Scanning medium format using a digital camera

[Monochrom]

Hi, i have a BEOON 1:1 ratio copier from leitz, i use my m9 to "scan" negatives in 35mm format.

The results are incredible, but i use only in B/W negative film, no colour.

With the beoon i can "scan" medium format, but i can do it compresing the MF to 24x36.
The other way is to copy partially then stitching, but haven´t done it.

I have a v500 wich clearly can´t match the m9 18mp sensor.
Perhaps the v700 is that better but i think can´t match the m9.

When using the m9 i put a low contrast lens, small aperture like f11 and leave the neg in the "air" i don´t use any matte glass or clear glass underneath.
I´ve made myself a black card board frame with a cutout hole of about 26 x 38 so the card board won´t project any shadow.
A cold light source and voilá

The beoon adapter has a matte glass and a loup for focusing just need to be focused only one correct time, then it´s straight forward.

I´ve made a test with a contax tvs iii at the 30mm setup and scanned...wow both the lens and the scan itself proved that the tvs iii can perform like the best! So what can be done with MF? just imagine!

Bye

 

[stompyq]

I can guarantee you that a DSLR or digital camera shooting a negative will not equal a properly-set up v700 scan.

Absolutely NOT TRUE. A DSLR scan done with the proper technique will absolutely blow away a Epson scanner (or any other flatbed). Wetmounting, better scanning doesn't matter. I have a V700 and the only reason I use it is because I'am lazy to DSLR scan and the V700 does a reasonable job up to 8x10 prints. Any bigger and I DSLR scan.

There are many threads on this and it has been beaten to death. Here's one that the OP might find interesting

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk

I DSLR scan all my 35mm work and got rid of my Coolscan because the results with my Nikon D7000 were actually better. Again the only reason for preferring a flatbed is convenience.

Oh and you don't need to mess with stupid leica adapters and other nonsense that cost a ton of money. If you want a permanent solution buy a copy stand and use a mirror to get a flat field. Otherwise do as the link i posted does.

 

[Steve M.]

I use an ancient Epson 2400 flatbed scanner. It's great for 120 film, and surprisingly good for 35mm. Cost was $40, shipped. These are rezzed down 35mm shots for the web, and have had almost no post processing. I don't need anything "better". You might have something wrong w/ your scanner.

 

[Merlijn53]

I use an ancient Epson 2400 flatbed scanner. It's great for 120 film, and surprisingly good for 35mm. Cost was $40, shipped. These are rezzed down 35mm shots for the web, and have had almost no post processing. I don't need anything "better". You might have something wrong w/ your scanner.

It looks ok for the web, but don't compare it on maximum resolution with the results of a dedicated filmscanner.
Frank

 

[Monochrom]

please check these Beoon + M9

tvs III 30mm-Beoon + M9 by enzo betinyani, on Flickr

And this is the left lower corner

100% crop tvs III-Beoon + M9 by enzo betinyani, on Flickr

 

[Monochrom]

Also check this one i "scanned" with a glass underneath so it got many scratches just as a test...these examples makes me wanting to shoot film again...

First Epson v500...the epson v500 can´t rival the m9.

epson v500 66 perc by enzo betinyani, on Flickr

M9 + Beoon

beoon 66perc by enzo betinyani, on Flickr


General capture
Made with a bessa R3a and a summicron 35mm v.4.

beoon low res by enzo betinyani, on Flickr

 

[f16sunshine]

Monochrom

It appears your epson is below average. These results don't look very good.

 

[anerjee]

I did not mean this thread to become a debate about the efficacy of the v700. I am ok with the v700, I use the betterscanning adapter and the glass. Here is an example of what I get. Delta 3200 @ 3200, DDX 1+4. Rolleiflex Automat MX.

my questions were around if it is possible to get results as crisp as the KM5400 with a camera scanning attachment, and if so how to go about it.

To answer another poster, I shoot about 99% film only -- various 35mm and medium format. I like medium format better, but the scanning aspect leaves me less than happy.

Anyways, I think one of the links above has enough information for me to get started. Thanks!

 

[lukitas]

For 35mm, I fixed a Nikon D300, with a macro ring behind the kit lens, to the rail of an enlarger. A macro lens would be better, but this simple combination gives results way above what any flatbed could deliver.

For 6x6, I would have to stitch, or crop to a 2x3 oblong. For stitching, a copy stand with a sliding negative holder seems best, but building a sliding system that keeps the negative in exactly the right plane (no vertical movement!) cannot be easy. Also, distortion and possibly light fall-off might force the use of generous overlaps, requiring more shots per negative, more stitching arbeit.

For 35 mm scans however, a DSLR is fine. This is a scan I could compare to a 20x30cm wet print I made 20 years ago :

The scan is actually better than the print, it draws more in the highlights, and it is at least as sharp. The corners are a bit iffy, but I suppose a good macro lens should remedy that.