! I got it scanned from a lab that uses a motion picture scanner (a Black Magic Cintel), the scans they give are purposely scanned to be like LOG footage (flat) with tons of image Data in order to self color-grade. I was very pleased with the results and the ability to add back the needed/desired look. I do enjoy editing my film afterwards.
Motion picture scanner!! That sounds funnnn~
I just found your channel and its amazing to see a channel focused on film and deep diving and exploring it!!
Can I propose a video suggestion? haha
You/photographers reviewing the different scans and judging it based on it's quality (resolution, dynamic range etc) VS asking random people on the street/friends which scan they like the best.
Think it would be interesting to see how people how people perceive "beautiful photos" and if there's a certain scan that is more preferred.
the Frontier sp3000 set has a very interesting appeal - reminds me of olden 80s 90s hong kong cinema for some reason.
@@JulianNgPhotography that is a very interesting idea!! I will keep that video idea in mind!! And thank you ☺️
This is when I subscribe after watching only one video. So well done! :)
The R5 files edited by you were by far the best ones! The Flextight X5 (also edited by you) and the Epson colors were a close second and third. The clarity from the R5 files is ridiculously good. Now I want one 😂
Right?!! now I’m even thinking about switching to digital cameras scan!!!
@@itscapturedbysam Don't, even if you think the scan looks better, as part of jpeg processing, etc. you dump some of the information (colours/dynamic range), whereas the Flextight is still digital, if you strip it back, but importantly, its whole ethos is for max quality to the scan, so it doesn't dump anything (except dust, etc. When you tell it to in the settings).
Hint: this is the reason it takes 30 minutes to scan a shot!, it literally scans it 1mm at a time, hence the iconic status of the scans.
Why would u scan in jpeg lmao. Raw files have just as much dynamic range if not more then most scanners outside of drum scans or super luxury scanners. There are tons of comparisons online proving this
Loved the comparison, SO helpful. Frontier was my favorite.
I used to use Epson flatbeds for film but I eventually transitioned to camera scanning with NLP for 120 negatives. I use a Nikon Coolscan with Vuescan for 35mm.
Great photos btw. I have yet to try the Reflex Lab 65mm film.
This is a really great video. Goes to show just how subjective this art form really truly is.
Genuinely, this is a fantastic video. Love your channel 🙌🏻🙌🏻
Thank you ☺️
Very helpful, great quality keep doing what you're doing 👏
Great comparison! I have a Plustek scanner that I use for 35mm and also a DSLR Setup for medium format with a macro lens. The dedicated plustek scanner is definitely an old device and the results are slightly worse then my DLSR setup but much less tedious to set up (dust is a major pain in the A). I am curious to see what the future brings. Many labs use devices that are decades old by now and dedicated scanning solutions have become very rare and the ones being sold are often also very old tech.
Maybe one day, there will be more and more of us film photographers and the industry will upgrade their old equipment for us!!hahahha
Because film is old school tech.
This is a really great and informative video! Having worked in a lab with Agfa and Fuji scanners and tried my hand at DSLR scanning, I still haven't found what I am looking for. Your photos are very beautiful and clear and the post-processing you do in Lightroom is really useful to see especially for people new to the process. Thank you for sharing your way!
As someone who is on the journey of scanning their own film, this is very interesting. I am also exploring camera 'scanning' and buying a dedicated film scanner (such as the budget Plustek models) to see what could work best. However, what really interests me here is how these options compare to a dark room print - which is the option that I think would give the most 'true' look. I put true in quotation marks as I agree that these options are all individual and that I do not think there is a right answer.
Seven minutes into my first of your videos and it already seems criminal to me that you don't have more subs. Please keep it up, keep it up, keep it up
Thank you :)
Well done. Thanks Sam!
I must say I have a liking for the Frontier scans. I like the deeper shadows, pure black without any tint, and the more restrained highlights. It also looks way more natural to me. Looking back at my own family's printed photos from the film era, it seems to be more like that: deep blacks and no blown out highlights anywhere.
Your images are absolutely gorgeous!
What brand of stand and other gear did he have for the DSLR-Scan?
A very interesting video. I personally use V850 and let Silverfast do the conversion and are very happy with that result.
Excellent and comprehensive test. I hope more people recognise the difference scanning can make!
This video has definitely helped justify my next digital camera purchase 🤣
LOL sorry for your wallet
It will cost you a bundle. I like a R5 too. Then again, I can save some money by going for a Sony a7R III.
@@Aviator168 for a myriad of reasons including a mild case of insanity we’re pushing the debt ceiling for the gfx100ii
Loved this video! I struggle getting the colors as beautiful when camera scanning, so I almost gave up on using it for color. But looking at the scans your friend made, gave me hope that it is possible!
Try JJC ES-2 and Negative Lab Pro. I've wasted money on a lot of nonsense, and this is the best approach.
Glad the video was helpful!😀
A lot here. Your v850 film holders do have micro height adjustments. You will need to test at different heights and figure out which will give you the best sharpness for your scanner. This should be a one and done for your scanner. I have a v700 and I am actually going to start experimenting with fluid mount scanning. This may have changed but there were some differences with results you could get with CCD scanners that you could not with CMOS.
With digital camera setups I see a lot of people not putting much effort to flatten out the negative when capturing. If is much easier to get a flat negative with a dedicated scanner. To each their own but I kind of feel if you are going to shoot film you may as well try to go those extra steps to get the best results out of your negative.
When converting film to digital there are two things that are going on 1) scanning / capturing 2) inverting the negative, and these are taking place even if you use software that does both in one step. For scanning I like to use VueScan to scan a "RAW" tiff that I can later invert. I say RAW with quotations because I do apply the digital ICE cleanup to the RAW so there is minimal corrections to the dust and scratches. VueScan has options that allow me to get the most detail out of that negative vs SilverFast or the vendor app. Now if you want to invert when you scan, VueScan has horrible color inversion. Silverfast has some of the better inversion out there if you want to go that route. To invert I will use either XnView MP with custom processing settings (which to my surprise actually works very well) of ColorPerfect. The only problem I have with XnView MP is that it will only export 8bit and not 16bit images. ColorPerfect is made to invert from negative to positive and has profiles for different films. I can get results very similar to Silverfast.
Now considering all that... the inversion part is going to differ a lot (as you stated) depending on who is converting. Scanning at home can take a long time but I would say it is worth it if you want to control the quality. Now if I can only get my hands on a drum scanner, hahahahahahaha.
fluid wet mount scanning will bring that epson scanner to life.
@@kwacou4279 yeah I started some wet scanning and it really great. I still need to test and will probably go back and rescan some of my favorite 120 film negatives.
Super interesting. Thanks for all the work and putting this together! 🤞🏻
Hi Sam, my favorites were the Frontier SP3000 scans! Could you let us know the name of the photo-lab for the Frontier scans?
I agree, personally i work on SP3000 and although it doesn't have best resolution or dynamic range, colors are always sooo clean. And its fast and comfortable if you know what you're doing.
Nice comparison! I used to have an Epson V700 and they are never going to be able to match the sharpness of a modern macro lens on a full frame camera. The big plus was jus bulk scanning the film even though it took longer. Its nice to be able to set it and let it scan and you can do something else while it works. I really like the edits you made though. I was getting a bit frustrated with NLP because I have been having a hard time with consistent colors but this made me want to get back in there and work on tweaking settings more to get something I like. Thanks for the video!
I heard the new upgrade is doing better with consistency since they added roll analysis… but I haven’t personally try it yet..
Had that same issue when doing my own colour printing and from labs.
Thank you so much for this video, the comparaison is amazing !
I would love to have a setup for my digital camera, did you mention somewhere what kind of gear your friend used ?
I'd love to know what tripod, light and film holder he's using :) Thank you so much !!
Oh and by the way, your work is beautiful
Such a fascinating process of different methods. Great video!
