Scanning with a camera? Share your setups please.

D

david.elliott

Well-known
Local time
8:40 PM
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,558
It seems like a lot of people are scanning with their cameras these days.

I'd be interested in seeing your setups as well as example results. I have an olympus om-d and the 60mm macro lens and would love to try and scan with that. Questions abound such as what light source to use, how to keep the film flat, how to keep the camera and lens in parallel planes, etc.

Some people seem to be using copy stands, others are using enlargers, and some people have custom built their own setups. That said, I haven't seen any posts with detailed setups as well as results. Hopefully this thread can become a bit of a resource for individuals looking to figure out how to scan with their camera rather than a flatbed or dedicated film scanner.

Thanks in advance.

-David
 
I have been giving this some thought myself, as a film-only shooter and not enjoying manipulating digital images a lot, I've become especially unhappy with the deterioration in quality from my Epson flatbed scanner after a couple years of use (especially with color negative). Thinking of buying a DSLR and macro lens and using the negative carriers from my Beseler enlarger ala the photo linked above. Would be interested in hearing from anybody who has been doing this for awhile, tips, hints and more importantly, is it a pain in general?
 
mdarnton said:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/



.
Click to expand...

Seen that before Michael and I still think it's the best setup and M.O. I've seen so far. I especially like the fact that the camera is easy to get into the correct plane using a mirror and that gravity is actually adding to stability etc, as opposed to it putting a finger in the cake why the 'upright' rigs I've seen.

Qeuestions though: how big is that light? Would it suffice to have 6x9 negatives on it? And, what kind of Manfrotto tripod head is that, model number wise? :angel:
 
Wondering how that would work w/ strobe?

Michael, it looks like you're using the 55 f3.5 macro. Am I seeing that right? That's the macro I have (AI converted years ago) and I love it.
(Nevr mind the question. Just reread your post on flickr. Missed it the first time. Thanks)
 
Funny this should come up now. A couple of weeks ago I picked up a Canon 35R reproduction accessory, and some flash brackets, and I attached them to my 7D and 24-70 f4 Macro. I set it up on my tripod and bounce the flash off a white wall at it. It looks like this:

photo-3 by robsomogyi

Total cost was about 75€, not including the expensive DSLR and lens, which I already own so the marginal cost to me is zero, whereas the actual cost new would be way more than the cost of a flatbed scanner. I do use the 7D and this lens as my primary digital kit, so this is not a concern.

I am quite happy with the results. Here is a sample on PanF at ISO 50 developed in Rodinal 1+50:

Elephants by robsomogyi, on Flickr

I have a Canoscan 8800f but to be honest have been frustrated with my workflow and results on 35mm, whereas I find the new rig a lot faster and the quality a lot better.

Cheers,
Rob
 
johannielscom said:
Seen that before Michael and I still think it's the best setup and M.O. I've seen so far. I especially like the fact that the camera is easy to get into the correct plane using a mirror and that gravity is actually adding to stability etc, as opposed to it putting a finger in the cake why the 'upright' rigs I've seen.

Qeuestions though: how big is that light? Would it suffice to have 6x9 negatives on it? And, what kind of Manfrotto tripod head is that, model number wise? :angel:
Click to expand...

Agreed, looks like a minimal and effective setup. Would you mind sharing some 'scans' from it Michael? I'd also be interested in answers to the the above quoted questions. :)
 
robbeiflex said:
Funny this should come up now. A couple of weeks ago I picked up a Canon 35R reproduction accessory, and some flash brackets, and I attached them to my 7D and 24-70 f4 Macro. I set it up on my tripod and bounce the flash off a white wall at it. It looks like this:

Total cost was about 75€, not including the expensive DSLR and lens, which I already own so the marginal cost to me is zero, whereas the actual cost new would be way more than the cost of a flatbed scanner. I do use the 7D and this lens as my primary digital kit, so this is not a concern.

I am quite happy with the results. Here is a sample on PanF at ISO 50 developed in Rodinal 1+50:

I have a Canoscan 8800f but to be honest have been frustrated with my workflow and results on 35mm, whereas I find the new rig a lot faster and the quality a lot better.

Cheers,
Rob
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing Rob. That looks pretty darn good to me! Do you just take a single photo of the 35mm negative and you're done or do you need to do some stitching?

Is there any way to scan MF negatives with that setup? Would be nice to be able to easily scan 35mm, 6x6, and 6x7 all with one setup (maybe with some adjustments or quick modifications for scanning large formats, of course).
 
Hi David,

I take one shot per 35mm frame, then move the film and take the next shot. I can do a roll in about 5 minutes, with the alignment of the film in the repro stand and the flash recycle time being the limiting factor. If the camera auto focuses in live view then it goes quickly, but for some frames it doesn't focus unless I turn off the live view. I then need a few minutes per keeper in photoshop elements to invert, sometimes rotate, crop, and adjust levels, contrast an sharpening. The Canon 35R repro attachment is made specifically to feed a roll of 35mm through it, so in this case no way to do larger.

Cheers,
Rob
 
johannielscom said:
Questions though: how big is that light? Would it suffice to have 6x9 negatives on it? And, what kind of Manfrotto tripod head is that, model number wise? :angel:
Click to expand...

The light in the photo is a 126 LED movie light that cost me $35 on Ebay, and it is almost 4x5 size. Recently I upgraded to a 8-1/2x11 light pad light table, and it's large enough for 8x10, but I've only shot 5x7 negs on it so far. The light table is slightly brighter around the edges but the 5x7 area is evenly balanced. I don't know how it will work with 8x10. However, since I usually burn edges slightly, I'm thinking it may be OK. The difference isn't huge, and I don't know how various light pads are in that regard. The one I got is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J0UUHPO/

I have also set up this rig on a glass coffee table, with a white card on the floor, and a flash, for bigger negs, and it worked OK, but the result was that I got the light pad, so I didn't need to take over the living room when I wanted to "scan"

The head I used to use was Manfrotto's flip-flop head---I have forgotten the number--but now I'm using a cheap Ebay ball head with a rectangular quick release. I don't think the head really matters much, but with the QR it's easy to get the release plate back on the camera straight, aligning the back edge of the plate and the camera's viewing screen against the table (with the camera on its back the QR plate sticks out just a couple of mm, so it's easy) so I don't have to do the mirror thing again every time

I don't usually use my AF lens, but when I do, as Rob comments above, it does a quicker and better job of focusing than I do. Also, with my MF lens I can use the camera's focus confirmation dot, and I do.
 
david.elliott said:
Agreed, looks like a minimal and effective setup. Would you mind sharing some 'scans' from it Michael? I'd also be interested in answers to the the above quoted questions. :)
Click to expand...

Almost all of the B&W in my two flickr sites are done with that rig, and you can view full size versions there.
 
bluesun267 said:
I have been giving this some thought myself, as a film-only shooter and not enjoying manipulating digital images a lot, I've become especially unhappy with the deterioration in quality from my Epson flatbed scanner after a couple years of use (especially with color negative). Thinking of buying a DSLR and macro lens and using the negative carriers from my Beseler enlarger ala the photo linked above. Would be interested in hearing from anybody who has been doing this for awhile, tips, hints and more importantly, is it a pain in general?
Click to expand...

I use to be a film only shooter, but then I bought a Monochrom. I consider it my "Hand-Scanner." I use light yellow Heliopan "Digital" filters and get my contrast at image capture. This also helps tame clipping and the results are nice histograms that require very minimal if any post processing. To me this is the slacker's way.

My spin is when I'm shooting digitally with my MM is that I'm really scanning with my hand scanner.

I also have a Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIS with an extension tube for 1:1 capture; a Nikon slide copy attatchment; and a Gepe light table for illunination. All I really need is a Nikon DSLR, but this is way-way too much work.

Cal
 
I'm impressed by, and slightly jealous of the slide copying apparatus.
But I suspect there may be some cropping involved.

Myself, I use a system inspired by Mr. Darnton, if much more primitive. Duct tape, ice-cream sticks, and epoxy were involved. I fixed the rail of a Durst with two clamps on a table, and the camera can just sit on the rails of the enlargers' lens bellows, fixed to a flash bracket brought to the right height. For a mirror, I used the glass of the negative carrier. There is only one piece of (anti-newton) glass, I like to have the naked emulsion pointing towards the lens.
The camera is a Nikon D3100, up till now I used the kit zoom on an extension tube, which gave reasonable results, if a bit soft in the corners :

U54266I1408242005.SEQ.1.jpg


Recently, I invested in a brand new Nikkor macro 40mm in DX format, and it was worth it :

U54266I1412179589.SEQ.2.jpg


I like that I get full-frame with a little black border.

Cheers
 
Here's mine:



Olympus OMD EM5 with Pentax M 50/1.7 on extension tubes (and an adapter, obviously). Would like to try get a dedicated macro lens but rudimentary testing shows this is pretty good at F8. Focus via live view (I put a torch behind). The camera is mounted on a cheap macro rail which allows fine tuning zoom vs focus (a bit). I can mount the camera on the angle steel in portrait to scan 6x4.5 medium format.

Backlight is a flash in a wooden box behind perspex with white adhesive sheet. I'm not convinced that flash is the best way - I get a pretty narrow histogram (maybe 2/3). Is that normal? Would a lower power continuous source allow me to get a wider histogram, or am I kinda misunderstanding.



The film is held vertical and pretty flat in the ~1mm steel plate you can see (I cut it out myself). There are self-adhesive magnet strips stuck to the angle aluminium, which works pretty well to get some tension on the film. I can scan 6 frames in 2-3 minutes.

I "scan" as raw then invert the curves and adjust contrast (and exposure). I usually don't bother photoshopping after as I am lazy.

Example below, which is expired FP4+ developed in ID11 1+1 - the sharpening is a bit aggressive in this one (both me and then Flickr) which I find it tends to emphasise the grain. I need to do more work on this. I think what I have learned from this thread is I should try scanning the other side.

 
I bought a pentax bellowsII (for screwmount) with the copier attachment for 35mm (Copying negatives or slides as it was called in the old days)
works great after some tweaking

IMGP6699b.jpg
 
CamB said:
I get a pretty narrow histogram (maybe 2/3). Is that normal? Would a lower power continuous source allow me to get a wider histogram, or am I kinda misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
This isn't a problem. The narrow histogram is because exposed film's (the negative) tonal range is quite a bit less than the real life situations that a digital camera is intended for. Throw a transparency in front of it and it will cover more histogram territory because the CT does go from pure dense film to clear film, which a B&W neg doesn't.

If you want maximum quality, you can capture a smoother range by shooting raw, but I don't bother. The result will be less posterization if you do radical tonal adjustments while you're still in 16-bit mode, then scrunch the final result down to 8-bit (or not) after all the playing is done. Occasionally if I have something like a dark, graduated, featureless background (that could be a sky, but I don't shoot landscapes--for me it's dark grey paper background in a portrait) I'll do the copying in raw so the "sunburst" on the paper doesn't posterize, but for my more normal journalistic-type stuff those kinds of problem areas don't exist in the subject.

Or you could go into the manual shooting modes in your camera and crank contrast up all the way--that will partly accomplish the same thing. (I notice you shoote raw already, but I'll say that for others.)

I rarely sharpen. As you noticed, it just makes the grain worse rather than affecting the image itself. Sometimes you can use a low percentage combined with a wide radius, and that works OK--depends on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom