scanning film with a camera (D 800 e )

Thanks for the input, ppl. Much appreciated. FWIW, at least for 4x5 film, I'll be sticking with my old flatbed for now (and contact printing 8x10). I borrowed a Canon 50mm f2.5 macro, redid the scan (6 stitched frames) and printed it to 8x10. Hmm, it's definitely sharper than the flatbed scanned print. The shadow detail in the flatbed print looks richer somehow though. Other than that I can't see much difference although the sharpness difference is very obvious: don't know how much of a good thing that is.

P.S. Someone mentioned Mr. Thein's scans again. Uh, I've been shooting a Rolleiflex 6x6 SLR (which essentially has the same 80mm as the Hasselblad) since 1995 on Delta 100 etc. I have hundreds of flatbed scans and about 50 drum scans done by WCI. None of my pictures look anything remotely crispy crunchy like his D800E scans. So, something must be up somewhere along the processing chain. Thanks again for the input, folks. - Rory
 
I believe this will take us away from the original posting, but personally it makes the thread a bit more interesting. My experience digitizing Tri-X negs can be seen in the image I posted above. However, let me digress for a moment here.
Actually this thread brings up many points that we had considered some years ago. At the time, my lab was evaluating the use of CCD arrays for the purpose of analyzing nuclear fluorescence in approx a million individual living cells in vitro. We soon concluded that digital cameras equipped with high quality lenses could not achieve the resolution needed across wide fields whether we were measuring simple optical density, specific nuclear fluorescence emission, or more complex measurements such as spatially resolved fluorescence decay kinetics. The best that could be achieved at the time were images of only a few cell nuclei at a time, not a million nuclei in a monolayer.

This early work led us to develop a new digital imaging technology that applied fast 3-D controlled scanning laser digital imaging incorporating multiparametric bulk optical detectors mounted in an integrating sphere (patents issued can be searched). The result was an instrument that could generate digital multiple images across wide fields with spatial resolution down to 1-2 microns. This performance goes substantially beyond that achievable using a single digital camera.

We used this digital imaging data to look at how cells were communicating we one another across large populations.

Some of the early work from my group can be found at http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=935096.

Sorry for the digression. Ciao! David
 
mdarnton said:
If you're using something like a G11 to "scan", it just isn't going to dig into the detail of the film, and the results are going to look "digital". You can blame the camera for that if you want, but since you called BS on my process, I guess I will call BS on your observation. :) Properly done, film scans with camera look great, and very much like my silver prints. . . . or better, because I do much more "darkroom" work on them. I don't think anyone will accuse my film/camera scans of being "digital" looking!

I will say, however, that this is a highly technical process, perhaps beyond the abilities of a lot of people who are trying it, based on what I'm reading in this thread.
Click to expand...

You're probably right and I'm just another utterly stupid like a lot, if not the most of people here who cannot comprehend any sort of judgement on the term "quality", or make any difference between "analog" looking or "digital" looking what so ever.

Interestly I also do both wet and digital darkroom work and I happen run a 11000dpi resolving drumscanner for digitizing my film. But no scanning and digital darkroom has gotten remotely close emulating or simulating any of my analog Lith prints, or for the lack of better wording: given me the same kind of goosebumps looking at the results. It's like comparing a digital piano to acoustic grand piano in the same room. But then again, like you said, I might be just another stupid person in this thread to judge the relative term "quality" and it's well beyond my technical ability and my very obvious BS observation :)

Margus
 
Very impressive work there, David. I'll keep working on it re: the digital camera scans.

Margus: we get you. Your pictures speak for themselves, so keep doing whatever you're doing with that Pentax!!
 
I have to confess that I like setting up the camera and bellows and assorted paraphernalia to copy old negs. It's simply fun regardless of how good or bad they turn out. However, this thread has got me ready to unpack the Epson scanner, finalmente...

Margus: Your images are so impressive and inspiring. Also, I miss riding my bikes and my last one, a 1996 R1100RT with only 8000 miles on it brought from California when I moved, that sits in the barn with the tractors now. Time to sell it, sadly.


Ciao! David
 
I am not enough of an artist to discuss the more specific merits of one scanning method over another - I am happy if the scanner 'sees' the film grain (or at least a hint of it). The rest I can adjust in post processing.

To that end, I have tried 'copying' old and new negatives and slides with a Canon 5D2, a borrowed Sigma macro lens of unknown quality and a DIY rig made from an old enlarger.

The results were fine for 35mm black and white and for color slides, but required a lot of post processing for color negatives (and the use of a light blue filter to begin with). I was not able to capture the full resolution of most of the frames, but I was not not far off.
My new Plustek 120 does a better job, but not by much. My biggest grief was the need to spend hours on the computer afterwards, to clean the files from dust spots, that I found far more pronounced than on a regular film scanner, even with dust reduction switched off.

On the German aphog forum I have seen slides reproduced with a D800E, so this camera should be able to capture even more of the actual 35mm resolution.

Medium format is a different story, especially if we are talking 6x6 or 6x7 (i.e. a different image ratio). There, the possible resolution that the camera can deliver is far off what the film actually contains, so I don't think a D800 can replace a film scanner for medium format film.

Regards,

Sven
 
Thanks Sven. An excellent comparison and very instructive. (Entschuldigen Sie bitte, aber mein Deutsch ist recht einfach, wenn.)

I bought a V600 some time ago but never even unpacked it. Not sure how it compares with the results shown for the Reflecta proscan 7200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom