Hillarious! I love the honesty. I develop bw in a bathroom, so I set up the jankest light table thing know to man kind just so i could scan my own negs afterwards since I fortunately own a dslr and macro lens. Labs are cool, but knowing how to do it is a great tool and asset. Great video, keep up the great work!
This video was so sick, very funny. May have just convinced me to get a V600 even though I definitely should not 😂. Keep making videos, I just subscribed, can't wait to see more!
I actually tried to get Silverfast working with the V600, but something between my computer, the program, and the scanner was not happy. I have, however, tried out Vuescan and it does move things along a lot faster. It requires a little more correction in lightroom afterwards though, so I've just decided to stick with the epson software for now! I'm sure the silverfast issues are entirely on my end though, and I've heard really positive reviews about the program.
Does the v600 actually do much beyond 2400dpi? I know these scanners kind of top out earlier than the max resolution it’ll do (where I think it digitally scales rather than being able to pull more from the film?). I tended to do 2400 when my epson was still the thing I was using, so might be worth looking up as it may be faster and no real loss to scan a bit lower dpi
I believe with the epson, there is an optical resolution of 6400 with the ability to digitally scale to 12800. For most peoples purposes, 2400 will be totally acceptable. Most of the time I just need a larger file to allow for some flexibility while editing videos, so I've been scanning at 4800 which has sped things up a good bit.
This depends on the individual copy. I have a rather old Epson 4990 Photo, which scans at almost 3100 dpi (tested and measured with a USAF-1951 test chart). However, the first two copies I got, went straight back to Epson, as their resolution was much less. So don't let the label fool you--except for Hasselblad or drum scanners, the real resolution is always less than labelled.
What is the process of developing the film before scanning? So many videos on YT talk about scanning…but I don’t see any about developing first, which many websites and blogs say to do.
Typically I let the labs handle the processing. There is a way to do it at home but it typically requires some specialized equipment. I find that the labs do a consistent good job of developing, but at home development is the next big step in the process for me. Not sure when I’ll finally work up the courage to do it myself though
@@dbexposure Thanks for the reply and the info! Yeah, my wife’s been looking into that specialized equipment, and…it ain’t cheap. And, we might not be so brave just yet, either!
@@RealSlimSlavin I develop my colour film at home using the cinestill simplified kit. I've just now reached the break even point on the investment of: - sous vide stick - secondary thermometer - bottles and funnels - Patterson tank - a large tub - the chemical kit All told, that was ~£170 and I've just finished the 24th roll with the chemicals (cinestill's recommended stopping point) You can do more but you start to get colour shifts and longer development times affecting the base of the film. My local film development lab costs me £7 a roll which is £168 for 24 rolls. I shot that much film in 3 months. If you shoot any less frequently than that I think you would run the risk of the chemicals expiring. Very long story short, if you shoot a LOT of film, it's worth it. If you shoot less than 8 rolls a month, I'd stick with a lab. Sorry this was so long, I'm happy to chat if you have more questions about developing colour or black and white.
ngl I preferred some of the photos by the lab. do you know why their scans with their equipment turns out different from the ones we scan at home? do they have a preset they have for all photos or something? genuinely curious
I’ve actually learned a lot more about scanning since posting this video, and what I’ve found is that the machine/ program you use to transfer your images has a major affect on the color profile of the image. I’ve found that epson scan seems to flatten out the colors a good amount, so I’ve since switched to DSLR scanning and converting with negative lab pro and it’s a huge difference. It all just depends on how you initially scan it (flatbed or camera scan) paired with the program you use to color flip it. From there it’s just artist touch ups in Lightroom that breaks down to a subjective craft.
I let a good lab scan my negatives because: 1 - They have equipment I could never hope to afford, such as a drum scanner 2 - I find scanning incredibly annoying and boring
So, Mister RUclipsr, in formulating these opinions, how long have you been scanning your films? A month, three months, six months, more than that? How many rolls of film have you scanned in total? Six, a dozen, two dozen, more than that? Did you actually try that hideously crappy waste-of-money Kodak-branded scanner you show? Yes? No? I ask all this because I've been scanning films since the '90s using dedicated film scanners, flatbed scanners, mirrorless camera + macro lens, even a phone, and my conclusion is that I wish I could get back the thousands of hours that I wasted on it. Find a lab that does a good job, pay them, be done with it, and if that's too expensive… use a digital camera, which produces a vastly better-quality image which you can then distort and degrade if you want the faded, grainy, blurry “scanned-film look.” The only way that film photography genuinely makes sense is if you're going all the way and making wet prints in a darkroom.
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N4f7d0-psIc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]](/img/tr.png)
Hillarious! I love the honesty. I develop bw in a bathroom, so I set up the jankest light table thing know to man kind just so i could scan my own negs afterwards since I fortunately own a dslr and macro lens. Labs are cool, but knowing how to do it is a great tool and asset. Great video, keep up the great work!
This video was so sick, very funny. May have just convinced me to get a V600 even though I definitely should not 😂. Keep making videos, I just subscribed, can't wait to see more!
