Scanning with a digital camera

[CSG123]

I use an Epson V700 for B&W negs but I use a Nikon D90 with the 85mm macro, a tripod, and little light table to do slides. Set the slide on the light table, tilt the ball head over the slide, compose, and shoot.

This slide was from 1981, taken in northern Arizona with my old OM-1.

 

[Peter Jennings]

I use a BEOON and Sony A7. The BEOON cost a little more than $200. I use an EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 that cost about $50. My light source is a light pad that cost about $40. I don't count the camera as an expense because it's something I already had for taking pictures. The A7's zoom focus assist for manual focus lenses makes focussing super easy. The whole scanning/inverting process is very quick, especially for b&w. And most of all, the results leave nothing to be desired. I would never consider switching to a dedicated scanner.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I've read reviews of your scanner, and frankly it's what turned me off these consumer scanners.

I am happy with the performance. It obviously doesn't meet it's claimed resolution, but does achieve 4100, which is a nose ahead of the industry standard Nikon Coolscan 5000ED. Most importantly, it resolves the grain, unlike flat-bed scanners like the V850. Sure, it takes 3 minutes a scan, but I only scan a few frames per roll so it is not really an issue. If money were no object, I might go your route, but I don't think I have given up quality opting for a lower cost solution. Generally, I am wet printing.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Could go into more depth on this?

Could go into more depth on this?

Here is what I did. It worked great.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

Dear John,

That certainly looks like something I could rig up using wood instead of the acrylic. However, I'll admit that I not entirely familiar with everything you show in the picture? It looks like you have a bellows and rail and slide copying attachment but I'm not sure?

If it's not too much trouble a description from the camera to the light source would help me, and probably others like me, who are less intuitive.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[Tim Murphy]

I viewed the link and still need help

I viewed the link and still need help

This link got me started:

http://jamiemphoto.com/blog/2013/12/22/yes-your-dslr-really-is-the-best-film-scanner

Dear Huss,

I understand the idea behind this but like I said to John above a picture of your set up and a description of the items used would be a big help.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[Huss]

Dear Huss,

I understand the idea behind this but like I said to John above a picture of your set up and a description of the items used would be a big help.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

I'll do that when I get home from the gallery tonight Tim. It's actually much simpler than John's! His look very professional compared to mine.

 

[Huss]

If money were no object, I might go your route, but I don't think I have given up quality opting for a lower cost solution. Generally, I am wet printing.

I get that. What spurred me to do this is that, like many, I already had the gear as it is part of my regular photo gear. I just enlisted it for scanning, which is perfect as I shoot film far more than digital.
I was almost going to sell the lens as I wasn't using it. Glad I procrastinated on that.

 

[Godfrey]

Yes. But for the extra money I get perfect scans in literally seconds.
Your scanner will take minutes at the 'high rez' mode (someone had written over 10 minutes for one scan), and then you have to deal with possible banding and all the rest of the complaints other users have posted on that model.
I've read reviews of your scanner, and frankly it's what turned me off these consumer scanners.
Cheap means nothing to me if the quality is lacking. Unfortunately with these consumer scanners expensive means nothing too.
With the DSLR you get fantastic quality in seconds with normal file sizes.

I wouldn't use junky scanners. I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED (or Super Coolscan 9000 ED, but that's going up for sale now). Junky scanners give junky results. Pro-grade scanners cost a bunch now and there are only a couple still being made.

G

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear John,

That certainly looks like something I could rig up using wood instead of the acrylic. However, I'll admit that I not entirely familiar with everything you show in the picture? It looks like you have a bellows and rail and slide copying attachment but I'm not sure?

If it's not too much trouble a description from the camera to the light source would help me, and probably others like me, who are less intuitive.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

Sure, from the camera: adapter from Pentax K mount to M-42 screw mount, then a Pentax 50mm Macro lens (screw mount), then a Pentax slide copier. In the slide copier you can put negatives strips or slides. Or you can make a 120 holder with you also see in the photo..

Now (today) you can use a remote to fire the camera and Wi-Fi or blue tooth or what ever straight to your computer for editing.

 

[Doug A]

I use a BEOON too. With a Fuji X-E2 and 50/2.8 Componon S. It took me less than 10 minutes to "scan" a 36-exposure roll of HP5 this morning. And another 15 minutes to batch convert the files to DGN with Iridient X-Transformer, batch invert and adjust levels with Affinity Photo and make a "contact" print with MakePDF.

 

[Shac]

For 35mm film/slides I've started using a Sony A7r2 with a Nikon bellows and a LED light array. It gives me about the same dpi output as a Nikon Coolscan 4000 - just significantly faster. Plus the Sony has greater headroom for shadow areas.
Originally I was using a Leica 60/2.8 lens but recently switched to an OM 80/4 auto macro. Looks like it gives better IQ than the Leica and curiously less degradation of the corners but I need to investigate more as it doesn;t make sense to me.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Thank you!

Thank you!

Sure, from the camera: adapter from Pentax K mount to M-42 screw mount, then a Pentax 50mm Macro lens (screw mount), then a Pentax slide copier. In the slide copier you can put negatives strips or slides. Or you can make a 120 holder with you also see in the photo..

Now (today) you can use a remote to fire the camera and Wi-Fi or blue tooth or what ever straight to your computer for editing.