Great video! Very informative, very nice portraits too!
actually love the first shot and the profile shot from the sp3000 scan
I liked them as well, very nice colours but they were a bit too dark in the dark areas to be terribly flexible to edit I think, especially in jpeg
wow this video is amazing ive never seen these concepts conveyed in such clear and easy way to understand ive been doing film for around 12 years but still learned a lot, your the best !!! also those jepg lab scans are going to give me nightmares lol, im so glad i scan my own film now i would of never of known the the versatility being lost to them i wish i seen a video like this years ago !
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it :)
Very eye opening! The quality of an image seems to really depend on the scanning results. Great video Sam! 👍🏾
if we digitized it. if we do darkroom print, that would be another story LOL~
Cool video! I had way too many issues with camera scanning personally, tried my best to block stray light etc, but internal lens reflections are a pain, it was almost impossible for night/dark photos. I definitely find the scanning has way more of an impact than the film itself, I found that really surprising as well!
Thanks - very informative!
😊Great Information and good comparison content. 👍
Thanks for some Great content. Is it possible to get some info I relation the R5 setup? What gear is used apart from the R5?
I will be making a video soon about my R5 set up...
i love this channel sm. keep it up !!
Thank you ☺️
20/10 video as always
Now you would never forget what Jpeg stands for 😎
The R5 has 45 megapixels and it is very good camera, especially for digitizing films. I used my 24 megapixel EOS M3 to digitize thousands of film negatives last year, and they were super clear.
Great comparison and shots!
Thank you ☺️
Great video thanks!
To my taste I preferred the way the Frontier scans look. It got like a "mature" looks. Especially on the contrast for the girl under the tree. The branch's shadow looks like a face tattoo and I do like that. I think the issue with camera scans and flat-bed scanners is that people tends to edit them like digital pictures, and it does remove some of the specificity of film in my opinion.
One thing is for certain, I really hate Noritsu looks. I have scanned my two first rolls on negatives with those scanner and green shadows are atrocious. Never again. You don't need a TIFF file anyway, they usually do not contains more infos than JPEG.
emmm.. interesting... maybe I should one day go to a lab and ask the lab people what exactly they do differently with JPEG and tiff.. And you are not the only one who like the Frontier look, we all see color differently, that's the fun part of doing these tests~ :) thank you for watching
Is there any old school slow scanner available for that format? Like the Nikon scanners for 35mm films? Those still produce incredibly good raw file scans. Better then camera scans.
there are, the Nikon Cool scan series also scans 120, it's expensive, and also pretty slow if i remembered correctly~ really good quality though!!
Historically, the biggest issue with slide or negative copying (onto film) was one of contrast. The duplicates rapidly became too contrasty. It was interesting to see your results as, with one exception, this did not appear to be the significant problem I remember.
It is, however, quite possibly my own lack of effort to develop my technique … I refer to the pre-digital age and, at the time, I had little need to copy much. I purchased a pretty basic copier and rapidly became frustrated by the investment in film needed to support development of optimal back lighting .. nor did I experiment with benefits of different film stock. I simply recall my results being very contrasty such that shadow detail was lost and poor uniformity of the backlighting (either from daylight or flash).
I did dally with a Nikon Coolscan … but it was an early model and needs a scsi interface which I no longer have access to (especially as I now use a laptop). However, although I liked using the Coolscan, with excellent sharpness and colour reproduction, I still struggled with the problem of contrast. I would very much like to get the Coolscan recommissioned, but have no idea how to get around the scsi interface requirements or how to make it compatible with current windows platforms (I think it required a firmware update to be compatible with Windows XP … but the firmware could only be updated via a Win98 OS .. again, my memory could be playing tricks on me.
Moving to current time, I have become interested in the method of using the camera above a backlit mount … results appear to be good from what I gather (including your tests) .. but am concerned about compatibility with a range of different film stock sizes I wish to digitise (family photos dating from the early 1900s up to and including normal modern 35mm … a mix of B&W negatives, colour negatives and colour transparencies in a variety of mounts and media, including glass). However, I am being cautious as whatever route I choose will be quite costly. Any suitable scanner (be it dedicated 35mm scanner or flatbed with backlight facility) will be costly, but even using something like the Valoi kit becomes costly as I will need to purchase a suitable macro lens.