Nice video! I might just buy the epson hahah, also whats the max resolution of the scanner? Can u scan at 4k?
It's surreal when I see we have the same scanner and the same night pictures of Magic Kingdom
Thanks this was really useful. Have recently started developing film again and was looking to start scanning because.....labs....long!
Thank you for the video, I have just acquired a V600 and I was wondering have you scanned your V600 with the Silverfast software?
I actually tried to get Silverfast working with the V600, but something between my computer, the program, and the scanner was not happy. I have, however, tried out Vuescan and it does move things along a lot faster. It requires a little more correction in lightroom afterwards though, so I've just decided to stick with the epson software for now! I'm sure the silverfast issues are entirely on my end though, and I've heard really positive reviews about the program.
@@dbexposure Thank you for coming back to me. A video on your scanning settings would be cool, I for one would be interested.
Does the v600 actually do much beyond 2400dpi? I know these scanners kind of top out earlier than the max resolution it’ll do (where I think it digitally scales rather than being able to pull more from the film?). I tended to do 2400 when my epson was still the thing I was using, so might be worth looking up as it may be faster and no real loss to scan a bit lower dpi
I believe with the epson, there is an optical resolution of 6400 with the ability to digitally scale to 12800. For most peoples purposes, 2400 will be totally acceptable. Most of the time I just need a larger file to allow for some flexibility while editing videos, so I've been scanning at 4800 which has sped things up a good bit.
This depends on the individual copy. I have a rather old Epson 4990 Photo, which scans at almost 3100 dpi (tested and measured with a USAF-1951 test chart). However, the first two copies I got, went straight back to Epson, as their resolution was much less.
So don't let the label fool you--except for Hasselblad or drum scanners, the real resolution is always less than labelled.
@@dbexposure Great video!
An annoying part of at home scanning besides having to learn about when to replenish chems is the film curl. It’s a pain to scan curled film 😢
And that's why there are film holders. aka #negativesupply
What is the process of developing the film before scanning? So many videos on YT talk about scanning…but I don’t see any about developing first, which many websites and blogs say to do.
Typically I let the labs handle the processing. There is a way to do it at home but it typically requires some specialized equipment. I find that the labs do a consistent good job of developing, but at home development is the next big step in the process for me. Not sure when I’ll finally work up the courage to do it myself though
@@dbexposure Thanks for the reply and the info! Yeah, my wife’s been looking into that specialized equipment, and…it ain’t cheap. And, we might not be so brave just yet, either!
@@RealSlimSlavin
I develop my colour film at home using the cinestill simplified kit. I've just now reached the break even point on the investment of:
- sous vide stick
- secondary thermometer
- bottles and funnels
- Patterson tank
- a large tub
- the chemical kit
All told, that was ~£170 and I've just finished the 24th roll with the chemicals (cinestill's recommended stopping point)
You can do more but you start to get colour shifts and longer development times affecting the base of the film.
My local film development lab costs me £7 a roll which is £168 for 24 rolls.
I shot that much film in 3 months. If you shoot any less frequently than that I think you would run the risk of the chemicals expiring.
Very long story short, if you shoot a LOT of film, it's worth it. If you shoot less than 8 rolls a month, I'd stick with a lab.
Sorry this was so long, I'm happy to chat if you have more questions about developing colour or black and white.
ngl I preferred some of the photos by the lab. do you know why their scans with their equipment turns out different from the ones we scan at home? do they have a preset they have for all photos or something? genuinely curious
I’ve actually learned a lot more about scanning since posting this video, and what I’ve found is that the machine/ program you use to transfer your images has a major affect on the color profile of the image. I’ve found that epson scan seems to flatten out the colors a good amount, so I’ve since switched to DSLR scanning and converting with negative lab pro and it’s a huge difference. It all just depends on how you initially scan it (flatbed or camera scan) paired with the program you use to color flip it. From there it’s just artist touch ups in Lightroom that breaks down to a subjective craft.
@@dbexposure Ahh makes sense, thank you
I let a good lab scan my negatives because:
1 - They have equipment I could never hope to afford, such as a drum scanner
2 - I find scanning incredibly annoying and boring
That’s fair, if your local labs have nice equipment I’d say it’s well worth it.
So, Mister RUclipsr, in formulating these opinions, how long have you been scanning your films? A month, three months, six months, more than that? How many rolls of film have you scanned in total? Six, a dozen, two dozen, more than that? Did you actually try that hideously crappy waste-of-money Kodak-branded scanner you show? Yes? No? I ask all this because I've been scanning films since the '90s using dedicated film scanners, flatbed scanners, mirrorless camera + macro lens, even a phone, and my conclusion is that I wish I could get back the thousands of hours that I wasted on it. Find a lab that does a good job, pay them, be done with it, and if that's too expensive… use a digital camera, which produces a vastly better-quality image which you can then distort and degrade if you want the faded, grainy, blurry “scanned-film look.” The only way that film photography genuinely makes sense is if you're going all the way and making wet prints in a darkroom.
I think you win for grumpiest comment