Alternatives to a dedicated film or flatbed scanner?

Ken Ford

Ken Ford

Refuses to suffer fools
Local time
12:20 PM
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,027
I currently shoot 100% C41, about 80% of it 400CN and the remainder various color emulsions. I have them developed and scanned locally and then do my own lightroom work. I never get lab prints unless I'm simply testing a lens or body for function.

I've been unhappy with the quality of locally procured scans, and I really, really miss my Tri-X. I'm trying to avoid setting up my complete wet darkroom - most of what I shoot is for web use, not printing.

I've seen a few mentions here and there about digitizing negatives using a DSLR and a slide copier. I see several available on eBay all the time, but the product descriptions are pretty sketchy - I can't tell if they can handle unmounted strips of film.

I wouldn't be digitizing everything, only selected frames - just as if I were wet printing. Because of this, I'm not particularly worried about speed of processing.

Is anyone here regularly using a DSLR to digitize their B&W negs? How do you do it?


Thanks!
 
'Is anyone here regularly using a DSLR to digitize their B&W negs? How do you do it?'

I've been curious about this as well. It seems like it should work, and the resolution and shadow detail would likely surpass a scanner due to the much larger sensor in the DSLR. Right? Or is the sensor in a scanner a completely different beast?
 
I was seeking information about your concern lately. I have done some tests taking pictures of negatives with my Canon 30D and 100mm macro lens. The process is tricky if you don´t have a slide copier, specially focusing and framing even with a tripod. The results however, have been encouraging specially for BW film. I could not get usable results out of color negative film, though.

Avoid any slide copier that come with a lens if you want quality results. I think the best way is using a macro lens or regular lenses with extension tubes. Here is the best slide copy adapter I have found from my research:

http://www.photosolve.com/shop/shopcustadmin.asp

I have not tried it, so I could not recommend it blindly.

You have to keep in mind that you can get an Epson V500 fletbed scanner for about 170 dollars or even less. I don´t know if the quality is comparable, but with the scanner you can do a bunch of negatives at the same time, and if it comes with dust removal scanner software your life will be much easier. Not to mention color film.
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
I've been curious about this as well. It seems like it should work, and the resolution and shadow detail would likely surpass a scanner due to the much larger sensor in the DSLR. Right? Or is the sensor in a scanner a completely different beast?
Click to expand...

The latest ultra-cheap film 'scanners' are just that - a digicam that takes a photo of the film, which is lit from behind. Trust me, the quality is nowhere even close to a dedicated film scanner, or even a flatbed with transparency adapter.

With the Epson 4490 being capable of 35mm to medium format, and a current $30 MIR from Epson, a price of $119 is hard to ignore. It does not beat a dedicated 35mm film scanner for 35mm, but it is quite capable. I even use mine for 110 negatives that I shot back in the 1980's, and they come out great. I mean, how cheap do you want to go here?
 
One thing keeping me away from flatbeds is a lack of space.

I seem to remember slide copiers from years back that had no optics - they were simply a tube that threaded onto your filter ring and had a stage and opal screen at the end. You attached it to a macro lens, held it up to a light and shot. Or am I nuts?
 
Ken Ford said:
One thing keeping me away from flatbeds is a lack of space.

I seem to remember slide copiers from years back that had no optics - they were simply a tube that threaded onto your filter ring and had a stage and opal screen at the end. You attached it to a macro lens, held it up to a light and shot. Or am I nuts?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, they all had optics in them.
 
I'm not totally against a flatbed, but I'm skeptical about how the quality can approach neg-by-neg scanning. Plus, I keep hearing about how poorly they do with traditional B&W films.
 
Check my images for the epson v500 scanner. (shok75.deviantart.com)
Not too bad, but it does scan damn slow on the needed higher res.
Hence, I'm ordering a opticfilm 7500Ai as soon as my I.T. guy can stock one for me.
 
Ken Ford said:
I'm not totally against a flatbed, but I'm skeptical about how they can approach neg-by-neg scanning. Plus, I keep hearing about how poorly they do with traditional B&W films.
Click to expand...

Poor is a relative concept. When I first started scanning, I used an Epson 2400 with the optional transparency adapter, it was the cheapest thing I could find. And it did the job fine. When I got a ScanDual III, it was better. The ScanDual IV was better yet. I recently had to temporarily use a 4490 flatbed for 35mm and it was a step back from the ScanDual IV, but not that much. I recanned some of the same negs later - the ScanDual IV was MUCH faster doing it, but the difference was not huge in quality. Only at 100% did I see much different, and it was mostly in contrast, not sharpness. Contrast can be partially fixed in post-processing.

Hey, everyone's perception of quality is going to be different. I might think the output of 35mm on a flatbed is just fine, others might hate it. I have to believe it is going to be LOADS better than a 35mm as seen through a slide copier on a dSLR, but unfortunately, I have no direct experience on which to based that opinion. It's just a guess, sorry.
 
Thanks, everyone - I just posted questions to Photosolve, let's see what they have to say.

I find it hard to believe that I couldn't get decent results by attaching a simple tube and stage to my Micro-Nikkor. The trick would be determining the length of the tube to control image size; the Micro-Nikkor can go 1:2 naked and 1:1 with the extension tube.
 
Last edited:
I have a weird slide copier (no idea who made it, absolutely no markings on it) It is a gray metal box (little smaller than a shoebox). On top is a spring-loaded platform that can take either a 6x6cm glass slide mount or a holder for 35mm slides. Under the platform is an opal panel. One side is removable with 3 thumbscrews, inside there's two small bulb sockets underneath the top (for viewing illumination) and a standard bulb socket in the bottom (for an enlarger bulb perhaps). There's also a removable white panel set at a 45-deg angle opposite a sliding hatch in the side of the box, which you can stick the head of an electronic flash (w/off-camera cord) and it will bounce the flash off the angled panel and up through the slide at the moment of exposure. I got it for $15 at a camera store maybe 12 yrs ago, and have used it many times to dupe slides (I have a copy stand which lets me get everything lined up and parallel, although once I tilted the copy box up for some perspective control). There are no optics, and I would think anybody with some tool skills could build one from wood for very little. I confess I have never used it to digitize (I have both a Canon 4000US film scanner and an Epson V700 flatbed). I know that at the time I bought my Canon scanner, no (affordable) digital camera had equal resolution or d-Max, but I'm not sure if that's still true. My only DSLR is a Canon 20D, so maybe for me it still is. I don't know if the latest 21-24MP DSLR's are as capable as the film scanner, or maybe even more. I think after reading this thread I might just give it a try, maybe rent or borrow a 5D-II or 1DS-III. The one thing it does beat the film scanner is in terms of time. 1/160 second vs 5 mins would be a great help when digitizing thousands of slides to DVD for viewing on a TV, even if it can't do a good enough job for a large print.
 
Last edited:
John Carter here on the forum does that all the time. He posted a couple of pictures of his setup in another thread.
Use the search and you'll find it...
 
I had great correspondence with Phil from Photosolve today. His device has no optics, and he personally uses one on his Canon DSLR and macro lens with good results.

I'm going to measure to see if my lens to subject distance falls within the range of adjustment, and he's digging up a few Tri-X scans for me to see.

I'll keep y'all posted as I learn more.
 
Phil at Photosolve sent me a scan from Tri-X today. I think this may be the way - I hope to order one this coming week and will report back.

I just need to decide how I'm going to light this. I seem to recall the Nikon ES-1 slide copier gadget called for you to point a speedlight directly at it, but I've also heard of people using window light and other lit rigs.

A friend called yesterday to tell me about his new $100 film and slide scanner he picked up to do web scans. He sent me a few JPEGs right out of the device - it actually doesn't do too badly, definitely good enough for web posts. However, I suspect my D300 plus a Micro-Nikkor will be able to outperform his little toaster. We'll see - I'll try and hook up with him so we can scan the same negs.
 
With the canon 100mm macro lens you can get 1:1, which means with a 5D you should be able to get, in theory, 12M high quality shots. I tried this before I got a real scanner with a tripod and light table, and it absolutely sucked. Framing and focus were really really difficult. Perhaps with a mountable device such as the flickr image someone posted you could get decent results, but I somehow doubt it.
 
Hi, I have finally ordered the slide duplicator from photosolve. It is supposed to arrive next week, but I am looking forward to use it with BW negs after looking at the files Phil sent me. I also contacted him, btw. Very nice guy, and he uses the same setup I am going to use.

Infrequent, you should contact him at photosolve, ask him the files...

I´ll post some negs when I have the device...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom