Jump to content

Camera scanning film (w/ tether)


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jakontil said:

I use my existing M10r with macro adapter and a 50mm apo

happen to have this at my disposal and was a great scanning tools, then i get a cheap extension tube 11mm if not mistaken, voila now i can get full 1:1 ?   
 

personally i was flirting with the ability to tether, but the lust fades slowly

Give it a try. Not every macro shot is sharp as it could be, and the only way to see is on a big screen. Ok, yes, this is grain peeping, but my way of thinking is that I'm scaning this now and probably never ever again, so I'm trying to get the best possible results while the rolls are still fresh, clean and dust free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

Give it a try. Not every macro shot is sharp as it could be, and the only way to see is on a big screen. Ok, yes, this is grain peeping, but my way of thinking is that I'm scaning this now and probably never ever again, so I'm trying to get the best possible results while the rolls are still fresh, clean and dust free.

Absolutely I probably hit the maximum sharpness since either using non tubes and cropped looked the same but i might be wrong, even a 24mpx M10 produced the same

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the benefit of tethering if dust is an issue (so far it hasn't been for me), but setting the shutter to electronic and either using delayed release or interval shooting eliminates any camera shake. For focusing I simply zoom in on the LCD or EVF using the back button (SL2-S). I didn't think about field curvature when I bought the R 100mm lens, but it seems to be OK.

The issue I can't solve is prominent film grain. I think others have stated that it is more visible in scanned negatives than darkroom prints because of the different optical nature of the processes, but I wish I could achieve the same low grain in scans as I would get from darkroom enlarger prints. Noise reduction software, whether Lightroom or Topaz, appear to be of no benefit - I suspect their algorithms are based on a typical digital noise pattern, while film grain has a different pattern which is not recognised. Does anyone recognise this issue and do they have a solution? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The issue I can't solve is prominent film grain. I think others have stated that it is more visible in scanned negatives than darkroom prints because of the different optical nature of the processes, but I wish I could achieve the same low grain in scans as I would get from darkroom enlarger prints. Noise reduction software, whether Lightroom or Topaz, appear to be of no benefit - I suspect their algorithms are based on a typical digital noise pattern, while film grain has a different pattern which is not recognised. Does anyone recognise this issue and do they have a solution? 

I cannot help much as I never tried to scan with a camera, always a scanner… However, is the grain proeminent on the raw scan? It is often emphasised by sharpening and a workaround is to downsample rather than sharpen. This won’t help if it is already there on the raw scan…

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aryel said:

I cannot help much as I never tried to scan with a camera, always a scanner… However, is the grain proeminent on the raw scan? It is often emphasised by sharpening and a workaround is to downsample rather than sharpen. This won’t help if it is already there on the raw scan…

Yes, it is usually there in the raw scan and my default processing on digital import is no noise reduction or sharpening. I have not paid much attention to it till now because I have been solving other problems of exposure, developing and scanning after a return to film! I will try down sampling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

I was about to write few important scanning tips, but these guys have them all in one place. Every little detail is important if you want perfect and consistent scans.

https://www.negativelabpro.com/guide/scanning/

I also learned few tricks from this 1.5hr long video from B&H:

 

Yeap i use NLP to convert and been following Nate the creator for all the tips n tricks, scanning is great be it flatbed, dedicated like plustek and DSLr way, tried all

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

...The issue I can't solve is prominent film grain......I wish I could achieve the same low grain in scans as I would get from darkroom enlarger prints...

Yes; I'm in the same boat.

I've tried two different bodies; the Monochrom with 18mp CCD sensor and the M-D with 24mp CMOS sensor and results are, broadly speaking, very similar. FWIW I've also tried with my DSLR (tethered!) with a 50mm prime and a 12mm ext. tube fitted and even that really wasn't any different. Barrel distortion was far worse though!

I'm currently loking at how the different original film stocks I used look and there is a surprising (or, perhaps, not?) difference between even FP4/HP5 or Plus-X/Tri-X with the faster films noticeably grainier; far more so than in the original prints. I'm also comparing the results from C41 colour negs with the b'n'w films and will be looking at some E6 stuff next time I have a bit of time.

It's all a learning curve. I have had 'proper' film scanners in the past the best of which was an old Epson with 'transparency hood' which accepted originals up to 5"x4" but annoyingly Epson didn't update the software so after a handful of years it was obsolete. Other dedicated 35mm scanners I've had / still have are not really any better than the digi-M set-up I'm starting to use now.

I've also tried several High Street 'DevPrintScan' places and, whilst the results have been from poor to OK, not one of them has been as good as what I can do now so I'm beginning to suspect there is a fundamental issue in the whole scan-from-35mm-neg process.

I'm still hopeful I'll find something better but for now?......

Philip.

Edited by pippy
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of discussion about scanning 35mm on the film thread and Digital Post-Processing thread.

Three comments.  1) If you can get your hands on a Nikon Coolscan you will be pleasantly surprised at the quality of the scans compared with using a camera and copy stand. 2) if you want to eliminate dust spots when scanning colour neg or Kodachrome, a film scanner with InfraRed channel is essential (does not apply to silver-based B/W).  3) for film scanning, nothing beats a dedicated Macro lens (or Micro-Nikkor) for the flat field you need.  I use an old Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 that can be found for very reasonable prices.

Take a look at the many ideas on the other thread.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes, it is usually there in the raw scan and my default processing on digital import is no noise reduction or sharpening. I have not paid much attention to it till now because I have been solving other problems of exposure, developing and scanning after a return to film! I will try down sampling.

Sorry, I think my initial post wasn’t really clear. If the grain is already too much in the raw file, downsampling isn’t really going to help I think. Just beware of sharpening. 

I have no experience with camera scanning so hopefully someone else can help. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pippy said:

I'm currently loking at how the different original film stocks I used look and there is a surprising (or, perhaps, not?) difference between even FP4/HP5 or Plus-X/Tri-X with the faster films noticeably grainier; far more so than in the original prints. I'm also comparing the results from C41 colour negs with the b'n'w films and will be looking at some E6 stuff next time I have a bit of time.

Interesting. I started film this time round at ISO 400, because it would be easier with old slow lenses, but perhaps I should try slower film.
I'm also trying colour and XP2, but they have not yet been processed or scanned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Robinson said:

There is a lot of discussion about scanning 35mm on the film thread and Digital Post-Processing thread...

...If you can get your hands on a Nikon Coolscan you will be pleasantly surprised at the quality of the scans compared with using a camera and copy stand...

Thanks for that, John.

I did look through the thread you mention a while back but, to be honest, became even more confused than I was beforehand!

One issue was the sheer number of different scanners with similar-sounding names. There were recommendations for the numerous Nikon Coolscans which have been available through the years but as prices seemed to vary anywhere at all between £200 for a used model to over £2,000 for something more recent not much of the info / nomenclature was easy to follow. I'd be absolutely delighted to discover I could get very good results for as little as £200 but the chances of me using a scanner often enough to justify £2,000+ are almost Nil.

I had also done a bit of on-line research but, as usual with the www, opinions were so completely contradictory that, again, making much sense of what I read was impossible.

Might I ask which model of Coolscan are you discussing here?

Philip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pippy said:

Might I ask which model of Coolscan are you discussing here?

I have some very good results from the Coolscan 4000ED and 5000ED (also an 8000 but that is not as good as a 9000).  These models are better than the IV and V and some early models with SCSI are to avoid.  The 4000 is Firewire and the 5000 is USB so that is also a consideration (depends on what interfaces you have on your system).  The other consideration is software.  The native Nikon Scan software will work well on a PC up to Windows 10 (with a bit of fiddling) but only on Macs before a certain version of the Operating System.  Many people turn to Vuescan that will work with almost any scanner (including the Nikons) but it has a bit of a learning curve depending on what you are scanning (much easier with B/W than Colour C41; good with Kodachrome).

I should have added in the earlier post that the key for camera scanning is a flat-field lens.  I mentioned examples from Nikon and others mention Leica; some find that good-quality enlarger lenses are also effective.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Interesting. I started film this time round at ISO 400, because it would be easier with old slow lenses, but perhaps I should try slower film.
I'm also trying colour and XP2, but they have not yet been processed or scanned.

As it happens I will be looking at XP-2 negs the next time I set the thing up.

Colour Neg. is a bit of a conondrum as I'm not sure how much of an effect the orange film base has when the images are converted to monochrome. I've 'scanned' quite a few with differing strengths of orange but have yet to do a back-to-back although as the images are different from each roll I'm not sure how much might be learned from such an exercise.

I can't even remember how 'accurate' colour prints are made from these negatives in the first place. How is the film-base orange filtered-out without altering anything which is orange in the image?...

I've tried 'Auto Correct' at both as-is colour negative and colour-inverted stages without success so must expect to do some head-scratching / reading-up on the subject but perhaps this is one area where 'scanning' with a camera rather than a real scanner is ill-advised?

Philip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John Robinson said:

...The other consideration is software......Many people turn to Vuescan that will work with almost any scanner...

...I should have added in the earlier post that the key for camera scanning is a flat-field lens...

Thanks very much for the recommendations, John; thats a good guide for starters.