Dear John,

So I need a Nikon macro lens and a slide copier since I'll be scanning with a D300.

I can figure out the rest by trial and error. What is WI-FI though? ;-)

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[dourbalistar]

I use a BEOON with an APS-C Sony NEX-5T, and use a Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lens as the taking lens. Here are a few links with example photos of similar setups that got me started:
http://lamlux.net/2016/02/23/digitizing-negatives-with-a-digital-camera/
https://blog.redcentphotography.com/2016/05/23/behold-the-leica-beoon/
https://sculptingwithlight.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/the-other-day-i-bought-leica-beoon.html

I use this light pad from Amazon for my BEOON setup. It's inexpensive, very slim, with a large well lit surface. I can plug it into any USB power bank:
https://www.amazon.com/Huion-L4S-Por.../dp/B00J3NRAV2

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear John,

So I need a Nikon macro lens and a slide copier since I'll be scanning with a D300.

I can figure out the rest by trial and error. What is WI-FI though? ;-)

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

Nikon probably made a slide copier way back, so you can pick one up cheap (I hope). Be sure the macro lens you pick will fit the slide copier. Pentax was great with back forwards use, but Nikon might not be; so check. I don't really understand Wi-Fi but you can send files from your digital camera (a new one) to your computer. It saves running around the house and loading them into your computer. That is why I stopped using my copier. If I get a new digital camera I'll learn how to stream to my computer.

 

[Huss]

Dear Huss,

I understand the idea behind this but like I said to John above a picture of your set up and a description of the items used would be a big help.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

Here you go Tim:

Camera, lens, a step down adapter 62-52mm (the lens' filter thread is 62mm, the Es-1 is 52mm), the Nikon ES-1 slide copier, and a film holder:

And here is it all together. Very simple:

You point this set up at a light source and take a pic. I use a flash as I want to use minimum ISO 100 and f8 for maximum quality. You can either have the flash on camera and take a shot of a white wall. The light reflecting back will be sufficient. Or you can have a slave flash with diffuser pointed at the camera.
This outfit is handheld, no need for any type of rails, supports etc.

You can get the slide holder from here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/35-mm-film-...grbxBMmsM0ksXxVHgorkA%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

 

[anindyo]

The most important part for success is what you said: use a macro lens.[/QUOTE]

Is it good too use non-macro lens with macro tubes?
I tried to do scanning with Fuji X-E1 and found the results lacked dynamic range and less sharp compared to Lab scan. Wondering where I did things wrong..

 

[css9450]

Here you go Tim:

Camera, lens, a step down adapter 62-52mm (the lens' filter thread is 62mm, the Es-1 is 52mm), the Nikon ES-1 slide copier, and a film holder:

Lots of people place the camera on a tripod and place the slide or negative on the light box or light table... But that allows for the possibility of the camera not being perfectly straight on with the film, thus one side or corner could be soft. Your method looks like its foolproof!

 

[Huss]

The most important part for success is what you said: use a macro lens.

Is it good too use non-macro lens with macro tubes?
I tried to do scanning with Fuji X-E1 and found the results lacked dynamic range and less sharp compared to Lab scan. Wondering where I did things wrong..

All that matters is that you get a 1:1 ratio. You have to shoot in raw format so the camera does not make any processing changes to the image. That will effect DR as it has already processed the file. Lack of sharpness could be a focus issue. When I was focusing manually it took me a while to get the image just right. It actually got to be a bit frustrating but still do-able as long as you get the grain sharp so use near to max magnification.
When I realized that I could use AF, it became a snap.
Also.. make sure you are shooting at base ISO for max quality, and stop down the lens to at least f8 for the same reason. If your light source is not bright enough then you will need to use a flash, which actually is extremely easy. Just mount flash on camera and shoot at a white wall that is a few feet away.
Or use a slave flash firing directly at the camera.

 

[Huss]

Lots of people place the camera on a tripod and place the slide or negative on the light box or light table... But that allows for the possibility of the camera not being perfectly straight on with the film, thus one side or corner could be soft. Your method looks like its foolproof!

The get up with the slide copier only works with 35mm film. But as you can see, it is a breeze to use. Using a copy stand instead of a tripod makes things super easy when using a light pad and 120 film. As that is what it is designed for! When I first tried this with a tripod I could never get it as sharp as a lab scan. I'm thinking it must have been alignment issues.

I use this copy stand for 120 film:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/120907732706?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

[Doug A]

I scan 35mm b&w negatives with an X-E2 in a Leitz BEOON copy stand. The BEOON only works with LTM or M mount lenses so I couldn't try it with a Fuji macro lens. I used it with a 50/2.8 Elmar on the BEOON extension tubes at first and my results were better than my V700 scans and at least as good as my Plustek 7100 scans. When I replaced the Elmar with my old Componon enlarging lens the results were noticeably better than the Plustek.

Unless you can get RAW scans from the lab the files will likely be heavily sharpened. You can do that with your own scans too, but a more gentle approach to sharpening will pay dividends.

I'm not sure what you mean about dynamic range. I have yet to scan a 35mm b&w negative with the X-E2 and not had the entire dynamic range of the negative captured by the scan. Before processing, many of them look very flat but I correct the black and white points in post processing and the image on the screen, and more importantly the print, show the entire dynamic range in the negative.