Scanning with a digital camera

Thanks. I've been using autoexposure. Perhaps I'll switch to manual exposure and try to push the histogram a bit to the right. I wonder whether shooting in the dark would also push the histogram to the left, or perhaps I just need a more dense negative.
 
wintoid said:
Thanks. I've been using autoexposure. Perhaps I'll switch to manual exposure and try to push the histogram a bit to the right. I wonder whether shooting in the dark would also push the histogram to the left, or perhaps I just need a more dense negative.
Click to expand...

Don't use auto exposure. You're probably not getting the entire tonal scale of the negative. Here's what I do regarding exposure, color balance etc

1) Set camera to auto WB. If you know the color temperature of the lamp you can set a custom WB, but I haven't noticed an issue with auto WB. All other settings manual (shutter, ISO, aperture)

2) find an area of the neg which shows the film base and take a picture. I like the area right before the first frame/after the black film leader. You can use the spacing between frames too but this might confuse you for the later steps. The more clear film base you can get in frame the better

3) now go to playback and look at the histogram. Make sure you're looking at individual RGB histograms and not the combined one. This is REALLY important! The exposure you want is one that is going to push the histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping. On my Nikon clipping first, begins on the blue channel. Keep adjusting the exposure via ISO/shutter speed/aperture until you get this. I normally stay at base ISO and f8 and mess with the shutter speed.

4) Once you find the correct exposure use this to scan THE ENTIRE ROLL. You don't need to change anything (maybe focus if using MF)

5) Once you import all the images to LR/PS or whatever PP software you use, open the first image (the one where you found the correct exposure). Use the custom WB tool (eyedropper on LR) to set WB to the film base. Now apply to the entire roll. That should have gotten rid of most of the orange mask in color neg film. Now invert, adjust levels and WB to taste.


I'd like to add that I saw this done on a blog post (can't find the link anymore) and it has worked perfectly for me. All these comments on WB being off makes me smile now
 
It's easy to adjust WB on raw captures, so being 'off' isn't the concern. The real issue is that you capture all frames with a consistent white balance setting in the camera.

So don't use AWB either ... set a fixed white balance, capture all the frames with that, and now the using the 'custom WB eyedropper' tool will shift all frames the same amount. If you let WB float on automatic, you'll need to set a custom WB for each frame individually for every group of frames with a different mix of colors in it.

G
 
Godfrey said:
It's easy to adjust WB on raw captures, so being 'off' isn't the concern. The real issue is that you capture all frames with a consistent white balance setting in the camera.

So don't use AWB either ... set a fixed white balance, capture all the frames with that, and now the using the 'custom WB eyedropper' tool will shift all frames the same amount. If you let WB float on automatic, you'll need to set a custom WB for each frame individually for every group of frames with a different mix of colors in it.

G
Click to expand...

I agree. I haven't noticed much of a difference using AWB but this makes perfect sense
 
Thanks all for the info and advice. I'm shooting BW only, so WB is less of a concern, but I'll check the colour histograms anyway.
 
RE: histograms and scanning. I was always taught to scan to produce the largest amount of digital information (thus a wide histogram and often a dull appearance to the archival scanned image) so that the person/photographer could later further develop or print the image. I always followed this advice when I used the Coolscan 5000, for example, and it meant leaving the auto-exposure off most of the time. If any of these device's auto-exposure settings produce a contrasty image (the kind I like when I hang a print on a wall) they are throwing away pixels that you might want, in the archival scan. So I think differently about scanning, compared to printing or even sharing on the web. I use the histogram and I try to preserve as much information as possible in the scan, especially in the parts of an exposure where an image might have only little info, and even when I know I would discard that info if I were printing.
 
mackigator said:
RE: histograms and scanning. I was always taught to scan to produce the largest amount of digital information (thus a wide histogram and often a dull appearance to the archival scanned image) so that the person/photographer could later further develop or print the image. I always followed this advice when I used the Coolscan 5000, for example, and it meant leaving the auto-exposure off most of the time. If any of these device's auto-exposure settings produce a contrasty image (the kind I like when I hang a print on a wall) they are throwing away pixels that you might want, in the archival scan. So I think differently about scanning, compared to printing or even sharing on the web. I use the histogram and I try to preserve as much information as possible in the scan, especially in the parts of an exposure where an image might have only little info, and even when I know I would discard that info if I were printing.
Click to expand...

That's how the Leica Monocrom works. Captures as much information as possible resulting in 'flat' raw files. Funny thing when it first came out people complained about the dull flat output, not realizing that was the intention as it gave the user the best file to work with.
 
Fuji GW690III, Fuji Nps 160, expired July 2000

D750 scan.

ZeeFridgeS-1_zpsntz7w36u.jpg
 
On returning to film, I did my first scans with a Sony A7ii with modest success. Frankly, it was too early, and my workflow as well as my understanding was simply off. Bought a Plustek 8200 and things have been better... not BEST, but better. But it's slow by comparison to working out the bugs in a DSLR-based approach. So I keep my ear to the ground, eyes on the web, etc.