On the other hand, I used to have quite an interest in macro work, though I always used extension tubes … perhaps there could be added benefit in splashing out on a dedicated macro lens for my precious OM-D and get back into the groove of macro work again … I even have an old ring flash somewhere that it’d be cool to recommission too … 🤔
Thank you for sharing your investigation and test results … as you may gather, your report does inspire me to make the effort to get back into digitising and archiving the family history.
Fantastic video!!!!!! I subscribed, thank you!
Thanks for the sub!
AWESOME!
Thank You, Great Video.😎
I also embarked on the film photography not too long ago. I wasn't satisfied with the scan result from the lab, so i went on a bit of a search journey myself too. Wish i could have seen your video earlier. I started with a Epson V600 scanner that i already own. The result was not satisfactory. I find the image was very soft and often not in focus. Eventually 2 contenders were on my list, Plustek OpticFilm 8200/8300, and Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA Plus. Both scanner only do 135 negatives and slides. At the end i picked up Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA Plus, which won the race due to its auto-focus feature. This feature alone has make all my scanner so much clearer.
I only found out how soft my scanner is when compared with the digital camera scan, now I can not unsee that softness anymore lol~
Amazing video. Thank you for showing me this :)
Thanks for sharing. My lab uses Noritsu and at home I have the EPSON 850. Definitely a difference I am seeing on my scans
If I have to pick between Noritsu or frontier, I would probably go with Noritru..😀.
I would like to know if you ever tried to make a print in a darkroom with a color enlarger. I started photography in the film era before digital, I made my prints the old fashioned way.
I liked this video, I’m writing a book on film photography, and it answered a question I had about scanning. I tell people all the time. Taking the photos is only one half of photography. The other half is in the darkroom. Now the darkroom and the computer.
Awesome video! Subscribed!!
Now I'm hoping you have done (or will do) a video on your editing process!
For camera scanning 35mm the Valoi easy35 is pretty popular
Yeah I’ve seen those~
Lovely video! Not to be one of those 'wElL aCtUaLlY' types, but both the Noritsu and Frontier are designed to work with C-41 and E-6 films, not ECN-2 films. Assuming you had your 250D cross-processed in C-41, so not only did you use a film type those scanners aren't calibrated for, but you've even used chemistry the film wasn't designed for. It's not likely you would get decent results in that scenario.
That being said, flat profile scans out of the Hasse and home conversions using DSLR/DLSM and NLP show huge advantages of being incredibly flexible with any and all film types. Just the same reason people were getting such hit-or-miss results sending Harman's Phoenix to labs while those who converted at home were getting lovely and warm images without issue. I mean it's about time that modern cameras finally start to compete with scanners made over 20 years ago. The future looks lovely for us home scanners. I hope one day Fuji will update and license the conversion software used in their famous scanners!
Thank you for the notes, I also had doubt about the ECN-2 process the lad did, although I didn't ask them to cross process, however I have no idea of what process they did with my film tbh... so yeah.. that's the moving parts I'm not very sure about... that's also the reason I'm doing these tests, to just narrow down the possibilities~ there are so much to learn still!!
A good alternative to the v850 is the v600 , same specs but scans 1 film strip of 5 images,not the entire bed ,but far less expensive.
one tip Sam, I use a H2 with this back, I convert them {3F/FFF} using flexcolor v 8.6
(current version?) ,this gets them to DNG or Tiff to allow lightroom to see it, as otherwise we can't use the computers' photo viewer to even preview them (PS: this software is FREE!!!!)- if a bit clunky, it's main purpose was for the Flextight scanner {a user interface for it}, so you have to dig around a bit to get to the file convertor, but it's basic enough, at least for a primary edit.
got it~ thank you for the tip~
@@itscapturedbysam also the reason I say 3F and FFF is they are different, from my understanding of the manuals, 3F is the converted Tiff of the camera back, FFF is the RAW of the sensor itself, sometimes H1 uses one, and X1D etc uses the other, as one is 33x44 (under 6x4.5), the other is smaller, but still a raw file type, BOTH are used in Flexcolor as the primary raw format; Phocus has superseded Flexcolor now (2024)- my recollection is 2002/3? when flex was discontinued, aka updates, etc.
Спасибо огромное за сравнение этих сканеров! Это супер важная и актуальная тема для меня сегодня! Спасибо!
Thank you for watching
Interesting. I feel I am an outlier with my film processing. I only shoot B+W and Ilford HP5+. I scan using an Epson V800 scanner using Silverfast. I scan using the lowest resolution setting Less Auto Sharpness(-) and I don't use Lightroom - only Photoshop Elements to remove dust as I self develop.With colour there is no control over the developing process. However, with B+W developing the choices of developer, temperature, agitation all impact the final image.
I use the developer DD-X or Rodinal if I want a very grainy image.
It depends what the reason for shooting film vs digital is. By using a digital camera you are getting a super sharp image very close to digital and these days sharpness seems to be perceived as better quality. If sharpness is the goal then why use film at all? A digital camera will give you a 'better' image . By using Lightroom you are just trying to convert your film image into a digital image so what is the point?
By keeping every step of my processing as analogue as possible - low res scan and only using Silverfast to tweak exposure, contrast and balance IMO I am creating an image where softness, grain, light and shadow are much more important than sharpness and that is the essence of using film as art. It certainly is not the sharpest scan or the aggressive Lightroom sliders. Regards.
I’m so happy I didn’t see all the results as I was scanning cause it would’ve made me do things differently, but wow even between you and I getting different results with the same raw files is kind of wild.
I shared the unedited files with people who interested in try it out themselves, it’s soooo interesting how other people edit the photo soooo differently!! all sorts of color style hahahaha
Sam, when you say you scan with the Epson V850 scanner, do you do it with the bundled software, or things like silver fast? and have you seen any difference between these, as far as output (to photoshop/lightroom).
I use silver fast, just because it came with the scanner. it really shouldn't matter coz I'm scanning it as negative.. I haven't use other softwares, but I would imagine there aren't too much difference, if you scan them as negatives ..
I am also considering switching to DSLR scanning; the problem with flatbed scanning is that it's hard to achieve the right focus as easily as with the former, at least for me
If I didn’t put it side by side to compare, I might not notice.. but now I see it’s hard to unsee 😂
The hasselblad scans look like they have a slight green cast
they dose, I noticed that too..
All scan from a lab are meant to be tweaked at home. If you work with the lab, those X5 files would be the best.
Thanks for the video Sam, I enjoyed it along with many others since I subscribed.
Just a thought that came from the fact that some of your scans were done on the Hasselblad scanner in the FFF format. It's just a guess but if you use the Phocus software the FFF format will allow you to use the reproduction processing > "Reproduction Low Gain: Linear but without the gain to match ISO. This will utilize the full dynamic response of the sensor but at an ISO response that is
slightly lower than nominal." Hasselblad sensors have between 14 and 16 stops and true 16bits to leverage.
It is also my assumption that the sensor in that scanner is calibrated the same way as the digital sensors of their camera, i,e; each is individually calibrated. If this is correct, in Phocus you would be able to use both the default Hasselblad RGB, as well as Hasselblad L* RGB color spaces and tweak the scans in Hassy's natural color science algorithms. :)
Again these are just guesses but worth some investigating
Cheers Sam
The lab told me to change the FFF to tiff with the file name, since Lightroom cannot process FFF format, I doubt that’s the correct way to do it… and I think by doing so I might lose some depth of the original file… I guess I could install the Hasselblad software to reprocess it again and see the difference 🤓
@@itscapturedbysam You're correct. Look the Hasselblad program Phocus is like most imaging software, it just take a bit of time to familiarize oneself with it. That said, a large portion Hasselblad's clientele are institutional; Museum's and for archival purposes they make the full data captured by the sensor available, similar to video log files.
