What does /p/ scan their negatives with? I'm planning to shoot a roll of 35mm film and was wondering if any of you guys have had any luck scanning your negatives through an ordinary printer/scanner device (not meant specifically for photographs). I've also heard of using a DSLR to capture negatives. I'm on a budget so I'm looking for a cheap alternative. Thanks.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:07:14 17:17:28 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 620 Image Height 388
>>2717359
Pic related is my printer/scanner. I'm also going to community college so that also might be an option, although I haven't took a photography class or know anyone in that department. Walgreens/CVS scans photos, the results aren't very good though from what I've researched.
This if I'm making a large print and/or for paid work.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG TECHWIN Camera Model NV40, VLUU NV40, LANDIAO NV103, VLUU NV404 Camera Software 809011 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 34 mm Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:11:04 16:56:49 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 6.20 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 912 Image Height 684
>>2717381
and this the other 99% of the time.
>>2717382
How do you scan negatives with a flatbed?
>>2717383
The Canoscan (and others) is designed for photos. Comes with different template inserts (35mm negs, slides, MF) and also has a secondary light on the top (to backlight the negs).
Flatbeds are fine if they have appropriate lighting, and if doesn't come with film holders, you can likely find 3rd party ones online.
I've tried it every which way on a flatbed scanner and in the end I just stick the negative up in front of a flourescent light tube and take a macro photo of it with my dslr. Shoot in raw for best results
Just tried doing it on a flatbed scanner. I put my negatives down, laid a piece of glass over them and then put an iPad at 75% brightness on the glass. Even at 1200 DPI it's not acceptable quality, and there's lines running through it which I suspect is the pixels on the iPad. I also think the negatives are lifting up a bit which makes them blurry
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2717390
I found a CanoScan 8800F for $25 used. Only cosmetic scratches on the outside. Would this be a good scanner for a beginner?
>>2717476
I just found one for $20 used on Gumtree. Are we looking at the same one? It's in Manly West
>>2717359
IMO there aren't too many viable options to scan larger volumes of 35mm negatives.
Mostly these:
- "Scan" with a good DSLR / MILC
- Reflecta RPS 10M
- Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED
If you only have an occasional roll of them or just too much time, I guess you can however make do with a flatbed scanner. But scanning like 5 shots at a time with a scan time of 3-15 minutes per picture (depending on settings, resolution, iSRD and so on ...), plus the time spent on putting strips into film holders and taking them out again is a large time expense, though.
Don't get a Canon flatbed. They're even ~3 times slower than the Epson flatbeds at any decent resolution.
This triggers the DSLRscanfag.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Image Created 2015:06:12 23:20:14 Exposure Time 9/100 sec F-Number f/2.4 ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Flash Flash, Auto Focal Length 4.22 mm White Balance Auto
>>2717359
if you already have a dslr and a decent lens, it really is the cheapest way to get high resolution "scans." I have an epson v550 which does a decent job, but if I put a macro tube on a 50mm lens on my dslr and set it on a tripod, the difference in sharpness is amazing.
the biggest pain in the ass with the dslr method is color correction, though personally I think it's worth it because of how much better the results are.
>>2717711
>the biggest pain in the ass with the dslr method is color correction, though personally I think it's worth it because of how much better the results are.
The right workflow & software can make even color correction mostly automatic or at least very quick:
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf
>>2717711
Colour correction is a piece of piss if you're not a sperglord moron. It's also infinitely better having a raw file from a decent sensor, rather than a jpg from a $10 piece of crap.
Not to mention dslr scans are 100 times faster and don't require broken shitbiscuit software.
I am trying to figure out how to MILC "scan" my negatives, as well.
I used a reserve mounted 50mm prime with some extension tubes, since I had all parts here.
The problem is the field curvature, I only get a sharp center, mid-frame is soft and corners just suck. So I tried to focus stack two images, this somehow fucked up my grain but improved mid-frame resolution
I ordered a cheap macro lens and hope to get better results easier.
Here is one of my scans, because this is one of my first scans I would like to hear how I could improve it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:07 00:24:11
>>2717899
here is a 1:1 crop.
Is the resolution okay, or should I expect more from a dslr scan with macro lens?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:07 00:46:02
>>2717900
Finally, here is the focus-stacked version.
You can see how the area around his paw sharpens up, but the grain looks strange.
I used Helicon Focus... Maybe there is a way to focus stack with out fucking up the grain. But i don't know it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:06 01:54:24
>>2717901
You've done well. Probably the best camscan I've seen.
The only issues I'm aware of with this method is (1) wearing out the mechanical shutter of your body and (2) that it involves too much manual operation/editing to do large quantities of film on human timescales.
>>2717688
>If you only have an occasional roll of them or just too much time, I guess you can however make do with a flatbed scanner. But scanning like 5 shots at a time with a scan time of 3-15 minutes per picture (depending on settings, resolution, iSRD and so on ...), plus the time spent on putting strips into film holders and taking them out again is a large time expense, though.
Sure thing, maybe for you.
>Develop rolls of film stand developed (1h)
>wait for negs to dry (1-3h)
>cut strips of 6 (1-2m)
>startup scanner virtual machine while inserting negs into flatbed holder (1m)
>preview (30 seconds)
>set crop area & either load profile or adjust (1m-4m depending on how bad I fucked up the C41)
>Press scan and walk away to develop next rolls or get a cup of tea
>Come back to finished scans
>switch out for the next 2-3 strips
>rinse, repeat
>continue to do other shit
>Spend less than 30 seconds each correcting any errors and resizing
>1m each to tag exposure/lens if I can be bothered
So much time. I barely notice it because I have the ability to multitask, even though I am a man.
You can get really good scans out of even a V550, you just have to not be retarded and know how to use software.
>>2717412
>thinks scan is blurry cause his negs are lifting
Try scanning with something other than a potato
I've been using an epson V600 for around 4 years now since making the full switch to film. The workflow isn't that bad once you resign yourself to scanning some film. No set up time like with a dslr, just turn it on and its ready to go.
I usually scan at 2400dpi in 48 bit colour and 16bit black and white; just set black point and scan into tiffs. 10 minutes for 12 frames of 135 and about 6-7 minutes for 4 frames of 645. I'm pretty happy with image quality
>>2717912
>I have the ability to multitask, even though I am a man
ultrakek
>>2717914
Yeah it's a shit scanner to be sure, however look how much less sharp the negatives at the top are compared to the ones on the bottom
>>2717923
Thanks for the info. Do you mind uploading some of your scanned images (if you have any already stored).
Does anyone here have experience with the reflecta MF5000?
>>2717940
Don't have it, but here's a review:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html
>>2717936
Sure
>>2718006
have some Yoho
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Aperture 3.6 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:10:22 15:05:22 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 637 Image Height 1000
>>2718021
2/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Aperture 3.6 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:09:01 22:26:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 750 Image Height 1000
>>2718037
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Aperture 3.6 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 20:39:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 644 Image Height 1000
>>2718039
4/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Aperture 3.6 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:10:22 17:18:36 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 732
>>2718040
5/
it works well for me.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Aperture 3.6 Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 20:37:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 640
>>2717940
Thanks for the link. I checked it out.
The Reflecta MF5000 looks like a nice scanner. But, I'm wondering if i should go for something like the Plustek 120 instead. What do I choose /p/?
>>2718021
>>2718037
>>2718039
>>2718040
>>2718042
>>2717923
You should not be happy with the image quality.
I think it's not unreasonable to say that if you can't get a sharp 5x7 from a 35mm scan then you're doing it wrong.
Also I shudder to think of the size of your 48-bit TIFFs.
This is a $1 point and shoot and Superia, scanned with babby's first DSLR.
I scanned the whole roll in less than 5 minutes.
>when will this flatbed madness end
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 13:50:35 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1081 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2717912
My process is very much similar, except that scanning two strips of 6 takes three minutes to physically change the negatives and puff out lint & such, 3 to pick out the frames in the preview (cos xsane don't do that on its own), and a further 11 to scan at the 9000f mk2's 2400dpi setting. After that, batch conversion from TIFF to PNG (saves about 4M per frame, b&w), import to darktable, process one image to contact sheet degree, copypaste its style over the rest, and then it's just arbitrary post from there.
I worked this out at one point, and b&w film self-developed for 8-12 minutes ends up costing about two minutes per frame, from film can to start-of-postprocess. And a lot of that time is spent sipping tea and looking at Youtube shit.
It's very relaxed really.
>>2718048
meant 24bit
>>2717359
A $30,000 pre-press scanner.
Not even joking.
My first ever DSLR scan with reversed kit lens.
Can someone recommend film holder, it can be DIY too.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Capture NX-D 1.3.0 W Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:10 10:12:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 669
>>2718823
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 08:08:19 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2138 Image Height 795 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
Iv'e put together and pulled apart arious versions of this rig, all worked relatively well, but now I'm waiting on an ebay item to help hold the slide copier to the rail more squarely/securely (blutac and cableties previously)
Next iteration will use similar rail and L brackets, with the slide copier attachment on the end (it also has a slot for feeding negatives that is perfect: flattens the neg, has a diffuser, and can be adjusted up and down.
Not sure if I'll use a Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2 Flash for it's P-TTL, which i suspect will be useless becasue other TTL flashes have been incorrect in exposing to the right/left when they actually need to do the opposite.. because *negative*.. and *inverted*
..or if I'll use the metz or a Yongnuo YN560IV and in manual mode - which seems a lot more likely based on previous test runs.
Theres only a few bits that aren;t quite ideal in my rig so far, but when it isn't 30C+ and I'm sweating a bit less, and all the bits arrive, and i get motivated to feed it ~4000 35mm negs.. i'll assemble something and begin testing and then digitizing again.
I figure I'll use RawTherapee and its HaldCLUT system of correctly inverting negative values.
But it's propensity to force highlight compensation on - and make everything pastelly and flatter - was shitting me enough to start using DarkTable for my regualr non neg photos a few months back, so I'll have to see how useful DT is with inverting negs.. probably just with curves. Which is sort of tedious.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software RawTherapee Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 25 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:05:13 18:15:37 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 4000 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 17.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Macro
>>2718922
Previous iteration with just LEDs
Totally insufficient lighting btw.
And the 100mm macro was too long. 50mm macro much better... forget inverting lenses unless you like shitty petzval field curvature.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software RawTherapee Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:07:03 12:31:39 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 2000 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 28.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2718922
Shooting a roll like this as jpg and setting a 'negative' in-camera conversion can be useful to see what you are looking at, and roughly what WB the film and subject material presents.
...before you start scanning individual frames.
>>2718922
A better illustration of the arrangement of bits from the camera somewhat out of view at right in the previosu shot... cardboard box that directs flash into negative diffuser, holds the LEDs to enable seeing and focusing on the negative - and prevents me from being blasted in the face - are removed in this image.
>>2718922
jesus at this point why bother
>>2718922
Between a handful of school developed B&W negs, and and something like 8 different brands/hues of ISO 100, 200, 400, and 1000 color negatives, shit lenses, environmental damage, shit developing, and shit original images because teenager shooting film and nobody was fussy back then, least of all the pinoy lab techs... it's difficult to get a feel for how to best set an average setting to get generic exposure and WB without editing, before starting the digitization process and then editing them.
I'd prefer to avoid needing to adjust every frame or roll individually, but even that might be necessary.
I think I have a good idea how to start now. Just need cooler weather to avoid sweating all over everything.
>>2718937
Becasue I'm not a lazy motherfucker, tinkering amuses me, I learn things, and ultimately I want to digitize my negatives... and may end up needing to scan my father's too.. which may be upward of 10,000 frames.
Because I want to, emo kid.
>>2718939
Do you process your own stuff or do you go to a lab? I just got 3 rolls back from Fotofast in Taringa and it cost me 36 of my hard earned Australian dollarydoos. Surely there has to be a cheaper way
>>2718942
Sorry, I haven't shot film for maybe 25 years.
I'm not interested any more. Digital is good enough now, and improving all the time.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software RawTherapee Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 400 Image Height 600 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:06:15 18:37:25 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
my cellphone
not even joking
I use an Epson v600. You can get refurbished v550's for about $120. I like them, you just have to get yourself acquainted with how the software works. I'm happy with it. I haven't calibrated the sensor to the height of my film, since I don't have any non newtonion glass panes to but behind them to keep them at a constant height, but results are fine.
I read that most folks who try the DSLR method of scanning film just give up on not achieving the sharpness they want or can't get the colors right.
Anyways, from the v600 - I get good 5x7 prints from cheap Kentmere 100 film. I mainly shoot black and white. Color is too expensive for me.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Photographer Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3568 Image Height 2285 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:12:10 09:18:29 Image Width 1000 Image Height 715 Unique Image ID 87237605377093063f5df31d5eacf061
>>2717899
that's about as good as it gets with a reversed 50. still plenty of detail to work with, but a macro lens brings it to the next level. dat flat field curvature.
i'd post my dog pictures, but i'm posting from my phone.
>>2719040
Any tips on the settings? Do you use Epson Scan still?
I had a microtek f1 for myself and a i800 and a i900 at work. Both are very good, but also kinda of slow. The autofocus setting is not very useful, but when turned off, it usually hits the film right on point. A 6x7 frame would give a ~36mpx image, at 2400dpi, the true limit of the scanner; and a nice color profile, if used along silverfast negafix. It's not the state of art of flatbed scanners, but, for the cheap price I find it very very good; better than the v600 and v700 I held in comparison. I've printed 80cm x 100cm giclées from scanned negs and the result was very nice.
pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2719040
Yes I use epson scan. Honestly I suck hard and managing color curves. When I scan color film, I use marquee mode, because the software color corrects everything fairly well in the highlighted area. If you have black or white empty space from outside the frame, then that throws off the color correction. It can be fixed, but again I suck at that.
When I do black and white I use the sharpen mask and medium dust removal. 2400 dpi res seems to be a good balance of file size and resolution. I use canned air to blow both sides of my film and the scanner before scanning.
The best way to use that scanner with Epson scan is to use marquee mode and mess with the curves only on frames that are actually decent shots. That is the closest to DSLR scanning, really. However, I mass produce scans of all my shots so I lack fine tuning. I get much better work if I spend more time fine tuning my black, whites and grays on a single frame at a very high DPI setting.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Photographer Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3343 Image Height 2120 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:12:10 12:28:51 Image Width 1000 Image Height 634 Unique Image ID 9029c56c2a249b7037e762193a03b1ad
>>2718942
haha.
Now that Photo Continental is dead, I'll just be doing my own colour, it's not worth paying those Fotofrenzy/fast assholes $15 to develop minilab C41.
I want to try DSLR scanning, have access to girlfriend's 7D with a couple lenses, and a 3D printer at school. I was thinking about printing a film holder, then either EF mount extension tubes or a reversal ring for the Canon 50mm f1.8. I could use my iPad Air as a "light table", or some Yongnuo flash. Which would you recommend, reversal ring or tubes? I already found some printable models for both.
Basically this would just be a fun experiment, but I also have some unscanned rolls of 120mm. There appears to be no 120mm film holders though, so I'll have to build my own, which I'm up to. For 35mm there's already some stuff available.
How well do you suppose this would work compared to a dedicated macro lens, like the OM mount Zuiko 50mm f3.5? I'm thinking about getting maybe that or another old SLR lens for DSLR scans later.
I use a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. It works just fine.
>>2719662
You'll get loads of field curvature, and you'll have no aperture control so you'll be messing with your flash power to control light.
>>2719662
You'll need a way to control aperture if using macro tubes. a film "scan" at f/1.8 will look horrible.
Right now i'm using a 70d with a 40mm pancake and macro tubes stopped down to f/11 and the results are pretty good.
I might be retarded, but why would you scan negatives? why not just make one nice big print, and then scan that? wouldn't it be much higher quality?