For those who want to get into it, here's an article by Marc Segal from Luminous Landscape where the dig into this in far more detail - including link to a 36 page PDF on related software. Marc was extremely helpful as I stepped up to using Epson high quality printers, and I have a lot of respect and gratitude for his work. I haven't read all of this, but it's closer to the equip I have at hand... even down to the camera lens!

For my part one thing I didn't like about DSLR scanning of negatives vs. Plustek output is that using the Capture One controls to convert the negatives meant (in my limited experiments) reversing their use. Moreover, I felt that there really ought to be a simpler process to convert the negatives first, and THEN bring them into Capture One for the regular post processing treatment. Not there yet.... so I'll have to keep reading, but thought others might find Marc's output useful. Link to the article is here:

https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/ but you may have to have a subscription. I do, even though with my recent aflliction for shooting film I access it less and less.
 
roscoetuff said:
For my part one thing I didn't like about DSLR scanning of negatives vs. Plustek output is that using the Capture One controls to convert the negatives meant (in my limited experiments) reversing their use. Moreover, I felt that there really ought to be a simpler process to convert the negatives first, and THEN bring them into Capture One for the regular post processing treatment.
Click to expand...

I don't use Capture One but Lightroom, yet this still should be the same process... The 'scanned' images are first opened in LR where I have created a preset for that film type including, obviously, inverting the image. I then export to NikFx (where there are options like correct colour cast etc) then save. When you save it automatically drops it back into LR where you now have your original 'scan' and this one. This is great as if you bogart things up, you still have the original one to try again with. Anyway, you can now edit the one saved from NikFx with all the adjustments moving in the correct direction.
It took me longer to type this out than do it!
 
Ah, cool! I've been doing this as well and kept refining my setup piece by piece. This is what I am using now:

* regular tripod with invertible center column
* light table for illumination
* Olympus 60mm Macro lens
* black cardboard mask that only reveals the negative (to reduce lens flares)
* rubber gloves to avoid fingertips :D

When I need high resolution, I take multiple close-up pictures and combine them like a panorama.

Works like a charm for B&W! For color negatives I was always having trouble fixing the colors but I guess that was me - not the setup.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1573.jpg
    DSC_1573.jpg
    126 KB · Views: 1
  • P5278601-Pano.jpg
    P5278601-Pano.jpg
    157.2 KB · Views: 1
stompyq said:
Don't use auto exposure. You're probably not getting the entire tonal scale of the negative. Here's what I do regarding exposure, color balance etc

1) Set camera to auto WB. If you know the color temperature of the lamp you can set a custom WB, but I haven't noticed an issue with auto WB. All other settings manual (shutter, ISO, aperture)

2) find an area of the neg which shows the film base and take a picture. I like the area right before the first frame/after the black film leader. You can use the spacing between frames too but this might confuse you for the later steps. The more clear film base you can get in frame the better

3) now go to playback and look at the histogram. Make sure you're looking at individual RGB histograms and not the combined one. This is REALLY important! The exposure you want is one that is going to push the histogram as far to the right as possible without clipping. On my Nikon clipping first, begins on the blue channel. Keep adjusting the exposure via ISO/shutter speed/aperture until you get this. I normally stay at base ISO and f8 and mess with the shutter speed.

4) Once you find the correct exposure use this to scan THE ENTIRE ROLL. You don't need to change anything (maybe focus if using MF)

5) Once you import all the images to LR/PS or whatever PP software you use, open the first image (the one where you found the correct exposure). Use the custom WB tool (eyedropper on LR) to set WB to the film base. Now apply to the entire roll. That should have gotten rid of most of the orange mask in color neg film. Now invert, adjust levels and WB to taste.


I'd like to add that I saw this done on a blog post (can't find the link anymore) and it has worked perfectly for me. All these comments on WB being off makes me smile now
Click to expand...

When I did color printing in my darkroom, the color analyzer was set to read white, grey, or black.

Film base is black and is on every roll.

I was very successful this way and buying large quantities of film at a time. After some years I concluded it was not the coating that changed, but was the film base.

Zero out the film base, and the color would come close to taking care of itself.
 
So re-appraising the whole of this, I'm thinking a slide copier and bellows set-up from the old days would be the ticket. Thoughts?
 
roscoetuff said:
So re-appraising the whole of this, I'm thinking a slide copier and bellows set-up from the old days would be the ticket. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I use a macro lens instead of the bellows set up.
The macro lens allows me to use AF.
But the end result would be the same.
 
Like all my other 'scans', it took 1/125 sec to 'scan' this image thanks to using a dslr

Leica M7 + Summaron 35 w/goggles, Kodak BW400CN

Scanned with D750

Skateboard%20FightingS-1_zpshke7snk4.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom