ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Here is a comparison that I did today of both types of scans. The film was Technical Pan (read the description):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/51383529742/in/dateposted-public/
Thanks for this, always helpful to see real comparisons.
Matches my results.
- For 35mm, it's no contest
- For 120, a 24MPx one-shot camera-scan is better than my flatbed, but I can make a pretty good print from the flatbed scan.
pluton
Well-known
Camera scanning of color negs was not worth the effort of the fiddly processing until I tried Negative Lab Pro. Direct integration with Lightroom. Amazing that you need a $100 external app when the $200 Epson scanner comes with an excellent color neg conversion built in. Too bad the scanner is soft compared to the camera scan.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
There's always LEGOS!Three grand worth of gear to scan the negatives from my two hundred dollar camera.
(OK, there is a M4 close at hand)
daveoo
Established
Good work with the legos.
Today I set up a scan experiment to see if I would be satisfied with camera scamming.
I used a tripod, Sony A6700, Sony Macro 90mm at f/7.1 ISO 100, sitting stool, iPad, two aftermarket rubber hoods as a riser, 6X9" envelope to mask and one more hood to flatten the film. I imported into Lightroom and inverted curve and Moved the sliders to the histogram edges. I did clone out some dust, not all.
I have the enhanced resolution scan from The Darkroom to compare, processed to have a similar look to my scan. I think my scan competes very well and I am in control of the cropping when I get going. However The Darkroom scan gives more uniform and smooth grain. I think my scan has a little more contrast however I left contrast, clarity and texture alone for both photos.
Now I am thinking of getting a Neewer light pad, a better carrier and mask. The system won't be fixed so it may need sliding around on the light table some.
I am trying to upload larger files. Not real large is permitted in a thread. Maybe someone wants to compare or critique.

My scan below:

The Darkroom scan below:

Add: I added the two photos to the gallery sized around 4.2-4.8 MPx. I see the scammed spelling above.
Add: The photo was shot with Nikon 100mm 2.8 Macro around f/7-9 or so and film as TMax 100
Today I set up a scan experiment to see if I would be satisfied with camera scamming.
I used a tripod, Sony A6700, Sony Macro 90mm at f/7.1 ISO 100, sitting stool, iPad, two aftermarket rubber hoods as a riser, 6X9" envelope to mask and one more hood to flatten the film. I imported into Lightroom and inverted curve and Moved the sliders to the histogram edges. I did clone out some dust, not all.
I have the enhanced resolution scan from The Darkroom to compare, processed to have a similar look to my scan. I think my scan competes very well and I am in control of the cropping when I get going. However The Darkroom scan gives more uniform and smooth grain. I think my scan has a little more contrast however I left contrast, clarity and texture alone for both photos.
Now I am thinking of getting a Neewer light pad, a better carrier and mask. The system won't be fixed so it may need sliding around on the light table some.
I am trying to upload larger files. Not real large is permitted in a thread. Maybe someone wants to compare or critique.

My scan below:

The Darkroom scan below:

Add: I added the two photos to the gallery sized around 4.2-4.8 MPx. I see the scammed spelling above.
Add: The photo was shot with Nikon 100mm 2.8 Macro around f/7-9 or so and film as TMax 100
Last edited:
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
daveoo
Established
Thanks for the suggestion regarding bellows unit. Is the manufacturer FF?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That looks like a Nikon Bellows + slide stage setup, but I can't say for sure.
I use a copy stand and either a macro lens with the appropriate magnification range or a bellows arrangement with macro or other lens to achieve the correct magnification range. I do have a couple of different slide/film holding stages, but I find them inconvenient to use compared to an Essential Film Holder gizmo. This device does an outstanding job of holding the film flat and masking extraneous light from the light source if you have it set up correctly.
Extraneous ambient light should be minimized: close curtains/blinds, use modest illumination in the room so you can see what you're doing, that's usually enough caution. Sometimes, I use a light shield made of a few pieces of cardboard to completely seal the lens to stage area from light. By and large, the difference in illumination level between a dim room's ambient light and the light being shone through the film is such that a minor amount of ambient light is completely inconsequential.
It's difficult to inspect these two provided example scan as the image is a very complex image with lots of little things in it at a distance, subject to wind and other interactions, which confuses the eye. A simple subject (say a precisely framed macro shot of a precision ruler) makes a better test subject to determine if the digitizing setup is properly configured, at least in my opinion.
G
I use a copy stand and either a macro lens with the appropriate magnification range or a bellows arrangement with macro or other lens to achieve the correct magnification range. I do have a couple of different slide/film holding stages, but I find them inconvenient to use compared to an Essential Film Holder gizmo. This device does an outstanding job of holding the film flat and masking extraneous light from the light source if you have it set up correctly.
Extraneous ambient light should be minimized: close curtains/blinds, use modest illumination in the room so you can see what you're doing, that's usually enough caution. Sometimes, I use a light shield made of a few pieces of cardboard to completely seal the lens to stage area from light. By and large, the difference in illumination level between a dim room's ambient light and the light being shone through the film is such that a minor amount of ambient light is completely inconsequential.
It's difficult to inspect these two provided example scan as the image is a very complex image with lots of little things in it at a distance, subject to wind and other interactions, which confuses the eye. A simple subject (say a precisely framed macro shot of a precision ruler) makes a better test subject to determine if the digitizing setup is properly configured, at least in my opinion.
G
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
Yes, that's a Nikon bellows unit with my Sony adapted to it.Thanks for the suggestion regarding bellows unit. Is the manufacturer FF?
I put this setup together mostly from purchases off the Goodwill auction site. I did buy a set of reversing rings from B and H though.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
My early setup was very similar to yours Dave, but I had trouble aligning the camera square to the negative/table and ended up using a piece of PVC sewer pipe as a 'bellows' to keep out the extraneous light. That's when I started keeping an eye open for a bellows unit. I got lucky as mine is in mint condition like it's barely been used, plus it had all the boxes too. I don't think I've got over $75 invested in it, including the rings from B and H.
shawn
Veteran
If you scan that way you need to be in the dark to scan. It isn't as obvious how it messes up the scan with B&W film but it is very obvious with color film as you will get color shifts. I used to scan with a tripod but the dark requirement and the time it took to square everything up was annoying.
I ended up printing a solution.

That has a 120mm film holder inside of it and it holds the Sigma 105mm Macro lens the proper height away so that the height of the negative is almost exactly the height of the sensor. I have another cone printed for 35mm setup the same way. It takes about a minute to setup and I don't need to scan in the dark.
daveoo
Established
Brilliant, I am thinking along these lines. I assume the dimensions of the cone will vary with the lens, distance to film and sensor format.If you scan that way you need to be in the dark to scan. It isn't as obvious how it messes up the scan with B&W film but it is very obvious with color film as you will get color shifts. I used to scan with a tripod but the dark requirement and the time it took to square everything up was annoying.
I ended up printing a solution.
![]()
That has a 120mm film holder inside of it and it holds the Sigma 105mm Macro lens the proper height away so that the height of the negative is almost exactly the height of the sensor. I have another cone printed for 35mm setup the same way. It takes about a minute to setup and I don't need to scan in the dark.
shawn
Veteran
Yes and the diameter of the cone is based on the lens you are going to use as it fits down inside it to hold everything in place. For my 35mm cone I set the distance to film based on using a close up diopter to get closer than 1:1 for scanning half frame formats. For full frame 35mm I printed a spacer that just fits into the cone to get the lens at the proper distance without the diopter.Brilliant, I am thinking along these lines. I assume the dimensions of the cone will vary with the lens, distance to film and sensor format.
The 120 cone shown actually has a spacer too but that is because it was originally printed for a different lens on a GFX 50R. When I switched to L mount I realized I could just print an adapter with my original cone instead of having to redo everything.
Line the insides of the cone with adhesive felt to knock down all reflections.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.