My Nikon Coolscan 8000ED works well and gives me unbelievably high quality scans. Nikonscan has incredible ICE scratch removal on C41 negatives, and its inversion routines are superior to those of standalone tools like NLP or Grain2Pixel. That's all that matters to me. I don't own or need to own a digital camera but I can see how camera scanning might be an appealing option for those who already have a DSLR. To each their own!
I bought an Essential Film Holder (EFH) and designed and 3d printed a camera stand to be put direcly on the film holder. Its height is adjusted exactly to the required distance of my Sigma 105 Macro and its width measured to take the hood of the lens. So I place the film holder with film on the lighttable, put the camera stand on top of the film holder, put the camera on the holder and can start shooting at once. No stray light, no adjustment of height and paralellity. All fine. An uncut roll is digitized in 5 minutes. And that includes setting the "scanner" up
Steve - appreciate your views and the info. Still scanning my old film negatives with the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED with Vue Scan software and it still works great.
“You get the picture.” Brilliant! Good observations too, although scanning volumes on the flatbed (V600 here) is quite usefull as I am scanning over 40 years of film (35 pos/neg). It quickly (scan low-res for web only) shows the images I forgot about and any gem will be marked for print in the darkroom or for hi-res scan later on. Good way of spending winter evenings 👍.
I just have retired my old Epson Perfection 750 Pro and bought a repro stand for my Nikon Z6 and Laowa Macro 100 mm to photograph my 6x6 negatives. I am using a negative holder and then I block the light coming from the lightboard around the negativ holder with black cardboard avoiding flare into the lens. However, for my 24x36 a bought a new Plustek film scanner which works very well. Thank you very much for your always interesting videos! Kind regards from Sweden
Thanks for your video. I am doing all my color negative scans with my Epson V600 + sotware. Good results, ICE successfully removes dust n scratches. B&W total disaster, I don't know why. Even better - or let's say more authentic - results with my old Rollei df-s 190. Btw, I use Kodak 6x6 app for a quick scan of prints... works well!
My coolscan is a SCSI II version and those interfaces are no longer supported, so it's dead as a door nail. I also have a collection of 6x6 and 4x5 slides and negatives, sure wish I had spent more money on Kodachrome 64 in the 120 format when it was available because the slides I have are still wonderful. Because of this I spent a lot of time working with my Epson V800 to determine where to place the focusing tabs on each holder to get the best quality out of my scans. Also spent time figuring out how to use the infrared scan feature to get clean files to work with. It doubles the scan times but the payoff is well worth that extra time. Best balance between scan resolution has proven to be 4800 dpi for 120 and 35mm films and 2000 dpi for the 4x5. Tried 6400 dpi for the 4x5 scans and learned quickly that a 720 Mb file will crash some very modern editors. BTW those who complain about "awful noise" in a modern digital really should spend some time viewing the grain in 30 year old Kodacolor negatives. It's one reasons why when I was shooting B&W 35mm the only film I shot with was Panatomic-X.
I found the practical resolution of the Epson flatbeds to be 2400dpi, above that I just got larger file sizes. Kodachrome slides do age very well, far better than E6 but it’s a shame digital ICE doesn’t work with them 🙁
Plustek makes a good scanner for 35mm (OpticFilm 8300i) and one for 120 (OpticFilm 120 Pro). Both work especially well with SilverFast software, although it's pricey (Vuescan is a cheaper option), as is the 120 Pro scanner itself. It's slower than scanning with a digital camera, but I feel that I have more control over the scanning parameters. I don''t shoot a huge amount of film, so the time difference is not that great; in fact, I rather like the process. Still, it's nice to have a range of modern technical options for digitizing film, rather than having to depend on very old devices that are no longer compatible with modern computers and operating systems.
I built a "Scanning frame" that holds my camera, film holders, light source etc perfectly level and even. Its rock solid but I bought a NIkon coolscan 5000 anyway because its more automated and the dust on the camera scan is just too much to deal with.
Digital ICE dust and scratch removal using infra-red light is the big advantage of dedicated 35mm or medium format film scanners but of course this is only for colour negatives or colour slides. No good for black and white or Kodachrome slides. So for black and white films there is no advantage by using a dedicated film scanner.
One of the reasons I favoured XP2 Super was to get the full advantage out of my scanners, a lot of the dedicated models make a mess out of traditional B&W films.
My 8000ED is an incredible bit of kit. One of my best film photography purchases ever. Would never put up with the faff of aligning and putting together a DSLR based scanning thingy. To each their own!
I tried digitizing color slides with Nikon DSLR and quickly dismissed that as an option because I could immediately tell that the camera was applying its color response (aka "color science") even with the "neutral" color setting to the images. I wanted the files to look like film, and they did not. Maybe other brand cameras have trully "neutral" setting that does not change color at all, but mine did not. I used plustek scanner with vuescan to scan slides instead with much closer color rendition to the original (but have to fix black point on each image afterwards and somewhat poor shadow detail).
It can take a long time to get the settings and hardware working just right (at which point they usually upgrade something in the background and break everything!).
Steve thanks for the video. I used a Nikon Coolscan 4000 for over twenty years and only recently sold it for almost three times what I paid for it...The results were superb but you're right they are painfully slow. I used to batch scan a row of six B&W negs which worked extremely well (Vuescan Software) however to give you an idea of the time required. I would set up a batch scan then travel 8 miles to Tesco, do a weekly shop pop in the cafe for a coffee and a bun and when I got home it was just about ready to finish!!! I now use the VALOI system with a Nikon Z72 and the Z105 macro lens which seems to work quite well but there is a little bit of setting up where as the Coolscan was there ready to go. Anyway I suppose you pays your money and makes your choice. I also use an Epson V850 for MF (6x6) which I am happy with. Once again thanks for the video
I made the same move this year. I am using a Valoi setup with my old Nikon D800 and the 60mm f2.8G Nikkor lens. I leave the D800 permanently mounted on the copy stand. Now that I’ve come down the learning curve I find this method to be quite efficient. I still have my Epson V800. I plan to use it for 645 scans so I don’t have to re-level my setup. My 645 camera is an old 1930s Kodak folder, so I’m not terribly concerned about getting the absolute best scan.
I built my own stand after seeing how much the commercial units cost. A wood base with rubber feet, pipe flange mounted on base, various length pipe nipples as risers, pipe elbow, shorter nipple extension over base with a simple sliding unit that the camera mounts to. No expensive gearing as my sliding unit works with friction and a lock. Cost me about $40 USD and works great.
Good information, thanks. I just went through the same thing, discarded my very expensive film/slide scanner and replaced it with a simple DIY rig using my digital camera and a macro lens. It will deliver a scan as good as the scanner and MUCH faster. I can do 6 slides a minute. A bit less for uncut 35 mm film. I put the 3D printed part on Thingiverse.
I’ve just bought an Epson V850 😬 To be honest I think you’re right on the DSLR set up for 35mm but the V850 is a blessing for my 6x17 and 5x4 plus my 6x6 work. I am currently testing out flatbed scanning techniques with the dedicated trays plus independent holders and fluid mount holders. It’s a minefield 😂
I built myself a copy stand by buying an old 35mm enlarger and stripping the head off it to replace it with a digital camera. Works really well and the old tech of the knobs to raise and lower the head impresses the odd client no end!
Hi Steve, great video per usual! Quick suggestion - in your video editing software there should be a free EQ plugin you can use to get rid of the rumble from the table that is picked up by the mic. It's called a low shelf and if you set it around 50 or 60 Hz it should do the trick without affecting your voice 🙂 It can help with wind noise too - but that is obviously not a problem in this video!
Interesting video Steve. I've been considering trying the digital camera method for a while but can't see any advantage (for me) yet. Given the development of an efficient 'clean up' facility in Photoshop, I'd give it a go. At this time I'm a little way off packing up my Epson V850 scanner in favour of a camera scanning system. "Horses for courses" I think. I look forward to hearing your experience with the camera scanning method in future, I'm sure you'll keep us updated.
Don't forget cleaning up dirty sensor artifacts (or cleaning the sensor) with a DSLR as well. And then, if you're crazy enough to shoot 6x17, the old Epson still has its place. I use both methods, and each has its place.
I've sold all my digital cameras and lenses. I use an Epson flatbed scanner for my 35mm b&w negatives. Because I print on 5x7 paper, no need to spend more money.
I find it strange that we take beautiful analog photos and then digitalize them with a digital camera. For digital images I use my digital camera and my analog cameras I use to make prints in the darkroom.
Great discussion. I use a similar setup: G9 + Negative Lab Pro. I've been really impressed with the results I've gotten over the past few years. My NLP has been running a little glitchy lately on LR, so I need to figure that out. But I can't deny the conversions are still really fantastic.
Plustek 120 with silverfast. Set it running and go and have a cup of tea. Having said that. If it breaks, it’s unlikely I’ll buy another dedicated scanner.
I agree with you as far as 35 mm is concerened. And I also agree that a even a high res 35 mm neg does not contain more than 24 mp of data unless it was something like a Kodachrome 25 RIP. But I still use my V700 and CoolScan V from time to time and for MF and LF negs.
It’s definitely getting close when you’re talking about 120 film and if it weren’t for the ease of use from the Valoi I’d still have the Epson available.
I started with a flatbed like you but found the process to be time intensive and laborious. I already had a Nikon D810 (36mp) so I acquired a macro lens, some extension tubes and slide holder attachment and voila! Captured RAW images from the D810 sensor allowed me to pull out every bit of shadow detail in the original. Yes, it is still a lot work to process the image and deal with dust spots, but the finished images are worth it.
Very useful, thanks a lot. We had the same discussion in my local photo club. For my amount of films per year it‘s better not to develop and scan on my own, so I give this to a local lab. Some of my photo friends try out the different types of scanners as well as „scanning“ with a digital camera.
trouble generally in many local labs is that they don't do very good scan. You can go to a place that specializes in scanning but then the cost will be higher.
I found a flatbed scanner, many years ago! Canonscan with most of needed bits except 6x6 nega holder. It only works on my XP! Yes it's off line! It is s l o w. But it does for me! I will soon use a Digital Camera. I mainly do BW so ice not relevant! I love my older cameras, but a scanned negative is now digital. Might as well use digital camera! Great Video. All the best!
Thanks for sharing your experience. I was quite sceptical about using a camera for scanning, but got good results with a MFT camera and Lomography"s Digitalizer. The drawback of MFT is the native 4:3 format, so I end up getting about 12 MP files, which is ok, compared to my Epson V800, for 35mm film. (As I shoot mostly B/W the dust removal feature of the flatbed scanner doesn't work anyway.) Tip: As soon as the films have dried, I put them straight into a plastic bag (freezer bag), where they stay until being scanned. As the whole film is scanned, this minimizes the risk of dust getting onto the negatives.
That was indeed very useful, thanks Steve. I have stacks of old negatives and slides and am looking forward to digitizing them as a retirement project in a few months time. I've been wondering whether it's worth buying a film scanner (I only have 35mm stuff, nothing bigger) so your video is super useful. Would love to see a short demo of the process and references for the Valloy (?) neg holder and copy stand. Your little subtitles for V700 made be laugh 😅! Thanks!
O Steve! I have thought from time to time of this strange intrusion of modernity as I bend over the sacred trays in my darkroom. Then I have learned that scanners lead to the use, one more time, of the bloody computer! I shoot film, only film, in 120 and 35mm formats. I resent the idea of any type of digital intrusion into my hobby and I remain convinced as a die hard reactionary, that my results benefit from my bigotry!
I'm the same although working towards producing a photobook for the last twelve years has led me away from commercial scanning to buying a Coolscan V which works well. Don't believe I've got the most out of that one so far and must play around with some of the digital enhancements discovered a few nights ago when finally reading the manual! Back in 1999 adding a CCD camera to my telescope was a major contributor to my waning interest in astronomy and I'd be lost if that happened to my film photography too. Looks like I'll reluctantly have to get my head around colour profiles and PS / LR.....arrrrrgh.
Thanks Steve very informative! I have also been using flatbed scanners for years. I now use the V850 and an old HP model that can do 4x5 as well. I have used the camera scanning technique, but reverted back to flatbed scanning. I think camera scanning is great as long as one has the space to set up a dedicated camera scanning set-up, I just didn’t like doing the inversions in Lightroom. Everyone has their method. For me it’s flatbed scanning and dark room printing of black and white. I also concur with you, I have not been shooting much 4x5 lately.
@@vintagevic4593 which part? While I'm shooting, I have a notes app and a notebook that I keep settings info in. I get the film back, scan it on my coolscan 9000. NEF 16-bit fine(2x) and ice if it's not black and white. If it is black and white, I scan positive. Then I update a google sheet with all the info from my notebook. copy and paste the info into 2 different files. I run one script that using the info to rename the files. I then drop them into photoshop to edit in ACR. Do some slight adjustments and save out JPEGS. Then I run another script and it creates "HD" jpegs for instagram posts and inserts all the exif tag data into the files.
How many passes are you doing? With Nikonscan my 8000ED takes 3 minutes in fine mode for 6x8 frame. And yes, I fully agree, I will run my 8000ED until it exhales its last breath.
I've been engineering this for 6 years. At this point, I use a dedicated camera - a Pentax K70 in composite mode - because it does *perfect* grain structure in composite mode. For holders, Blackscale labs for medium format - perfectly level, for 35mm, the Valoi Easy35 which again, requires no leveling, so I can swap the camera between them very fast. FOR DUST, this is critical, the Kinetronics staticvac. I kept the v850 for large format. Software is also *critical*. I own... everything. I choose to use Filmlab Desktop 3.0 now for basic inversion, and and typically finish in DxO. I also will sometimes use Negmaster BR with Adobe Bridge, but rarely these days. I purged Adobe, even the free stuff, as I am not fond of subscriptions. I do not use NLP anymore, and I find these two newer products do a better job anyway. Cheers Steve, welcome to the club:)
@SteveONions I do wish for a medium format holder comparable to the Easy35😁 For me the Pentax is key, in particular for black and white conversions. I also used both an Olympus and Sony, regular and composite modes, and on 35mm I found they mess with the grain structure in a noticeable way. It's far more prominent if you are converting 1600 ISO or above. I ultimately concluded the Bayer color array must be at fault. The Pentax, they're doing some sort of magic with their compositing algorithm. I think because their algorithm focuses on fidelity and dynamic range instead of resolution, so it produces a far better conversion. Notably, I even found I prefer the results of the K-70 medium format conversions upscaled via Gigapixel AI over a Sony higher-resolution composite. This was great, since the K-70 an ugly condition from mpb was relatively cheap 😃 I am currently having serious issues, because my gas has targeted a Pentax monochrome camera...
@@jw48335do you also digitize positive film? I have a Pentax K-1 and I struggle with its "color science". I fail to get good looking colors from any raw converter I have tried.
Just at the time I considering either the primefilm xe or use my digital camera..this video just came in at the nick of time.. thank you. For macro photography, a m43 is always a better choice than full frame
Interesting. A while ago I had loads of 35mm slides to scan so used a Nikon Coolscan with the batch feeder. Kodachrome was a nightmare with the card mounts. Plastic mounts tended to work better. I used a Microtek scanner for larger format negatives which was good, but sadly the transparency adapter packed up a while ago. If I need to rescan selected transparencies, I will give my APSC camera and macro a go based on your experiences :)
Great video! I had to use a Nikon Coolscan to scan slides at work. Excellent results! I’m retired now and I use my Epson V600 for all my 35mm film scanning. I post edit in Photoshop. My philosophy. Although I do get excellent quality results from my Epson V600 that please me, I’m not interested in having my scans of my photographs looking pristine, perfect and razor sharp as my digital photography taken with my mirrorless cameras. My focus is vintage authenticity, with all of its grain and attributes from shooting with film from back in the day.
That’s a valid point Henry and I also dislike film images that look too clinical. After digitising the film I usually soften the image and try to remove some of the harshness that inevitably gets introduced.
The film scanner and light source are made by Valoi. The camera sits on top of multiple Cokin P series lens hoods that slot together and allow the camera to be position at the correct height.
Totally agree, digital camera scanning for 35mm is the way to go. I dev and scan the occasional roll of B&W for friends using this method, they are often blown away by the results and reckon they look as good, if not better than a lab.
I have a mountain of 35mm slides and negatives, very disorganized, a jumble of boxes and sheets in a box. My goal is to able to quickly get low or medium resolution "contact sheets" from all this, then decide afterward, which images to scan at higher resolution or send off to have done for me. It sounds like the best idea would be an inexpensive flatbed scanner, or try to adapt one of the combination printer/scanners that I have. Suggestions?
I would go the flatbed route, get one that has the holders you need (film strips, mounted slides etc) and let the scanner do the work over a longer period of time.
I totally get your point. I survived for a year and a half with an ancient 35mm Plustek Opticfilm and now I'm simply quitting film because of the complexity. Great solution indeed, Steve. Cheers!
A personal decision, of course. I shoot both film and digital mirrorless. As you already know, film is an entirely different ballgame with its own unique set of processes involved. For me, the difference is worth it. I enjoy it.
My old 35mm scanner is waiting for rescue. 👍 The FF digital camera I have been using to Copy film recently failed! It’s replacement should do for now. Film still has more to it than Resolution 🖖
Just purchased a brand new PC. The screen resolution is 100% better than my old one. To me my images all look better with the latest technology. Other than printing the quality of the image depends on the quality of the viewing screen, correct?
A few years ago I bought a Canon FL bellows with slide copier attachment (also does film strips) for £54 on ebay and already had a 50mm 3.5 FD macro lens. This combination can be adapted to anything and gives me really excellent results. It's not so quick to use, but I don't use it that often or for any volume of images.
I just went the opposite way. Pulled out my old (but like new) Nikon Coolscan IV ED because nothing beats the scratch and dust removal of Nikon's "Digital Ice" processing. It virtually removes every dust speck and that saves you hours of post-processing.
Thank you; I've been toying with the idea of getting a used high end scanner, but it seems that it makes more sense to just spend the money on getting a good holder for camera scanning. You note that you're scanning with micro 4/3; does that work well for scanning 120 film? Which lens(es) do you use; I assume you use different lenses for different film formats. Thank you in advance.
I’m very happy with doing 120 film on the 20mp Micro 4/3 camera. For this format I use the high res mode to get a little more from the film and of course you ideally need a good macro lens. I use the same 30mm Panasonic macro for all formats presently.
Thanks for that. I’ve just started to digitise my film archive [1970’s onwards, Kodak Disc to 5x4”] and the first two questions were “what quality file do I need and what might be the level of output”? I downgraded expectations, and as I am retaining the originals I decided any print output would be rare and could be dealt with individually at a later date, whilst the majority of images would be viewed on mobile devices or possibly a large TV. Hence a Canon M5 with macro lens underslung on a tripod above some gummed together cardboard strips as tracks and hours editing … but now I see the value of dedicated scanners and software for the troublesome mucky 35mm slides. Thanks for the advice. One question - I have many slides in Gepe anti-newton glass mounts, and I’ve been leaving the slides in the mounts, is that OK [I’ve not noticed a difference].
I improved the output of my V700 by making a holder from anti reflection glass set at the correct height for best focus. Night and day difference to the OEM holder for medium format. For 35mm I use an old Canon film copy bellows system with a macro lens and a medium format digital camera and the results are amazing
Interesting viewpoint Steve, but the sentiment fills me with a sense of alarm as I’ve got probably 10,000 or so 35mm negs which I plan (someday) to sort and scan! However, although I bought a dedicated Plustek Film Scanner - during Lockdown - I’ve yet to use it … what’s all that about?
If I had that many negatives I’d consider getting a flatbed just so I could do them in batches of 24 at a time. Even that will take over 400 runs to complete!
@ yeah you’re probably right. I’m pretty sure a lot of them won’t be worth scanning anyway, but I suppose the process of scanning ‘old film’ is a fairly laborious one it seems to me - however it’s done - which is why I guess I keep putting it off until tomorrow.
Many thanks, Steve, for this timely video. I find myself in the same predicament. Should I move on or not? For 120 film I use the Epson V750 with self-constructed negative holders to ensure flatness. Not perfect, but good enough. For 35mm I find my Plustek Optifilm 8300i far better (and much faster). Some months ago I did test an alternative for 35mm: Sony A7 with bellows and a slide film copy holder. As to resolution I found no difference to the Plustek scans. But I was quite unhappy with the dynamic range of the negs taken with the A7.They reminded me of the results of internegative copying, back in the days. But I didn't use the apparently very capable LR module you mentioned for conversion. (I'm holding up LR 5.6, the last buy-version, as long as I can.) Still, good to know that someone who has an eye for image quality sees no problem in principle in using a digital camera set-up for the purpose. So, thanks again!
Glad you found it useful. The Epson flatbed scanners aren’t too bad but to me they do struggle with 35mm. The digital camera approach has the advantage of improving technology but in all honesty we have enough now to extract practically all the detail from the film. I would expect intelligent processing to be the next advance in digitisation, soon even a poor 35mm frame could be turned into a masterpiece.
I have been thinking about buying an Epson V850 scanner or a digital camera for scanning for a long time. What I care about most is medium format scanning. Thank you for your valuable experience and thoughts, best regards!
Currently building a rig for scanning my 120 films (and 35mm films) with my 61Mp Sigma fpL full frame camera, and this video pops up 🙂 Still going this route though. Will test if a Foveon sensor is better for this or not. Time is not a problem 🙂
Which macro lens do you use for camera scanning? I have been wondering about converting my slides to digital, I tossed up over buying a slide scanner epson or dedicated unit but seeing the price for quality I have mentally settled on using my M43 system. The only macro I have is the venerable 12-50mm Olympus which I purchased cheap to use on my backup GX8 as a small walk about. I also have an E-M1 but no other native macro lenses. I do have a Rokkor 50mm macro including the macro extension and SR to M43 adopter as I use Rokkor lenses with the M43 from time to time. Would that be OK for slide copy?
You can adapt all sorts of macro lenses to M43 but I went with the 30mm Panasonic to keep the working distance as short as possible. I ensure my lens is parallel with the film by using spacers to raise it above the target rather than fiddling around with a tripod.
I use a similar set up but i did find that the micro four third camera didn't have the dynamic range of slide film. I also found that the different form factors meant I wasn't getting an image that represented a full 20 megapixels.
I’m surprised at that, M4/3 has a lot more range than any slide film. That said, it can struggle to get get enough information from the deep shadows unless you have a good light source.
@SteveONions I found I had exposure for highlight or shadow (I chose to keep detail in the highlights). Then I found the camera had an exposure stacking mode.
Interesting topic. I have a scanner, a V850 and a macro lens for my camera (and film holders) and occasionally camera scan. Currently I'm mostly scanning old BW where the IR in the V850 doesn't work so cleanup has to be done in post anyway. Still, I use the scanner mostly as it just sits beside the computer and it's easy to just fire it up and let it do its thing while I work on other stuff. Setup for camera scanning is much more time consuming as I don't have room for a permanent setup. What I'll do is to rescan some of the most important images where I feel a camera scan will improve on the "scan-quality".
I used to follow exactly the same approach as my scanner sat next to me. I’d do better quality scans as needed but now find the speed of doing uncut rolls with the camera so much quicker.
I use a flatbed to get a basic look at the negative. If a photo is a keeper I send it out for a drum scan. I don’t think even shooting them with my GFX 100s II gives as good an image as the drum. If I had a PhaseOne I’d probably use the camera.
For me it was happy luck to end up using my digital camera for film scanning. I have a lot of 35mm film from all my earlier years shooting 35mm. I had been thinking of getting a dedicated scanner to scan them but the price of the scanners was always a bit prohibited. In the mean time I had really gotten into using Sony digital cameras. First the A6000 and then an A7III. In the use of those I started seeing videos of people touting using their cameras to scan film. As luck had it, I still had a copy stand that I had used years ago to snap copy negs of old family photos. So I ended up having a pretty nice setup ad was happy I had never got around to buying a scanner.
I find the 80 MP hires mode of my m43 camera to be sufficient for 4x5 negatives. The biggest issues are even lighting and flatness at this size, but I finally fixed those. IR dust removal is not helpful for me, as I mainly shoot B&W ( and I had some bad experience when using a Plustek scanner and Silverfast - results were ugly.
I use the same Valoi-system as you Steve, and i've been very happy with it. I use it together with a Nikon D850 and an AF Micro Nikkor 60mm 2.8 and found it almost as fast as the Fujifilm SP3000, but with an astonishing increase in quality and tonality. Not to mention the absolute enormous files one can get by digitising 4x5 with the D850.
I only use 120 film these days and "scan" using my Olympus EM1 in hiRes mode. I do have a dedicated film scanner, sadly without IR noise removal(my mistake!), which I use for legacy slide conversion. But I haven't used it in over 2 years, so I may well get rid of it. I made my own film holder for 120 film and it takes about 20 minutes to convert a processed film to digital. To convert colour negs to digital I use the Hamrick VueScan software which can convert a negative TIFF to a digital positive (with a few film emulations too).
@@SteveONions Yeah, I just wish I'd spent the extra £50 for a film scanner with IR scratch removal! Every time I do a scan and have to spend half-an-hour spotting I curse my penny pinching!😞
Interesting topic. Just a quick note about your video in regard to the sound. It might not be obvious to everyone, but every vibration is communicated to your mic. This results in a constant low pitch boomy noise. You can clearly hear it when you picked up the Valoi holder and place it back. If you want to fix this, you might want to find a way to isolate your mic from your table. There are some mic holders that mount the mic on elastic bands.
A very reflective and fact based discussion Steve. Nicely done. The "V750" to "V700" corrections made me laugh, especially when you used the cringe emoji!! Classic. I use an Epson V550 and have done now for about 10 years. I've actually been considering trying to get a V850, but at around £1K, its a lot to lay out. I've kept my eye on this "taking a photo of a photo" technique (as I put it) for a while. I totally see how it would work well, but I am just a Luddite and it feels wrong to me to take a photo of a negative...ha ha. I cant help but think "why not just use the DSRL in the first place?". I know there is more to it than that, but I guess for now my flatbed scanning with VueScan gives me results that seem to please everyone. So I think I'll stick with it...for now.
If it’s working for you then no need to change at all. I just got tired with the speed and also the changes that occur to software from time to time. When Epson replaced the original scanning software some years back they dropped support for digital ICE and I never liked it much after that.
Recently bought the Epson V600 which came with Silverfast 9 software. Using it to successfully copy and scan my late father's slides, photos and negatives from 1940's onwards and very pleased with the results. I realise it's not acceptable by pure professional photographers but good enough to bring old and forgotten photos back to life for the family to enjoy..
@ yes they are very capable scanners indeed. My V550 is working for well even for some pro work - a 120 neg scanned at 3200 gives me a 250Mb TIFF! But I do accept that they don’t capture everything technically but not enough for me to have noticed
Hey, I am scanning my film with m43 as well. Would you mind sharing what lens are you using? Lumix 30mm macro has very uneven flat-field. Went for 7artisans 60mm macro. Better results, but focusing throw is narrow, hard to catch the critical focus.
@@SteveONions Maybe I got an unlucky copy. Sharpness in on point. The issue I experience is most visible on 6x45 (as it is 4x3 ratio and uses whole lens coverage) color negative. It has slight vignetting even at f/5.6 resulting in orange corners after conversion. However I am rumbling, happy to hear that the setup works great for you!
Interesting about using a camera to 'scan'. I've been using a Minolta F-2800 for some time - has no dust removal but then I was only scanning B&W film and C41 I sent off for processing. But... the F-2800 has a scsi interface using an ISA card! That PC died 2-3 years ago... leaving me to source a scsi PCI card (or the very expensive PCIe cards) and get it all working again. Even Linux (my preferred OS for scanning and most things) I suspect has been dropping support for scsi. So.... new card and fight it into the system, or the valoi?
@@SteveONions Well, yes I think perhaps so. Having said that I'm still using Wordperfect 5.1 to write reports (running today in a DOS window in Linux) but then I find it faster for writing reports than WYSIWYG WPs and its easy to set up. SCSI, on the other hand, always seemed a dark art to me - think I tried 3 cards before I found one that worked well and that was 13 odd years ago. Think I'll investigate the Valoi and use my Canon 6D... life is too short these days to be bothering, as you say, with old hardware. Hate throwing things away though... never know when you may need something!
I'm using an old Minolta 50mm Macro Bellows with the slide / negative holder, and it's very quick at 35 with lots of detail. Only issue I've hit is moire when I've shot grid-like structures on film. Not found a good 120 film holder solution that doesn't require a lot of futzing, but I'd not heard of the Valloi? (sp?) holder - does someone here have a link?
For more depth of field with a full frame camera just stop the lens down. I hade a Nikon D800e with the 60mm D lens and it works very well. I have a higher resolution Canon 5Ds but for whatever reason I have never even tried it for scanning. I have a flatbed scanner and a couple digital scanners but I don't really use them very often.
Another negative (pun intended) of the Nikon CoolScan V scanner I had was that the ICE dust/scratch did NOT work with B&W negatives! As I recall, the reason was because the Infrared light could not penetrate the silver in B&W film. So I had to do manual cleanup with my software. I was to looking forward to scanning my dirty, dusty Tri-X negatives I developed back in high school and college and having nice clean images.. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
I have the Epson V700, and I use it for 4x5, mainly due to my wanting to get more of the resolution of that format at one pass. For 35mm, I use the Nikon ES-2, which I think might be a more rudimentary version of the type of setup you are using. The ES-2 pairs well with the Nikon 40mm f2.8 dx, which only requires the use of one fitting. I have been frustrated with the scanning challenge for years. I have not tried to purchase any of the old scanners, nor will I do so, as support for them is close to nonexistent. I like the idea of contact printing 5x7 or 8x10, but those formats imply convoluted rabbit holes (and expense!) to which I'm not ready to commit. And negatives is about as far as my love for dark room chemistry goes, at least at the moment, even though I have, and have used, a 4x5 enlarger.
As an Epson V750 user, here's my concern about scanning via digital cameras. Does the latter compromise the classic "film look" we're all trying to achieve? Or does the Epson do that already? I find Silverfast software on the V750 gives very good film simulation.
Yeah Nah as we say in NZ. I am very happy with my Epson V800 Scanner with Silverfast. I don't use Lightroom and don't own a digital camera (only iPhone). I'm trying to have film look like film instead of a poor man's digital. FYI while I am listening to your post I am scanning so multi tasking. Cheers!
the eternal question, why use film if you use your digital camera to digitize them? for me it's like driving a vintage car, modern cars are better but driving a vintage car is more fun.
As a youtube video watcher, I'll comment until a dedicated photographer answers. 1: Dynamic range. Digital cameras can't hold a candle to film. Curious Droid did an episode on old film footage and modern video of rocket launches. There was absolutely no comparison. Film for the win. 2: Color. Different films produce different outcomes because of the chemistry and it can be copied in digital but may not quite pull it off. 3: Resolution. I high quality film may have more info in it than a digital camera can capture. 4: Overall image quality. Every time you push a button on a film camera, it costs you dollars/pounds/ yen and you are much more thoughtful about what you are photographing and how you have your camera set up. Let the burns begin.