>>2719841
Not everyone has the room, or the ability to print. The ability to see and share your photos without the need to dedicate an entire room to it is a huge reason film photography is still clinging to life.
>>2719848
that makes sense for some cases, but I would imagine that if you have somewhere to get your negatives developed, you also have somewhere to get prints. walgreens, local camera shops, universities, even high schools have darkrooms. I don't see why you feel like you'd have to print yourself at home any more than you'd have to develop your own negatives at home
>>2719853
Good you're an annoying twit.
1) printing then scanning is fucking expensive. Scanning negs/slide is hella cheaper.
2) printing then scanning is far more inflexible than scanning film
3) the negative is the film photography archival standard
4) it's easier to scan film. You don't have to make a lot of darkroom decisions like you would if you printed first, and as mentioned earlier, you wouldn't be locked into those decisions.
>>2719853
>>2719841
Ah, I see you don't know what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as an optical print from a lab these days, either in black and white or colour.
See all of the fucking garbage Noritsu Koki minilab scans that people post on here?
That's what the prints are made from.
Even labs that print onto actual photo paper use machines that take a digital file, and expose the paper accordingly using lasers.
They're only barely acceptable as 6x4's.
They will only look uglier the bigger they get.
Optical printing, meaning enlarging directly from the negative onto paper, with no loss in quality, is something that you either do yourself, or would have to search far and wide for a specialist to do for you, in exchange for a great deal of money.
I just have the place that develops the film do it for me. Go to a real photography shop (not costco or a drug store), and they'll develop/scan your negs.
>>2719891
my local lab does optical printing, but it's a proper dedicated shop. it's nice not living in a flyover state.
agreed, noritsu minilab scans a shit.
>>2719914
RA-4, or just B&W?
And I bet they charge an arm and a leg for that shit.
I live in Brisbane, Australia. I'd say it's our flyover state capital equivalent. It's just too small for niche-interest businesses like real photo shops to have the critical mass of customers they need to survive. Even places where it's possible to get film developed are thinning out alarmingly, and pricing themselves beyond viability.
>>2719891
>There is no such thing as an optical print from a lab these days
blue moon camera is an optical lab
>>2719919
>Even places where it's possible to get film developed are thinning out alarmingly, and pricing themselves beyond viability.
The big gap in the market was an own at home development machine for the consumer where you only purchase chemicals.
That said: Shooting black and white negatives and developing at home is far cheaper than all these "photo labs" that offer the service for twice the price of C41.
>>2719891
My friend has a place round the corner from him that does darkroom prints. It's only 30 minutes walk from my house and their prices are very reasonable. if you want to do it yourself, take a course at a college or university, they're super cheap and if you have the space you can do it yourself.
>>2719919
they do color. $20 for a 8x12 or something
http://www.thelabvancouver.com/
quick question: slides be printed optically? as I understand it, most places just do negs.
>>2720056
Cibachrome was the only way to print slides directly, it is essentially a big piece of slide film itself and needed to be backlit.
They don't make it anymore, so these days it's incredibly rare and expensive, as are the required chemicals to develop it, as are the skills to do it properly.
The other way is of course to make an internegative with a duplicating film, and print from that. But again, specialised dupe film is hard to come by, and the whole process is a pain in the ass.
>>2719145
nice tonality, what film/developer?
50€ Epson 3 in 1 Scanner with phone as backlighting method
>>2720110
200€ Epson V550 with backlighting unit
Mind you the original file is 34mb and 7145x4763 big though
>>2720110
>>2720111
contd:
Fucking around with the backlighting took ages with the cheapie and you could only scan one or two pictures at once, with the v550 you basically just pop the negatives into a rail, preview scan, select levels and sometimes is really all the post-processing you need (besides cleaning).
I wouldn't say a flatbed scanner with backlighting is optimal, but for me its more than enough.
Also the v550 is super fast since it can scan 8 pictures without any additional input if you dont mind the auto exposure
>>2720112
I thought they could do 12 frames per scan :0 ?