There's isn't a lot on line about processing those types of files and most folks who have a digital Hassy are very happy using the Hasselblad RGB, however the Hasselblad L*RGB is a much larger color space. Sensors do capture a lot more data than those propitiatory color spaces make available throw their raw formats. I know as an example; that the Sigma FP sensor, is a % or two short of the entire Rec 2020 color space and that is also a Sony sensor which leads me to imagine it's probably true of most sensors in most cameras, but few camera manufacturers make it available, after all our monitor are way behind... and need to catch up.
Anyway, download the Phocus software and get the Phocus users guide, you'll find the relevant info page 60 under Reproduction, a section well worth playing with.
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter :)
Frontier SP 3000 is my favorite.
It’s very popular indeed
get the epson fluid wet mount accessory and watch your epson 850 come to life.
Thanks for this great video! Love it ❤
I still use my old Minolta ScanDual IV film scanner, but with color negatives (not b/w) it is quite cumbersome to nail the colors etc.
I am thinking about switching to camera scanning, but as long as my film scanner is still working I hesitate to do so. 😂
Me toooo.. I’ve been thinking about switch but my scanner still works.. but the sharpness is sooooo attempting though!!
Those photographs are stunning!
From what I’ve seen, flatbeds are generally the least sharp scanning options. Very informative test; I’d be curious to see a test between Canon, Fuji and Sony cameras to see what sort of color differences each sensor imparts.
Ohhhh.. that’d be a fun test tooo
It’s the biggest reason I haven’t gone dslr scanning, not sure how the camera brand’s color design will render the film. Then again, I guess the same is true for scanners. :-)
I shoot 35mm, medium format, and large format black & white film.
I develop my own film and use an Epson V850 flat-bed scanner to digitize my images.
I am very satisfied with my results.
I haven’t got into large format yet, but I’ve been using my Epson, it’s good enough for what I do now… but it’s just really SLOW 😂
Thanks for the video Sam! Did I miss the Noritsu scan? I was wondering if you instructed the lab technician to not make adjustments to the scans? That could make a significant difference as well.
I scanned the Portra800 film with Noritsu, I only showed a few in the video. the difference is not as big as Frontier. I didn’t instruct the lab anything, I just picked the scanner and file size. They do scan them in small, medium, large sizes… I just chose to scan large 😂
an absolute breeze to watch. thank you!
Cool, what camera are you shooting this cine film with ?
Pentax 67II, the episode before showed the behind the scenes of this photoshoot.
@@itscapturedbysam Oh, yes, i did see it afterwards
Hi Sam, what are some of your favorite videogames?
Don’t starve together?! lol I don’t really play much video games… Fornite 🤣
Dang, didn't expect such stark differences!
Right?! I was like… wow~ 🤯
I would love to have seen a drum scan image vs the digital camera.
That's why every time someone shows their scanned film, my question is always "How did you scan it?"
Scanners/macro lens scanning, backlight, development chemicals, development time, scanning software, and calibration all have their respective impact on the final image.
The difference between film stocks, for example, Kodak Portra 160 and Kodak ColorPlus is negligible when you use different software and scanner combo.
How much does it cost to get a roll of film developed and scanned in China? It's a fortune in Australia!
damn such a difference between the camera scan and the epson ! There are so many variables (film choice, scanner method, editing) that sometimes i'm really asking myself how we should choose our film stock! But yeah I tend to say to myself, now just shoot and don't overthink it haha
lol I ask that question tooo.. I basically just pick on ISO… then I pick on price 😂 so Gold 200 it is!!
@@itscapturedbysam 100% accurate Gold ftw 😂😂
solution: shot digital, that is why i only shot medium format film recently only, not only because of color whatever but for the experience, just because the format size is physically bigger than digital. This process is very similar to using lightroom and Capture One to open the same RAW file, they could be interpreted differently. So please shot film not because of its color, it is the photographer to make it look good by the end of the day.
It’s just so interesting to see how people interpret color differently.. it’s such a fun test..