To me the result stills looks like a film image in the same way that photographing a painting still makes it look like a painting. The more perfect the digital capture stage is the better.
I wish my camera scans were as sharp as lab scans :( No matter what I do, my X-T5 + Laowa 65mm results are not as sharp as any noritsu/frontier scan. Colors are nice though. The only way to get close in detail is pixel shift, but 20 40mp files combined and turned into a .dng ends up at 850mb or so lol. Gigantic files!
I am using a V850 flat bed scanner and I am always thinking of changing to DSLR scanning, since that appears so much more convenient to me. But there is one argument I cannot get my head around: I am scanning all formats at 4800ppi (and even 9600ppi is a native resolution to this scanner). On a 35mm film this gives me a 24 mega pixels image, which has the same resolution like my Fuji Xt3 and which is totally sufficient for what these full format cameras (digital and analog) provide. Already, using the XT3 for scanning 35mm will result in significant lower resolution, since format of my camera has a different ratio than the picture on film. But...when I shoot 120 film and scan it with a DSLR, the resulting image is still a 24 mega pixel image with the same or even less resolution (6x9 ratio vs 3x4 ratio) like I get from 35mm film. So, what is the point here to shoot larger formats anyway ? Makes no sense for me in case of DSLR scanning. When I scan my films I shot on the GW690 with 4800ppi on my flatbed scanner, I get 150 megapixel images (same amount of resolution provided by modern digital medium format cams). And the difference in details and possibilities for crops on these scans are amazingly better than I have from 35mm scans. Using my flatbed for scanning I know why I spent so much money using a format where I get only 8 shots from one roll....
Unfortunately the true resolution of the Epson flatbeds does not exceed 2400dpi. I’d come to pretty much this conclusion years ago but had it confirmed by far smarter people than myself who confirmed my suspicions. That said, 2400 dpi isn’t bad for 120 film.
@@antonroland Large format takes a lot of time, if you use 5x7, you are closer to 8x10 quality for the same energy than 4x5. On my scans I dont see a lot of difference between 5x7 and 8x10
I obviously don't produce as many 'keepers' as you do for any given roll of film, therefore flatbed and dedicated 35mm scanning is less time consuming and therefore, not a deterrent. In fact, I rather enjoy the slow, methodical process. Furthermore, the results are more than acceptable for uploading to my website etc. All printing is done in the darkroom. I never have and never will own a digital camera. So there!
I use a nikon coolscan v. I can't afford to replace my analog camera by a digital equipment because I was lucky and was able to use the time spot when everybody changed to digital and wanted to get rid of the old lenses. All normal fixed focus or zoom lenses from Canon FD and even my 400mm and even my 800L mm cost less than 0.3 to 1 Euro per mm. High end Flash for 12 bugs. Ok, my loved tilt and shift lens was about 400 (but this is a rare piece of equipment), ... it would cost me about 15 to 20k to replace it. Well lets keep scanning. Also thought about doing a digital repro session with my brother. And ICE Dust is a miracle. I scanned old family pictures from the second world war, completly covered with fungus... and bamm... nice pictures...
Digital ICE is 90-95 % correct at best. You still have to check through every scan for the 5-10% remaining dust and scratches. There’s no time saved with it. My own experience in the last 30 years slide scanning. DSLR scans also save time where you can quick scan everything to have a library to choose wisely from for the ”real scans”.
You spend most of your time finding the remaining errors. Not fixing them. Also, the computational ”healers” are now doing a better job than ICE when fixing areas with film grain. My personal experience though.
Long time ago it's been said that 35mm ISO 100 slide film (transparencies) are containing about 25 million pixels. That was a standard. I imagine that high quality colour negative films are containing the same or slightly less, while B&W negative films of same sensitivity could contain more or much more, depending of which developer was used. Just my opinion... BTW, I'm preparing to digitise / scan all of my dad's work in high resolution, and most of those where shot on 35mm slide film. Note that I'm talking about THOUSANDS of pictures. So there' s no way that I'd use a film scanner, I'd do that till I die. And by prices professional labs are charging, I could buy two brand new cars instead, so agin, DSLR / mirrorless scanning is the name of the game ...
I’d always found a practical limit of around 12mp for a 35mm frame, I believe Canon stated the same. Going above that figure largely amplified the grain although I do accept that certain film/lens/scanner combinations can go higher than this.
If you can get an accurate scan using a digital camera, surely it must be possible to duplicate the film look from a digital image? Or am I missing something?
Unfortunately the cleanup only works with color film and not B&W. I agree that for 4X5 digital camera scanning is not useful. One has to stitch images and deal with any artifacts in that. Thanks for the discussion of this topic. When I want a really good scan for a 4x5 I'll pay for a drumscan. As you can imagine that isn't done very often. Indeed at this point only twice.
I prefer my coolscan 5000 and its ability to scan an entire roll. I have come to dislike the workflow if using a digital camera for scanning, and ultimately find it takes me longer to scan
Well. The biggest problem I see with retiring my Epson 750 Pro is what would replace it. In other words, what would fund the replacement. Unfortunately, technology is awesome, but the economy is not. In 4 years, my rent went from $800 USD to $1400 USD. And that was just the rent. Everything photography is on hold until the economy improves or I win the lotto. I went back to film because I could no longer afford the constant upgrade of digital. Nowadays, I can no longer afford film. Paycheck to paycheck has become a way of life for 50% of Americans. Maybe brighter days are ahead. Until then, the 750 sits idle, waiting for a vintage neg.
Well, the 24 *REAL MP* from something like a Nikon film scanner is roughly equal to a 100 MP medium format back, with the advantage of the IR scan, and multiple scanning can increase dynamic range and reduce noise, so... Plus, with roll film and stack loading, much better for doing "digital backup" or agency submissions.
Completly agree. As for the quality, I find it amusing that people buy old Coolscans and spend exorbitant amounts of time and money getting them to work just because they reject Bayer interpolation. Contemporary Bayer implementations in cameras are excellent and provide highly accurate color.
I completely agree with you, plus you gave the advantage of capturing in RAW with all its benefits. I carried out comprehensive tests between using a 36mp & 24mp, using the same lens & discovered that the 36mp were not as good as the 24mp captures. I use the pixl-atr with the valoi attachment, as the diffuser is near to perfect.
It’s something I noticed years ago that certain scanner or camera capture methods just look better than others. Often a higher resolution makes the output look ugly.
100% agree, once you get the camera scanning workflow set up it's a breeze, the quality is very good, and you can use it for any format. Dedicated medium format scanners like the Coolscans, while great, are insanely expensive.
@@SteveONions For sure, I felt like my Coolscan V made a new and interesting sound every time I used it 😄 I heard Plustek is re-releasing their 120 film scanner, so their is some hope for people who want a dedicated one!
Sorry but I wanted an answer to a good way to scan old negatives.. and this takes so long to get what it shows at minute 8. I found this painful to watch.
Send them out to companies who do this. I was scanning negs and transparencies in a custom lab in the 1990's. I had to get trained in the software as it included an output stage to a processor with RA-4 chemistry. We'd provide the prints and the file. I remember doing an extremely complicated output for Oprah's 50th birthday. About 30 different images on 20x24 with borders in all different shapes and crops. You can bet we saved those output files...
My Nikon Coolscan 8000ED works well and gives me unbelievably high quality scans. Nikonscan has incredible ICE scratch removal on C41 negatives, and its inversion routines are superior to those of standalone tools like NLP or Grain2Pixel. That's all that matters to me.
I don't own or need to own a digital camera but I can see how camera scanning might be an appealing option for those who already have a DSLR. To each their own!
I bought an Essential Film Holder (EFH) and designed and 3d printed a camera stand to be put direcly on the film holder. Its height is adjusted exactly to the required distance of my Sigma 105 Macro and its width measured to take the hood of the lens.
So I place the film holder with film on the lighttable, put the camera stand on top of the film holder, put the camera on the holder and can start shooting at once.
No stray light, no adjustment of height and paralellity. All fine. An uncut roll is digitized in 5 minutes. And that includes setting the "scanner" up
I also prefer the camera to sit atop a stand (or in my case Cokin lens shades as spacers) to avoid any levelling issues.
Steve - appreciate your views and the info. Still scanning my old film negatives with the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED with Vue Scan software and it still works great.
If it works then stick with it, it’s nice to get years of solid use out of the same equipment.
“You get the picture.” Brilliant!
Good observations too, although scanning volumes on the flatbed (V600 here) is quite usefull as I am scanning over 40 years of film (35 pos/neg). It quickly (scan low-res for web only) shows the images I forgot about and any gem will be marked for print in the darkroom or for hi-res scan later on. Good way of spending winter evenings 👍.
If it works then stick with it Dave 👍
I just have retired my old Epson Perfection 750 Pro and bought a repro stand for my Nikon Z6 and Laowa Macro 100 mm to photograph my 6x6 negatives. I am using a negative holder and then I block the light coming from the lightboard around the negativ holder with black cardboard avoiding flare into the lens. However, for my 24x36 a bought a new Plustek film scanner which works very well. Thank you very much for your always interesting videos! Kind regards from Sweden
I’m glad you found the video useful 😊
Thanks for your video. I am doing all my color negative scans with my Epson V600 + sotware. Good results, ICE successfully removes dust n scratches. B&W total disaster, I don't know why. Even better - or let's say more authentic - results with my old Rollei df-s 190. Btw, I use Kodak 6x6 app for a quick scan of prints... works well!
My coolscan is a SCSI II version and those interfaces are no longer supported, so it's dead as a door nail. I also have a collection of 6x6 and 4x5 slides and negatives, sure wish I had spent more money on Kodachrome 64 in the 120 format when it was available because the slides I have are still wonderful. Because of this I spent a lot of time working with my Epson V800 to determine where to place the focusing tabs on each holder to get the best quality out of my scans. Also spent time figuring out how to use the infrared scan feature to get clean files to work with. It doubles the scan times but the payoff is well worth that extra time. Best balance between scan resolution has proven to be 4800 dpi for 120 and 35mm films and 2000 dpi for the 4x5. Tried 6400 dpi for the 4x5 scans and learned quickly that a 720 Mb file will crash some very modern editors. BTW those who complain about "awful noise" in a modern digital really should spend some time viewing the grain in 30 year old Kodacolor negatives. It's one reasons why when I was shooting B&W 35mm the only film I shot with was Panatomic-X.
I found the practical resolution of the Epson flatbeds to be 2400dpi, above that I just got larger file sizes. Kodachrome slides do age very well, far better than E6 but it’s a shame digital ICE doesn’t work with them 🙁
Plustek makes a good scanner for 35mm (OpticFilm 8300i) and one for 120 (OpticFilm 120 Pro). Both work especially well with SilverFast software, although it's pricey (Vuescan is a cheaper option), as is the 120 Pro scanner itself. It's slower than scanning with a digital camera, but I feel that I have more control over the scanning parameters. I don''t shoot a huge amount of film, so the time difference is not that great; in fact, I rather like the process. Still, it's nice to have a range of modern technical options for digitizing film, rather than having to depend on very old devices that are no longer compatible with modern computers and operating systems.
I’ve used many scanners and found that the best can produce excellent results, just not as quickly as the digital camera method sadly.
I built a "Scanning frame" that holds my camera, film holders, light source etc perfectly level and even. Its rock solid but I bought a NIkon coolscan 5000 anyway because its more automated and the dust on the camera scan is just too much to deal with.
Fair point 👍
Digital ICE dust and scratch removal using infra-red light is the big advantage of dedicated 35mm or medium format film scanners but of course this is only for colour negatives or colour slides. No good for black and white or Kodachrome slides. So for black and white films there is no advantage by using a dedicated film scanner.
One of the reasons I favoured XP2 Super was to get the full advantage out of my scanners, a lot of the dedicated models make a mess out of traditional B&W films.
@jamesprivet dust and scratch can be removed without digital equipment
There are countless advantages to using a dedicated film scanner instead of a homemade DSLR scanning setup.
@@giuseppeg.8461 so what are they?
I'm still using my Nikon LS9000 and am very satisfied with the results.
My 8000ED is an incredible bit of kit. One of my best film photography purchases ever. Would never put up with the faff of aligning and putting together a DSLR based scanning thingy. To each their own!
If it works then definitely do not mess with it 👍
I tried digitizing color slides with Nikon DSLR and quickly dismissed that as an option because I could immediately tell that the camera was applying its color response (aka "color science") even with the "neutral" color setting to the images. I wanted the files to look like film, and they did not. Maybe other brand cameras have trully "neutral" setting that does not change color at all, but mine did not. I used plustek scanner with vuescan to scan slides instead with much closer color rendition to the original (but have to fix black point on each image afterwards and somewhat poor shadow detail).
It can take a long time to get the settings and hardware working just right (at which point they usually upgrade something in the background and break everything!).
Steve thanks for the video. I used a Nikon Coolscan 4000 for over twenty years and only recently sold it for almost three times what I paid for it...The results were superb but you're right they are painfully slow. I used to batch scan a row of six B&W negs which worked extremely well (Vuescan Software) however to give you an idea of the time required. I would set up a batch scan then travel 8 miles to Tesco, do a weekly shop pop in the cafe for a coffee and a bun and when I got home it was just about ready to finish!!! I now use the VALOI system with a Nikon Z72 and the Z105 macro lens which seems to work quite well but there is a little bit of setting up where as the Coolscan was there ready to go. Anyway I suppose you pays your money and makes your choice. I also use an Epson V850 for MF (6x6) which I am happy with. Once again thanks for the video
You’ve followed a similar path to me Alan, I liked the results from the Coolscan and Minolta but it was a chore to get through a whole roll of film.
I made the same move this year. I am using a Valoi setup with my old Nikon D800 and the 60mm f2.8G Nikkor lens. I leave the D800 permanently mounted on the copy stand. Now that I’ve come down the learning curve I find this method to be quite efficient. I still have my Epson V800. I plan to use it for 645 scans so I don’t have to re-level my setup. My 645 camera is an old 1930s Kodak folder, so I’m not terribly concerned about getting the absolute best scan.
That seems like a good balance, the flatbed is more than adequate for old medium format negatives.
I built my own stand after seeing how much the commercial units cost. A wood base with rubber feet, pipe flange mounted on base, various length pipe nipples as risers, pipe elbow, shorter nipple extension over base with a simple sliding unit that the camera mounts to. No expensive gearing as my sliding unit works with friction and a lock. Cost me about $40 USD and works great.
I used to use my own home built setup but I can’t deny the advantages of a well engineered commercial offering.
Good information, thanks. I just went through the same thing, discarded my very expensive film/slide scanner and replaced it with a simple DIY rig using my digital camera and a macro lens. It will deliver a scan as good as the scanner and MUCH faster. I can do 6 slides a minute. A bit less for uncut 35 mm film. I put the 3D printed part on Thingiverse.
Thanks for sharing
I’ve just bought an Epson V850 😬 To be honest I think you’re right on the DSLR set up for 35mm but the V850 is a blessing for my 6x17 and 5x4 plus my 6x6 work. I am currently testing out flatbed scanning techniques with the dedicated trays plus independent holders and fluid mount holders. It’s a minefield 😂
A minefield indeed, I hate to think how long I’ve spent fiddling with holders and software over the years 🙁
@ I’m currently trying to revive some old 5x4 Velvia images wish me luck 😬
I built myself a copy stand by buying an old 35mm enlarger and stripping the head off it to replace it with a digital camera. Works really well and the old tech of the knobs to raise and lower the head impresses the odd client no end!
Nice use of old for something new 👍
Hi Steve, great video per usual! Quick suggestion - in your video editing software there should be a free EQ plugin you can use to get rid of the rumble from the table that is picked up by the mic. It's called a low shelf and if you set it around 50 or 60 Hz it should do the trick without affecting your voice 🙂 It can help with wind noise too - but that is obviously not a problem in this video!
Thanks for the advice Paul, I’ll try applying that on the next video 👍
Interesting video Steve. I've been considering trying the digital camera method for a while but can't see any advantage (for me) yet. Given the development of an efficient 'clean up' facility in Photoshop, I'd give it a go. At this time I'm a little way off packing up my Epson V850 scanner in favour of a camera scanning system. "Horses for courses" I think. I look forward to hearing your experience with the camera scanning method in future, I'm sure you'll keep us updated.
Glad it was helpful!
Don't forget cleaning up dirty sensor artifacts (or cleaning the sensor) with a DSLR as well. And then, if you're crazy enough to shoot 6x17, the old Epson still has its place. I use both methods, and each has its place.
Fair point 👍
I've sold all my digital cameras and lenses. I use an Epson flatbed scanner for my 35mm b&w negatives. Because I print on 5x7 paper, no need to spend more money.
I've also sold all my digital camera and lenses. I don't miss them one bit. I do my photography using film cameras and a Nikon coolscan. Happy!
I find it strange that we take beautiful analog photos and then digitalize them with a digital camera. For digital images I use my digital camera and my analog cameras I use to make prints in the darkroom.
I also like the darkroom but for most people it isn’t an option, particularly for colour.
I've had a Microtek i900 for a zillion years for MF & LF transparencies with excellent results. No need to change at this late date.
👍
Great discussion. I use a similar setup: G9 + Negative Lab Pro. I've been really impressed with the results I've gotten over the past few years. My NLP has been running a little glitchy lately on LR, so I need to figure that out. But I can't deny the conversions are still really fantastic.
I also used the G9 for years and found the results excellent.
I have my Epson 850 pro and have enjoyed using it to get my scans and I am very satisfied with my results.
If it works then stick with it 👍
Plustek 120 with silverfast. Set it running and go and have a cup of tea.
Having said that. If it breaks, it’s unlikely I’ll buy another dedicated scanner.
I agree with you as far as 35 mm is concerened. And I also agree that a even a high res 35 mm neg does not contain more than 24 mp of data unless it was something like a Kodachrome 25 RIP. But I still use my V700 and CoolScan V from time to time and for MF and LF negs.
It’s definitely getting close when you’re talking about 120 film and if it weren’t for the ease of use from the Valoi I’d still have the Epson available.
I started with a flatbed like you but found the process to be time intensive and laborious. I already had a Nikon D810 (36mp) so I acquired a macro lens, some extension tubes and slide holder attachment and voila! Captured RAW images from the D810 sensor allowed me to pull out every bit of shadow detail in the original. Yes, it is still a lot work to process the image and deal with dust spots, but the finished images are worth it.
Nice work, great to use something you already have.
Very useful, thanks a lot. We had the same discussion in my local photo club.
For my amount of films per year it‘s better not to develop and scan on my own, so I give this to a local lab.
Some of my photo friends try out the different types of scanners as well as „scanning“ with a digital camera.
trouble generally in many local labs is that they don't do very good scan. You can go to a place that specializes in scanning but then the cost will be higher.
Glad it was helpful Joerg.
I found a flatbed scanner, many years ago! Canonscan with most of needed bits except 6x6 nega holder. It only works on my XP! Yes it's off line! It is s l o w. But it does for me! I will soon use a Digital Camera. I mainly do BW so ice not relevant! I love my older cameras, but a scanned negative is now digital. Might as well use digital camera! Great Video. All the best!
Scanning B&W is so much easier than colour 🙂
Thanks for sharing your experience. I was quite sceptical about using a camera for scanning, but got good results with a MFT camera and Lomography"s Digitalizer. The drawback of MFT is the native 4:3 format, so I end up getting about 12 MP files, which is ok, compared to my Epson V800, for 35mm film. (As I shoot mostly B/W the dust removal feature of the flatbed scanner doesn't work anyway.) Tip: As soon as the films have dried, I put them straight into a plastic bag (freezer bag), where they stay until being scanned. As the whole film is scanned, this minimizes the risk of dust getting onto the negatives.
Thanks for the tip, I hadn’t thought about that 👍
That was indeed very useful, thanks Steve. I have stacks of old negatives and slides and am looking forward to digitizing them as a retirement project in a few months time. I've been wondering whether it's worth buying a film scanner (I only have 35mm stuff, nothing bigger) so your video is super useful. Would love to see a short demo of the process and references for the Valloy (?) neg holder and copy stand. Your little subtitles for V700 made be laugh 😅! Thanks!
Thanks Alan. I’ll do a full video on my scanning process one day 👍
O Steve! I have thought from time to time of this strange intrusion of modernity as I bend over the sacred trays in my darkroom. Then I have learned that scanners lead to the use, one more time, of the bloody computer! I shoot film, only film, in 120 and 35mm formats. I resent the idea of any type of digital intrusion into my hobby and I remain convinced as a die hard reactionary, that my results benefit from my bigotry!
I'm the same although working towards producing a photobook for the last twelve years has led me away from commercial scanning to buying a Coolscan V which works well. Don't believe I've got the most out of that one so far and must play around with some of the digital enhancements discovered a few nights ago when finally reading the manual!
Back in 1999 adding a CCD camera to my telescope was a major contributor to my waning interest in astronomy and I'd be lost if that happened to my film photography too.
Looks like I'll reluctantly have to get my head around colour profiles and PS / LR.....arrrrrgh.
Each to their own Jeremy and providing you get the results you are looking for then nobody should tell you how to do it 👍
hi steve i use an Epson v700 for my scanning works for me don't print really big photos and i don't scan all the photos i take.
If it works then don’t change anything 👍
Thanks Steve very informative! I have also been using flatbed scanners for years. I now use the V850 and an old HP model that can do 4x5 as well. I have used the camera scanning technique, but reverted back to flatbed scanning. I think camera scanning is great as long as one has the space to set up a dedicated camera scanning set-up, I just didn’t like doing the inversions in Lightroom. Everyone has their method. For me it’s flatbed scanning and dark room printing of black and white. I also concur with you, I have not been shooting much 4x5 lately.
What swung it for me was the new film holder setup, so easy to work through the roll before cutting it into strips of 6.
Yes it's 30 minutes for one 6x7 scans, but you will have to pry my Nikon Coolscan 9000 out of my cold dead hands.
I have an excellent work flow with the Nikon Coolscan that took me a decade to get all in place. Not going back!
Please tell us about the it, I would love to know!
If it works then definitely stick with it 👍
@@vintagevic4593 which part? While I'm shooting, I have a notes app and a notebook that I keep settings info in. I get the film back, scan it on my coolscan 9000. NEF 16-bit fine(2x) and ice if it's not black and white. If it is black and white, I scan positive.
Then I update a google sheet with all the info from my notebook. copy and paste the info into 2 different files. I run one script that using the info to rename the files. I then drop them into photoshop to edit in ACR. Do some slight adjustments and save out JPEGS. Then I run another script and it creates "HD" jpegs for instagram posts and inserts all the exif tag data into the files.
How many passes are you doing? With Nikonscan my 8000ED takes 3 minutes in fine mode for 6x8 frame. And yes, I fully agree, I will run my 8000ED until it exhales its last breath.
Thanks Steve. Very informative.
Glad it was helpful William.
I've been engineering this for 6 years. At this point, I use a dedicated camera - a Pentax K70 in composite mode - because it does *perfect* grain structure in composite mode. For holders, Blackscale labs for medium format - perfectly level, for 35mm, the Valoi Easy35 which again, requires no leveling, so I can swap the camera between them very fast. FOR DUST, this is critical, the Kinetronics staticvac. I kept the v850 for large format.
Software is also *critical*. I own... everything. I choose to use Filmlab Desktop 3.0 now for basic inversion, and and typically finish in DxO. I also will sometimes use Negmaster BR with Adobe Bridge, but rarely these days. I purged Adobe, even the free stuff, as I am not fond of subscriptions. I do not use NLP anymore, and I find these two newer products do a better job anyway.
Cheers Steve, welcome to the club:)
Sounds like you’ve got to the perfect setup 👍
@SteveONions I do wish for a medium format holder comparable to the Easy35😁
For me the Pentax is key, in particular for black and white conversions. I also used both an Olympus and Sony, regular and composite modes, and on 35mm I found they mess with the grain structure in a noticeable way. It's far more prominent if you are converting 1600 ISO or above. I ultimately concluded the Bayer color array must be at fault. The Pentax, they're doing some sort of magic with their compositing algorithm. I think because their algorithm focuses on fidelity and dynamic range instead of resolution, so it produces a far better conversion.
Notably, I even found I prefer the results of the K-70 medium format conversions upscaled via Gigapixel AI over a Sony higher-resolution composite. This was great, since the K-70 an ugly condition from mpb was relatively cheap 😃
I am currently having serious issues, because my gas has targeted a Pentax monochrome camera...
@@jw48335do you also digitize positive film? I have a Pentax K-1 and I struggle with its "color science". I fail to get good looking colors from any raw converter I have tried.
Just at the time I considering either the primefilm xe or use my digital camera..this video just came in at the nick of time.. thank you. For macro photography, a m43 is always a better choice than full frame
Glad you found it useful Josh.
Interesting. A while ago I had loads of 35mm slides to scan so used a Nikon Coolscan with the batch feeder. Kodachrome was a nightmare with the card mounts. Plastic mounts tended to work better. I used a Microtek scanner for larger format negatives which was good, but sadly the transparency adapter packed up a while ago.
If I need to rescan selected transparencies, I will give my APSC camera and macro a go based on your experiences :)
Given the age of the scanners I think it’s wise not to plough a load of money into them now.
It's time to switch to Phase One. Prices gave us a mercy finally.
Great video! I had to use a Nikon Coolscan to scan slides at work. Excellent results! I’m retired now and I use my Epson V600 for all my 35mm film scanning. I post edit in Photoshop. My philosophy. Although I do get excellent quality results from my Epson V600 that please me, I’m not interested in having my scans of my photographs looking pristine, perfect and razor sharp as my digital photography taken with my mirrorless cameras. My focus is vintage authenticity, with all of its grain and attributes from shooting with film from back in the day.
That’s a valid point Henry and I also dislike film images that look too clinical. After digitising the film I usually soften the image and try to remove some of the harshness that inevitably gets introduced.
@@SteveONions I feel the same way. Agreed 100%
Hi Steve, could you please tell me from which manufacturer the camera stand is produced? Thanks a lot for your help.
The film scanner and light source are made by Valoi. The camera sits on top of multiple Cokin P series lens hoods that slot together and allow the camera to be position at the correct height.
Totally agree, digital camera scanning for 35mm is the way to go. I dev and scan the occasional roll of B&W for friends using this method, they are often blown away by the results and reckon they look as good, if not better than a lab.
Totally agree 👍
I have a mountain of 35mm slides and negatives, very disorganized, a jumble of boxes and sheets in a box. My goal is to able to quickly get low or medium resolution "contact sheets" from all this, then decide afterward, which images to scan at higher resolution or send off to have done for me. It sounds like the best idea would be an inexpensive flatbed scanner, or try to adapt one of the combination printer/scanners that I have. Suggestions?
I would go the flatbed route, get one that has the holders you need (film strips, mounted slides etc) and let the scanner do the work over a longer period of time.
I totally get your point. I survived for a year and a half with an ancient 35mm Plustek Opticfilm and now I'm simply quitting film because of the complexity. Great solution indeed, Steve. Cheers!
A personal decision, of course. I shoot both film and digital mirrorless. As you already know, film is an entirely different ballgame with its own unique set of processes involved. For me, the difference is worth it. I enjoy it.
My old 35mm scanner is waiting for rescue. 👍
The FF digital camera I have been using to Copy film recently failed!
It’s replacement should do for now.
Film still has more to it than Resolution 🖖
Totally agree Stuart.
Just purchased a brand new PC. The screen resolution is 100% better than my old one. To me my images all look better with the latest technology. Other than printing the quality of the image depends on the quality of the viewing screen, correct?
Largely yes, unless you do a lot of 35mm grainy B&W which doesn’t need anything special in the viewing department 🙂
A few years ago I bought a Canon FL bellows with slide copier attachment (also does film strips) for £54 on ebay and already had a 50mm 3.5 FD macro lens. This combination can be adapted to anything and gives me really excellent results.
It's not so quick to use, but I don't use it that often or for any volume of images.
Sounds like a good solution.
I just went the opposite way. Pulled out my old (but like new) Nikon Coolscan IV ED because nothing beats the scratch and dust removal of Nikon's "Digital Ice" processing. It virtually removes every dust speck and that saves you hours of post-processing.
Thank you; I've been toying with the idea of getting a used high end scanner, but it seems that it makes more sense to just spend the money on getting a good holder for camera scanning. You note that you're scanning with micro 4/3; does that work well for scanning 120 film? Which lens(es) do you use; I assume you use different lenses for different film formats. Thank you in advance.
I’m very happy with doing 120 film on the 20mp Micro 4/3 camera. For this format I use the high res mode to get a little more from the film and of course you ideally need a good macro lens. I use the same 30mm Panasonic macro for all formats presently.
Thanks for that. I’ve just started to digitise my film archive [1970’s onwards, Kodak Disc to 5x4”] and the first two questions were “what quality file do I need and what might be the level of output”? I downgraded expectations, and as I am retaining the originals I decided any print output would be rare and could be dealt with individually at a later date, whilst the majority of images would be viewed on mobile devices or possibly a large TV. Hence a Canon M5 with macro lens underslung on a tripod above some gummed together cardboard strips as tracks and hours editing … but now I see the value of dedicated scanners and software for the troublesome mucky 35mm slides.
Thanks for the advice.
One question - I have many slides in Gepe anti-newton glass mounts, and I’ve been leaving the slides in the mounts, is that OK [I’ve not noticed a difference].
Glad you found it useful Peter. There’s no problem leaving slides in their mounts, dedicated film scanners usually have special holders for them.
@@SteveONions thanks. The glass mounts will help keep the slides flat as well.
I improved the output of my V700 by making a holder from anti reflection glass set at the correct height for best focus. Night and day difference to the OEM holder for medium format. For 35mm I use an old Canon film copy bellows system with a macro lens and a medium format digital camera and the results are amazing
I used a variety of film holders with my v700, the best being one with ANR glass and adjustable feet (from Betterscanning if I recall correctly).
Interesting viewpoint Steve, but the sentiment fills me with a sense of alarm as I’ve got probably 10,000 or so 35mm negs which I plan (someday) to sort and scan! However, although I bought a dedicated Plustek Film Scanner - during Lockdown - I’ve yet to use it … what’s all that about?
If I had that many negatives I’d consider getting a flatbed just so I could do them in batches of 24 at a time. Even that will take over 400 runs to complete!
@ yeah you’re probably right. I’m pretty sure a lot of them won’t be worth scanning anyway, but I suppose the process of scanning ‘old film’ is a fairly laborious one it seems to me - however it’s done - which is why I guess I keep putting it off until tomorrow.
Many thanks, Steve, for this timely video. I find myself in the same predicament. Should I move on or not? For 120 film I use the Epson V750 with self-constructed negative holders to ensure flatness. Not perfect, but good enough. For 35mm I find my Plustek Optifilm 8300i far better (and much faster). Some months ago I did test an alternative for 35mm: Sony A7 with bellows and a slide film copy holder. As to resolution I found no difference to the Plustek scans. But I was quite unhappy with the dynamic range of the negs taken with the A7.They reminded me of the results of internegative copying, back in the days. But I didn't use the apparently very capable LR module you mentioned for conversion. (I'm holding up LR 5.6, the last buy-version, as long as I can.) Still, good to know that someone who has an eye for image quality sees no problem in principle in using a digital camera set-up for the purpose. So, thanks again!
Glad you found it useful. The Epson flatbed scanners aren’t too bad but to me they do struggle with 35mm. The digital camera approach has the advantage of improving technology but in all honesty we have enough now to extract practically all the detail from the film. I would expect intelligent processing to be the next advance in digitisation, soon even a poor 35mm frame could be turned into a masterpiece.
You are ok with the color shift and manipulation that different cameras and lenses introduce?
Very happy with my results 👍
I have been thinking about buying an Epson V850 scanner or a digital camera for scanning for a long time. What I care about most is medium format scanning. Thank you for your valuable experience and thoughts, best regards!
Glad you found it useful.
What happened to being satisfied with what came out of the camera and the lab ????
I was never satisfied with that!
Currently building a rig for scanning my 120 films (and 35mm films) with my 61Mp Sigma fpL full frame camera, and this video pops up 🙂 Still going this route though. Will test if a Foveon sensor is better for this or not. Time is not a problem 🙂
Hope it works out well for you.
Which macro lens do you use for camera scanning? I have been wondering about converting my slides to digital, I tossed up over buying a slide scanner epson or dedicated unit but seeing the price for quality I have mentally settled on using my M43 system. The only macro I have is the venerable 12-50mm Olympus which I purchased cheap to use on my backup GX8 as a small walk about. I also have an E-M1 but no other native macro lenses. I do have a Rokkor 50mm macro including the macro extension and SR to M43 adopter as I use Rokkor lenses with the M43 from time to time. Would that be OK for slide copy?
You can adapt all sorts of macro lenses to M43 but I went with the 30mm Panasonic to keep the working distance as short as possible. I ensure my lens is parallel with the film by using spacers to raise it above the target rather than fiddling around with a tripod.
Very insightful - thank you Steve!!!
Thanks Stanley.
Well reasoned and practical.
I use a similar set up but i did find that the micro four third camera didn't have the dynamic range of slide film. I also found that the different form factors meant I wasn't getting an image that represented a full 20 megapixels.
I’m surprised at that, M4/3 has a lot more range than any slide film. That said, it can struggle to get get enough information from the deep shadows unless you have a good light source.
@SteveONions I found I had exposure for highlight or shadow (I chose to keep detail in the highlights). Then I found the camera had an exposure stacking mode.
Interesting topic. I have a scanner, a V850 and a macro lens for my camera (and film holders) and occasionally camera scan. Currently I'm mostly scanning old BW where the IR in the V850 doesn't work so cleanup has to be done in post anyway. Still, I use the scanner mostly as it just sits beside the computer and it's easy to just fire it up and let it do its thing while I work on other stuff. Setup for camera scanning is much more time consuming as I don't have room for a permanent setup. What I'll do is to rescan some of the most important images where I feel a camera scan will improve on the "scan-quality".
I used to follow exactly the same approach as my scanner sat next to me. I’d do better quality scans as needed but now find the speed of doing uncut rolls with the camera so much quicker.
I use a flatbed to get a basic look at the negative. If a photo is a keeper I send it out for a drum scan. I don’t think even shooting them with my GFX 100s II gives as good an image as the drum.
If I had a PhaseOne I’d probably use the camera.
For me it was happy luck to end up using my digital camera for film scanning. I have a lot of 35mm film from all my earlier years shooting 35mm. I had been thinking of getting a dedicated scanner to scan them but the price of the scanners was always a bit prohibited. In the mean time I had really gotten into using Sony digital cameras. First the A6000 and then an A7III. In the use of those I started seeing videos of people touting using their cameras to scan film. As luck had it, I still had a copy stand that I had used years ago to snap copy negs of old family photos. So I ended up having a pretty nice setup ad was happy I had never got around to buying a scanner.
If I was starting out I’d never consider a dedicated scanner unless I was shooting large format.
I find the 80 MP hires mode of my m43 camera to be sufficient for 4x5 negatives. The biggest issues are even lighting and flatness at this size, but I finally fixed those. IR dust removal is not helpful for me, as I mainly shoot B&W ( and I had some bad experience when using a Plustek scanner and Silverfast - results were ugly.
I have done a few 4x5 scans with the camera but just prefer the look I get from the old flatbed.
I use the same Valoi-system as you Steve, and i've been very happy with it. I use it together with a Nikon D850 and an AF Micro Nikkor 60mm 2.8 and found it almost as fast as the Fujifilm SP3000, but with an astonishing increase in quality and tonality. Not to mention the absolute enormous files one can get by digitising 4x5 with the D850.
I think that should be Valoi, not Vallon.
@@DavidM2002 Very correct, my Swedish auto correct got em mixed up.
@@AREKU I only speak English and I often mess that up.
Excellent 👍
I only use 120 film these days and "scan" using my Olympus EM1 in hiRes mode. I do have a dedicated film scanner, sadly without IR noise removal(my mistake!), which I use for legacy slide conversion. But I haven't used it in over 2 years, so I may well get rid of it. I made my own film holder for 120 film and it takes about 20 minutes to convert a processed film to digital. To convert colour negs to digital I use the Hamrick VueScan software which can convert a negative TIFF to a digital positive (with a few film emulations too).
Sounds like you’ve got a workflow that suits you well Alan, no need to change anything 👍
@@SteveONions Yeah, I just wish I'd spent the extra £50 for a film scanner with IR scratch removal! Every time I do a scan and have to spend half-an-hour spotting I curse my penny pinching!😞
Interesting topic. Just a quick note about your video in regard to the sound. It might not be obvious to everyone, but every vibration is communicated to your mic. This results in a constant low pitch boomy noise. You can clearly hear it when you picked up the Valoi holder and place it back. If you want to fix this, you might want to find a way to isolate your mic from your table. There are some mic holders that mount the mic on elastic bands.
Thank you, I’ll try to fix this next time 👍
A very reflective and fact based discussion Steve. Nicely done. The "V750" to "V700" corrections made me laugh, especially when you used the cringe emoji!! Classic. I use an Epson V550 and have done now for about 10 years. I've actually been considering trying to get a V850, but at around £1K, its a lot to lay out. I've kept my eye on this "taking a photo of a photo" technique (as I put it) for a while. I totally see how it would work well, but I am just a Luddite and it feels wrong to me to take a photo of a negative...ha ha. I cant help but think "why not just use the DSRL in the first place?". I know there is more to it than that, but I guess for now my flatbed scanning with VueScan gives me results that seem to please everyone. So I think I'll stick with it...for now.
If it’s working for you then no need to change at all. I just got tired with the speed and also the changes that occur to software from time to time. When Epson replaced the original scanning software some years back they dropped support for digital ICE and I never liked it much after that.
Recently bought the Epson V600 which came with Silverfast 9 software.
Using it to successfully copy and scan my late father's slides, photos and negatives from 1940's onwards and very pleased with the results.
I realise it's not acceptable by pure professional photographers but good enough to bring old and forgotten photos back to life for the family to enjoy..
@ yes they are very capable scanners indeed. My V550 is working for well even for some pro work - a 120 neg scanned at 3200 gives me a 250Mb TIFF! But I do accept that they don’t capture everything technically but not enough for me to have noticed
Hey, I am scanning my film with m43 as well. Would you mind sharing what lens are you using? Lumix 30mm macro has very uneven flat-field. Went for 7artisans 60mm macro. Better results, but focusing throw is narrow, hard to catch the critical focus.
I’ve not had any issues with my 30mm Panasonic, f/5.6 gives me very good results.
@@SteveONions Maybe I got an unlucky copy. Sharpness in on point. The issue I experience is most visible on 6x45 (as it is 4x3 ratio and uses whole lens coverage) color negative. It has slight vignetting even at f/5.6 resulting in orange corners after conversion. However I am rumbling, happy to hear that the setup works great for you!
Interesting about using a camera to 'scan'. I've been using a Minolta F-2800 for some time - has no dust removal but then I was only scanning B&W film and C41 I sent off for processing. But... the F-2800 has a scsi interface using an ISA card! That PC died 2-3 years ago... leaving me to source a scsi PCI card (or the very expensive PCIe cards) and get it all working again. Even Linux (my preferred OS for scanning and most things) I suspect has been dropping support for scsi. So.... new card and fight it into the system, or the valoi?
After 40 years in IT I avoid old hardware and software like the plague, get a digital camera and film holder instead 😀
@@SteveONions Well, yes I think perhaps so. Having said that I'm still using Wordperfect 5.1 to write reports (running today in a DOS window in Linux) but then I find it faster for writing reports than WYSIWYG WPs and its easy to set up. SCSI, on the other hand, always seemed a dark art to me - think I tried 3 cards before I found one that worked well and that was 13 odd years ago. Think I'll investigate the Valoi and use my Canon 6D... life is too short these days to be bothering, as you say, with old hardware. Hate throwing things away though... never know when you may need something!
I'm using an old Minolta 50mm Macro Bellows with the slide / negative holder, and it's very quick at 35 with lots of detail. Only issue I've hit is moire when I've shot grid-like structures on film. Not found a good 120 film holder solution that doesn't require a lot of futzing, but I'd not heard of the Valloi? (sp?) holder - does someone here have a link?
You can find them here www.valoi.co/
For more depth of field with a full frame camera just stop the lens down. I hade a Nikon D800e with the 60mm D lens and it works very well. I have a higher resolution Canon 5Ds but for whatever reason I have never even tried it for scanning. I have a flatbed scanner and a couple digital scanners but I don't really use them very often.
I think my preference for M43 stems from the ease of use to be honest, it is so light it sits nicely on top of the Valoi with no vibrations.
Another negative (pun intended) of the Nikon CoolScan V scanner I had was that the ICE dust/scratch did NOT work with B&W negatives!
As I recall, the reason was because the Infrared light could not penetrate the silver in B&W film. So I had to do manual cleanup with my software.
I was to looking forward to scanning my dirty, dusty Tri-X negatives I developed back in high school and college and having nice clean images..
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
I found the Coolscan V produced ugly B&W scans thanks to the cool LED light source, I even preferred the Epson flatbed output here.
I have the Epson V700, and I use it for 4x5, mainly due to my wanting to get more of the resolution of that format at one pass. For 35mm, I use the Nikon ES-2, which I think might be a more rudimentary version of the type of setup you are using. The ES-2 pairs well with the Nikon 40mm f2.8 dx, which only requires the use of one fitting. I have been frustrated with the scanning challenge for years. I have not tried to purchase any of the old scanners, nor will I do so, as support for them is close to nonexistent. I like the idea of contact printing 5x7 or 8x10, but those formats imply convoluted rabbit holes (and expense!) to which I'm not ready to commit. And negatives is about as far as my love for dark room chemistry goes, at least at the moment, even though I have, and have used, a 4x5 enlarger.
I’m also wary of old scanners now as many are well over 20 years old by now.
As an Epson V750 user, here's my concern about scanning via digital cameras. Does the latter compromise the classic "film look" we're all trying to achieve? Or does the Epson do that already? I find Silverfast software on the V750 gives very good film simulation.
I would concede that the digital camera approach has a more ‘ digital’ look initially until I soften it down in Lightroom.
Yeah Nah as we say in NZ. I am very happy with my Epson V800 Scanner with Silverfast. I don't use Lightroom and don't own a digital camera (only iPhone). I'm trying to have film look like film instead of a poor man's digital. FYI while I am listening to your post I am scanning so multi tasking. Cheers!
Glad you’ve got a solution that works for you 👍
the eternal question, why use film if you use your digital camera to digitize them? for me it's like driving a vintage car, modern cars are better but driving a vintage car is more fun.
This has always been my question, might as well just use digital to shoot the image. I’m sure there are a bunch of reasons but I’m not a purist.
As a youtube video watcher, I'll comment until a dedicated photographer answers.
1: Dynamic range. Digital cameras can't hold a candle to film. Curious Droid did an episode on old film footage and modern video of rocket launches. There was absolutely no comparison. Film for the win.
2: Color. Different films produce different outcomes because of the chemistry and it can be copied in digital but may not quite pull it off.
3: Resolution. I high quality film may have more info in it than a digital camera can capture.
4: Overall image quality. Every time you push a button on a film camera, it costs you dollars/pounds/ yen and you are much more thoughtful about what you are photographing and how you have your camera set up.
Let the burns begin.
To me the result stills looks like a film image in the same way that photographing a painting still makes it look like a painting. The more perfect the digital capture stage is the better.
I wish my camera scans were as sharp as lab scans :(
No matter what I do, my X-T5 + Laowa 65mm results are not as sharp as any noritsu/frontier scan. Colors are nice though. The only way to get close in detail is pixel shift, but 20 40mp files combined and turned into a .dng ends up at 850mb or so lol. Gigantic files!
That’s a shame, I can get results pretty much on a par with lab scans these days.
I am using a V850 flat bed scanner and I am always thinking of changing to DSLR scanning, since that appears so much more convenient to me. But there is one argument I cannot get my head around: I am scanning all formats at 4800ppi (and even 9600ppi is a native resolution to this scanner). On a 35mm film this gives me a 24 mega pixels image, which has the same resolution like my Fuji Xt3 and which is totally sufficient for what these full format cameras (digital and analog) provide.
Already, using the XT3 for scanning 35mm will result in significant lower resolution, since format of my camera has a different ratio than the picture on film.
But...when I shoot 120 film and scan it with a DSLR, the resulting image is still a 24 mega pixel image with the same or even less resolution (6x9 ratio vs 3x4 ratio) like I get from 35mm film. So, what is the point here to shoot larger formats anyway ? Makes no sense for me in case of DSLR scanning.
When I scan my films I shot on the GW690 with 4800ppi on my flatbed scanner, I get 150 megapixel images (same amount of resolution provided by modern digital medium format cams). And the difference in details and possibilities for crops on these scans are amazingly better than I have from 35mm scans. Using my flatbed for scanning I know why I spent so much money using a format where I get only 8 shots from one roll....
Unfortunately the true resolution of the Epson flatbeds does not exceed 2400dpi. I’d come to pretty much this conclusion years ago but had it confirmed by far smarter people than myself who confirmed my suspicions. That said, 2400 dpi isn’t bad for 120 film.
I quit 35 a long time ago, I only shoot 120, 5x7 and 8x10. 5x7 is the best compromise. I dont recommand 4x5
Why not 4x5?
@@antonroland Large format takes a lot of time, if you use 5x7, you are closer to 8x10 quality for the same energy than 4x5. On my scans I dont see a lot of difference between 5x7 and 8x10
Fair point.
I obviously don't produce as many 'keepers' as you do for any given roll of film, therefore flatbed and dedicated 35mm scanning is less time consuming and therefore, not a deterrent. In fact, I rather enjoy the slow, methodical process. Furthermore, the results are more than acceptable for uploading to my website etc. All printing is done in the darkroom. I never have and never will own a digital camera. So there!
Glad you’ve got a process that works well for you 😊
I use a nikon coolscan v. I can't afford to replace my analog camera by a digital equipment because I was lucky and was able to use the time spot when everybody changed to digital and wanted to get rid of the old lenses. All normal fixed focus or zoom lenses from Canon FD and even my 400mm and even my 800L mm cost less than 0.3 to 1 Euro per mm. High end Flash for 12 bugs. Ok, my loved tilt and shift lens was about 400 (but this is a rare piece of equipment), ... it would cost me about 15 to 20k to replace it. Well lets keep scanning. Also thought about doing a digital repro session with my brother. And ICE Dust is a miracle. I scanned old family pictures from the second world war, completly covered with fungus... and bamm... nice pictures...
Good timing with the purchase of all that film gear.
Digital ICE is 90-95 % correct at best. You still have to check through every scan for the 5-10% remaining dust and scratches. There’s no time saved with it. My own experience in the last 30 years slide scanning. DSLR scans also save time where you can quick scan everything to have a library to choose wisely from for the ”real scans”.
Surely if it removes 90-95% of dust and scratches automatically then it definitely saves time?
You spend most of your time finding the remaining errors. Not fixing them. Also, the computational ”healers” are now doing a better job than ICE when fixing areas with film grain. My personal experience though.
Long time ago it's been said that 35mm ISO 100 slide film (transparencies) are containing about 25 million pixels. That was a standard. I imagine that high quality colour negative films are containing the same or slightly less, while B&W negative films of same sensitivity could contain more or much more, depending of which developer was used. Just my opinion...
BTW, I'm preparing to digitise / scan all of my dad's work in high resolution, and most of those where shot on 35mm slide film. Note that I'm talking about THOUSANDS of pictures. So there' s no way that I'd use a film scanner, I'd do that till I die. And by prices professional labs are charging, I could buy two brand new cars instead, so agin, DSLR / mirrorless scanning is the name of the game ...
I’d always found a practical limit of around 12mp for a 35mm frame, I believe Canon stated the same. Going above that figure largely amplified the grain although I do accept that certain film/lens/scanner combinations can go higher than this.
If you can get an accurate scan using a digital camera, surely it must be possible to duplicate the film look from a digital image? Or am I missing something?
You can get very good results by post processing digital originals to look like film, just checkout my recent video on this subject 😊
Unfortunately the cleanup only works with color film and not B&W. I agree that for 4X5 digital camera scanning is not useful. One has to stitch images and deal with any artifacts in that. Thanks for the discussion of this topic. When I want a really good scan for a 4x5 I'll pay for a drumscan. As you can imagine that isn't done very often. Indeed at this point only twice.
I prefer my coolscan 5000 and its ability to scan an entire roll. I have come to dislike the workflow if using a digital camera for scanning, and ultimately find it takes me longer to scan
Fair point 👍
I’ve used my GFX 50s for scanning and I get way better results than my 24mp Nikon for 35mm. Your be surprised
Excellent 👍
Been using my olympus 60mm macro lens and homemade cardboard tube and a window light for slides for over a decade.
Nice 👍
Well. The biggest problem I see with retiring my Epson 750 Pro is what would replace it. In other words, what would fund the replacement. Unfortunately, technology is awesome, but the economy is not. In 4 years, my rent went from $800 USD to $1400 USD. And that was just the rent. Everything photography is on hold until the economy improves or I win the lotto. I went back to film because I could no longer afford the constant upgrade of digital. Nowadays, I can no longer afford film. Paycheck to paycheck has become a way of life for 50% of Americans. Maybe brighter days are ahead. Until then, the 750 sits idle, waiting for a vintage neg.
Cost is always an issue, just keep using what you’ve got 👍
Well, the 24 *REAL MP* from something like a Nikon film scanner is roughly equal to a 100 MP medium format back, with the advantage of the IR scan, and multiple scanning can increase dynamic range and reduce noise, so... Plus, with roll film and stack loading, much better for doing "digital backup" or agency submissions.
Whilst I liked the Coolscan output I don’t find it superior to the camera method personally (but no two people ever get the same results).
Completly agree.
As for the quality, I find it amusing that people buy old Coolscans and spend exorbitant amounts of time and money getting them to work just because they reject Bayer interpolation. Contemporary Bayer implementations in cameras are excellent and provide highly accurate color.
I agree, I judge entirely by results and nothing else.
I totally agree with you, 750% 😂
😀😀
I completely agree with you, plus you gave the advantage of capturing in RAW with all its benefits. I carried out comprehensive tests between using a 36mp & 24mp, using the same lens & discovered that the 36mp were not as good as the 24mp captures. I use the pixl-atr with the valoi attachment, as the diffuser is near to perfect.
It’s something I noticed years ago that certain scanner or camera capture methods just look better than others. Often a higher resolution makes the output look ugly.
100% agree, once you get the camera scanning workflow set up it's a breeze, the quality is very good, and you can use it for any format. Dedicated medium format scanners like the Coolscans, while great, are insanely expensive.
I also worry about old equipment breaking down, there just aren’t the spares anymore 🙁
@@SteveONions For sure, I felt like my Coolscan V made a new and interesting sound every time I used it 😄
I heard Plustek is re-releasing their 120 film scanner, so their is some hope for people who want a dedicated one!
Sorry but I wanted an answer to a good way to scan old negatives.. and this takes so long to get what it shows at minute 8. I found this painful to watch.
Send them out to companies who do this. I was scanning negs and transparencies in a custom lab in the 1990's. I had to get trained in the software as it included an output stage to a processor with RA-4 chemistry. We'd provide the prints and the file. I remember doing an extremely complicated output for Oprah's 50th birthday. About 30 different images on 20x24 with borders in all different shapes and crops. You can bet we saved those output files...
I’m sorry but I’m not sure what you mean?