Funny that you mention Vuescan. When Epson abandoned software-updates for the scanner which I mentioned earlier I did download Vuescan and it worked well enough......until they updated their software for a version which I couldn't get to work anywhere near as well as the older version had done. By that time I was seldom needing to do any scanning whatsoever - perhaps only once per year if that - that I just gave up on the idea.

There is a project I have in mind now, however, which is why I might get back into the process.

And yes; I encountered 'flat-field' problems with some of the lenses I tried which gave me greater magnification and so will be sticking with the 65mm f3.5 Elmar. I might source a small extension tube to add to the Viso/OTZFO/Elmar set up if I decide the project is worthwhile...

Philip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jakontil said:

I use my existing M10r with macro adapter and a 50mm apo

happen to have this at my disposal and was a great scanning tools, then i get a cheap extension tube 11mm if not mistaken, voila now i can get full 1:1 ?   
 

personally i was flirting with the ability to tether, but the lust fades slowly

If you get a cheap M to Nikon F mount adapter (it is only a spacer after all) you can use any number of macro/micro lenses and get flat field with 1:1 ratio. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, pippy said:

As it happens I will be looking at XP-2 negs the next time I set the thing up.

Colour Neg. is a bit of a conondrum as I'm not sure how much of an effect the orange film base has when the images are converted to monochrome. I've 'scanned' quite a few with differing strengths of orange but have yet to do a back-to-back although as the images are different from each roll I'm not sure how much might be learned from such an exercise.

I can't even remember how 'accurate' colour prints are made from these negatives in the first place. How is the film-base orange filtered-out without altering anything which is orange in the image?...

I've tried 'Auto Correct' at both as-is colour negative and colour-inverted stages without success so must expect to do some head-scratching / reading-up on the subject but perhaps this is one area where 'scanning' with a camera rather than a real scanner is ill-advised?

Philip.

I have only scanned 4x5 colour, both negative & reversal. For negative, if you are inverting yourself, the basic principle is to remove the orange base digitally with the white balance dropper. Thereafter I prefer to invert myself in raw in Lightroom, then export as a tiff for further adjustments so that the exposure/tone curve sliders work the 'right' way. I know others swear by Negative Lab Pro. I have NLP, but prefer my own method for 4x5; I might choose differently for a 36 exposure roll!

I have never done darkroom colour printing myself - I remember my father spending days trying to sort out colour filters, and had no wish to go down that route.

For reversal, I bought a transparency IT8 4x5 target for Fuji Provia 100F, which makes adjusting colour after scanning painless.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Colour Neg. is a bit of a conondrum as I'm not sure how much of an effect the orange film base has when the images are converted to monochrome. I've 'scanned' quite a few with differing strengths of orange but have yet to do a back-to-back although as the images are different from each roll I'm not sure how much might be learned from such an exercise.

I can't even remember how 'accurate' colour prints are made from these negatives in the first place. How is the film-base orange filtered-out without altering anything which is orange in the image?...

I've tried 'Auto Correct' at both as-is colour negative and colour-inverted stages without success so must expect to do some head-scratching / reading-up on the subject but perhaps this is one area where 'scanning' with a camera rather than a real scanner is ill-advised?

One of the reasons to use a dedicated film scanner is that the software deals with the orange base and the reversal process.  XP2 does not have an orange base but is C41 which means that the dust-elimination system in the film scanner (using IR) works.

If you don't need to scan in bulk, a Coolscan V (SC-50) is a good option and there seem to be plenty of them around for reasonable prices:  just make sure they have the full set of accessories.  Elsewhere on this forum there was a lengthy discussion about the merits of current-model scanners.  Plustek seems to get a few mentions.  Worth a look.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 250swb said:

If you get a cheap M to Nikon F mount adapter (it is only a spacer after all) you can use any number of macro/micro lenses and get flat field with 1:1 ratio. 

Interesting…  Nikon F mount and which lens would that be? 
 

i think i can get the mount easily

Edited by jakontil
Link to post
Share on other sites

@jakontil I use the Nikon 60mm Micro Nikkor f/2.8 D (in manual mode on my Z7 using the F to Z adapter). You would focus it manually via the LCD either with focus peaking or enlarging a section. The 55mm Micro Nikkor f/3.5 has already been mentioned but I don't think this goes to 1:1 without an extension ring. There are others available in the F mount, both from Nikon or Sigma etc., just don't buy one that is AF only. Looking into the future if you wanted to do very, very close up macro photography you'd want a longer focal length than 60mm, maybe 120mm, but for scanning negatives the shorter length keeps the height of the copy stand down.

If you have other favourite manufacturers you could do the same with an appropriate M mount adapter. And for clarification Nikon uses Micro, and everybody else uses Macro, but it means the same.

 

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...