I use Epson V550 since 2018, but now I'm also interested with the camera scan. It would save lots of time and get the sharper image, compare to the flatbed scanner. If I wallet is big enough, I would get Fuji GFX to scan those of my films 😆 I also have not good result from lab. It's hard to find the right lab with my right taste. Getting TIFF from lab is also very expensive. That's why I still prefer my own scan instead.
isn't the GFX sounds so nice for scanning LOL !!!
@@itscapturedbysam It's like a poor man's dream 😂
overall i see that SP300 scans are better exposed; more for highlights. Someone who scanned these knew what they were doing.
please peel the protective plastic off of your scanner.
lol I had this for years and it still look like it's new~
The biggest problem with camera scanning is dust. My goodness, I've been cleaning my film with PEC-12 and PEC-PAD and I still need to spend 10+ minutes cleaning the dust of a single frame. The advantage of camera scanning is most significant when you shoot Ektachrome, Provia, and Velvia, especially when your camera is calibrated with a Colorcheckr Passport like I did.
Most low-end film scanners have poor-quality CCD sensors (I have no idea what the expensive ones were made of), so the images scanned with these scanners have lower quality.
But who am I to judge? Turns out people like CCD sensors because "it gives the film look".
On a side note, it's also abundantly clear how silly it is to emulate negative film stocks since the film negatives would look completely different anyway. The only film stock worth emulating are color reversal films such as Ektachrome, Provia, and Velvia.
Interesting!! In my experience I thought flatbed scanners has more dusk problems.. it takes so long to clean the negative and the scan.. the camera scans turned out more clean than my own scan.. I don’t know, the camera is just soooo fast, I’m so attempted 😂
@@itscapturedbysam if you are having trouble cleaning dusts with film scanners, search for SilverFast iSRD. It should solve your problem.
這是什麼膠片？怎麼可能中畫幅帶齒孔😮
分装的电影卷 你可以看前两期我有讲～
@13:02 What? No Milo?🤣
😂
Tremendous amount of work! Keep going! Just to add up a bit to your point, that's what most people joined the film train don't understand: motion picture film is designed to be graded (for ex. Matrix movie), color *print* film is designed to be printed (so you need to adjust magenta, yellow and cyan on a printing head; for ex. RA-4 printing process) and color *reversal* film is designed to be viewed right away using pretty simple projectors (color is baked in by purpose).
So all of these discussions about "film color" need to be narrowed down to a film type purpose first, and then to our memories of "film color" from truly analog days: movies, printed books, holding slides from our parents.
I don't know a lot about scanners but they use lens. Just look at photography lens they all have their own look and colors can even be different. Same with the lens in the scanner.
If you know about Minolta lens is well known about three nice warm colors they have and Nikon has cooler colors.
So who really knows what film looks like? There are so many different labs with different gear one lab your photos so look different from another lab.
yeah.. so in the end it just really comes down to how "YOU" want it to look and if you are able to make it look that way :)
this is why I have 30 different cheap cameras . I like to see what a camera can do FOR me. And I always shoot jpegs. I am a printer of lithography and I have been mixing color and printing lithography for artist for 30 years and I don't believe anyone can learn editing very fast. Its like tasting chocolates or wine. You need a lifetime to learn. Thats why I shoot jpegs cos the people creating the jpeg engines were not born yesterday.
Once upon a time I would spend hours wet mounting my negatives on my epson v850. A single roll would take at least an hour to scan… now I have a highly optimized scanning setup that uses a flash and a bunch of custom parts I made. My record is 28 rolls of medium format on one night! DSLR scanning gets a lot of hate on the internet for some reason, everyone wants to stick with the old scanners that creat those colors everyone founds over on instagram. But I think more and more people are learning that sometimes it’s okay to introduce some new technology into this archaic art we all love so much.
there are so many moving parts when come down to DSLR scan, the lighting, the camera sensor, the lens and so on... but different scanners also has the same amount or if not more parts.. So I always love to try different things and try to find the best way for me and my workflow.. there is really no absolute right or wrong ways of doing thing :)