>>2720204
I use the V550 pretty much every day. It takes 2 strips of 6, chances are the anon is using store processed B/W where they cut the negs into strips of 4 to fit into the fujifilm negative sleeves.
>>2720112
>Also the v550 is super fast since it can scan 8 pictures without any additional input if you dont mind the auto exposure
>scan 8 pictures without any additional input
It takes literally 2-3 seconds to select all and hit the reset button to have a clean scan without auto exposure.
>>2720075
I figured as much. It's a shame digital prints look like ass, or at least the ones I've seen.
>>2717412
>laid a piece of glass over them
Try to find some anti-newtonian glass if you're gonna do this
>>2720871
here's the original in color
>>2719891
>Ah, I see you don't know what you're talking about.
its always funny when you call someone else stupid, and then end up saying something retarded and making an idiot of yourself
>bruh let me tell you, optical enlargers and darkrooms dont exist. even that lab you went in and printed your own pictures from an enlarger and devloped them? yeah that was just digital lasers, trust me i know bruh.
nice post faggot
>>2719853
Not everyone is willing to devote their entire lives to making prints of their photos. Also, most of the options you just listed scan, and print from digital.
>>2720908
>even that lab you went in and printed your own pictures
>printed your own
And you ignored the last line of my post, in which I said you could search far and wide for a specialist film lab.
I'm talking about the normal places with normal prices that a normal city that isn't fucking Portland, Oregon (the city that literally has a long running tv show about how cripplingly hipster it is) is going to have.
chill, bitch, you sound cray cray rn
>>2717476
I get reasonable quality out of a 5600f by shimming out the negative holder with cereal box card. I spent £45 on it and consider that worth it. Go for the 8800f, should be good, and great for that price.
>>2721117
>no TRUE scotsman
I've tried scanning with camera but my biggest problem so far is getting everything setup and keeping the negative flat.
I have a flash I can remote trigger and I tried the box method but I have nothing to flatten the negative. This also takes up a lot of space which I don't really have.
I've seen a lot of people recommending a lightbox/LED light panel and this would be easier for me to do but again the issue is with keeping the negatives flat. Would it be wise to buy something off of ebay to hold the negatives (like a tray for 35mm film) or would I be okay with putting a small pane of glass over it to keep the neg flat?
I have a 60mm lens and a 16mm extension tube so I can pretty much get 1:1, my only issue is the setup.
>>2722687
>cut piece of card board
>put on top of negative
>???
I'd like to find a cheap micro for my nikon dslr, but they are all:
expensive
hard to find used
that one dx 40mm but it's not cheap for a dx
So I'm thinking about the 40mm dx version, but I find it hard to justify. Anyone here has experience with it?
>>2722823
if you're "handy", you mount an enlarger lens (fuji nikkor schneider minolta rodenstock, all very good and cheap) on your camera and use it as a macro. it's not really unusual to do that, I guess one can even buy a ready-made adapter.
just make sure you get a >6-element lens, much much sharper wide open, pretty much the same >3 stops closed; also, the fact that is more or less symmetric must infer something...
>>2722830
I did think about buying an extension tube for cheap (it's like 8 to 12 euros depends on the ebay seller, china made), but then reading the thread and in forums I see people mention there's distortion and other stuff present when using them.
But the idea of an enlarger is great if that gets rid of the distortion and other stuff.
Though I thought they were fixed focal point? as in, you needed a folding chamber to mount them, or a holder to project. I'll need to read how it works. Or is it just a matter of mounting and it's sharp at any depth of field?
>>2722837
there should be zero distortion on a good enlarger lens; whoever said the distortion was a problem was probably using the lens reversed, which should lead to aberrations. if you mount it straight on a bellows (whether using a m39 adapter or just fixing it to the bellows), it will probably look very good.
>Though I thought they were fixed focal point?
that's why you mount it on bellows, to focus, just like on a enlarger
>Or is it just a matter of mounting and it's sharp at any depth of field?
well, yes it is, but you'll need to focus as with any other lens
>>2722837
http://www.davidkennardphotography.com/blog/870-using-enlarger-lenses-with-the-fuji-x-system.xhtml here's an example
(he's gone a long way to mount it, but if you're willing to use a bellows mount it should be way simpler)
ps i'm no way related to the author
>>2722823
55/3.5 Micros are cheap and easy to find. Manual controls are a benefit for macro, especially slide copying.
>>2722840
>>2722841
I see, thanks.
I'll try with extension tubes only at first, and see how happy I am or not with the result.
I still need to find an old nikkor F mount prime for that though (only to make things easier), I only have a kit zoom with me right now.
>>2722843
Well I guess it depends on where you live, but here in germany I'm having trouble... maybe because I'm not from here so I don't know my way around the german internet or markets.
>>2719179
Honestly, just scan as a raw in vuescan and process the negatives yourself in lightroom. I can post my kodak gold preset for inverting a negative (only film i've done this with consistently) if you guys want
>>2722854
Sure post it
>>2722854
>lightroom. I can post my kodak gold preset
screencap the sliders m8.
Consistent results with daylight I've found on normally exposed film. Might want to adjust temperature and magenta/green and exposure in other lighting conditions but once you get something neutral it looks nice.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b86glvtg7lxt1hb/kodak%20gold%20negative%20-%20mark%202.lrtemplate?dl=0
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Epson Camera Model PerfectionV600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:16 10:06:49
>>2723131
2cold4gold
>>2723135
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Epson Camera Model PerfectionV600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:16 10:21:41
>>2723131
youre not in shape yet for making public presets of anything m8.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:16 12:34:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 670 Image Height 992
>>2723131
Like others have said, what you're doing here is applying color correction to film.
Which is not "wrong" in the sense that we used to do color correction from film to print whenever we disliked how warm a certain color was or whatever.
But since I guess most of us here go for film for their specific qualities/faults, which are certain colors, contrast, saturation etc., this defeats the purpose if the result doesn't look like what is expected of the film that was used.
>>2723151
>I leave auto on epson scan and never touch the picture!
Translated by Bing!
>>2723151
does color negative film really have a "correct" color though? Whether you're scanning or printing traditionally you still have to make some choices with the color and contrast.
>>2723180
Exactly. That being said, I can't make a Gold negative look exactly like Portra. You can still colour correct and enjoy the features and drawbacks of the film
>>2723151
>I shoot film because I don't know how to process my photos well, and I think that "low-fi flaws" add to my photo, and aren't a gimmick at all. I used to shoot digital, but it was all bland and flat and nobody liked my photos. Shooting film, I shoot the same boring shit, but people seem to like it better when it looks like instagram. I can also make fun of instagram people for taking the easy way out, even though I'm also taking the easy way out, just paying a lot more and taking a lot more time.
-Translated by Bing!
>>2723182
Yeah, even with color correction, different films will still have different characteristics.
>>2723176
>>2723183
Low effort troll but I'll reply so that kids don't fall for your bullshit.
Where did you get that? I started with film, transitioned to digital, but since I kept my film gear I still shoot with it from time to time.
A lot of people do shoot for the film "signature", otherwise everyone would be shooting fujicolors.
And in my opinion, if you're going to correct film to the point where it's basically digital, then shoot with the digital, why waste money on film then?
>>2723180
>>2723182
Well, like I've said, we corrected and altered film in the darkroom, so it's completely normal. But I fail to see the point in shooting film if you do aggressive correction digitally and archive/share that, why not shoot digital at that point?
But I guess everyone has their own approach to film, I personally only scan the film as a backup and easy folder lurking, whatever I decide to work on will be done in the darkroom.
>>2723205
I guess it just boils down to different film workstyles. I would shoot film if it looked digital desu, I like the experience
Scanning this just now
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make elephone Camera Model Elephone P7000 Camera Software MediaTek Camera Application_ Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:21 13:12:45 Exposure Time 49999/1000000 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 110 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Other Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2736 Image Height 4864 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2725929
I hope you're better at resizing those snapshits than you were at this one.
>>2725930
Phone image.
>>2717901
is that a pekinese and cocker mix
