![20130323_RB67_0015_zpsd90c326a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CWB4m6G.jpg "20130323_RB67_0015_zpsd90c326a[1].jpg")
DSLR FILM Scanning.
Show me your rigs. I've been having trouble getting soft even light. Can I see your setup? I'm going to have to scan some 120 film soon. any advice?
>>2783524
[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
DSLR meh
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:04 08:01:20 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 500 Brightness -1.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2783524
Why don't you show us YOUR setup, so we can tell you why you fucked up. I shoot a flash straight through 3 layers of white parchment paper in a box lined with aluminium foil on the wide setting.
>>2783524
In the last thread some people said you could just use your phone/tablet as a light source.
>>2784835
Yes you can - but it's a terrible solution (quality wise). You'll always see the pixels of the LCD in the scans.
>>2784886
Part of the trick there is to use a diffusion material in between that's a little distance away.
I use a Sony A7Rii to scan my film, it has more than enough resolving power to capture the low-fi negatives. I got a tracing lightbox off amazon to light the film.
http://www.amazon.com/Huion-Drawing-Tracing-Translucent-Multifunction/dp/B00S6FEE3A/ref=pd_sbs_201_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=31FFX4qzQrL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=1060R385WQEGQWY8V50H
link related. It's pretty affordable. Most of the work is done by my A7Rii, such a beast of a camera. Film is just a quirky indulgence i have.
If the A7Rii could do low-fi i would throw away all my film gear, next best thing i have is bumping up the iso to extreme levels to achieve grain at night.
I have what's required to digitize. A lens/extension tube, a spare fame to hold negs, a tripod, a lightpad but what I don't have is the space or time required to deal with setting up a rig just to scan some film.
In the time it takes to setup, I could scan 12 frames of 135. That's half a roll of 24 or 1/3 of 36. Add in the time for PP and DSLR scans are only worth it when I need something in a bit better quality.
>>2784901
le shatbed quality meme xD
>>2784886
You shouldn't place your film directly on the screen, obviously...
>>2784900
Can you post some samples?
>>2784379
>keks audibly
Wow, I didn't realise those deprecated hunks of shit were the size of a fucking microwave.
Protip: Sell your leica and all of that 90s consumer electronics garbage, buy a Japanese SLR with a 50mm, and a rabal with a macro lense, and enjoy the leap in IQ, as well as the beer you buy with all the money left over.
>>2784992
Can I use my aging rebel to scan medium format negatives? I'd rather not have to stitch multiple pictures because it's for the web.
here's a full res 35mm portra 400 scan from my digicam scanning setup
>>2787455
setup is an x-e1 with nikon macro lens and extension tube attached to the bellows of an old enlarger head. negative is held with the standard negative tray, light source is the diffusion head
>>2785602
Of course you can.
Just make sure you use a high quality macro lense.
Only you can decide if the 18MP resolution is sufficient for you.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment Projection Rectilinear (0) FOV 11 x 8 Ev 13.45 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2787455
>>2787467
ektar using the same setup
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:08 00:59:36 Exposure Time 1/3 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 50 Brightness -2.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2789625
My beast
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:08 00:58:07 Exposure Time 1/5 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 50 Brightness -2.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2789626
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:08 01:01:59 Exposure Time 1/3 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 50 Brightness -3.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
Why. For the extra edge?
Why not just
take a picture
with your DLSR
>>2789625
>>2789626
>>2789628
You should consider not using paper as a light diffuser for your scans. I can see the fibre of the paper through the negative. Either use a strobe or a lightbox
>>2789629
Because it's convenient. People who shoot film also shoot with a DSLR, so instead of buying a dedicated scanner they use equipment that already have.
Shooting film is fun, maybe you should try it anon
>>2789642
>Because it's convenient.
Not nearly as convenient as just having taken the photo on that same DSLR.
>>2789643
They shoot film because they want to shoot film. Not just because they want to take pictures. You can do both anon.
>>2789661
I didn't say that wasn't the case, merely pointing out an issue with the stated reason. If you're making decisions based on convenience, you end up with a DSLR in your hand.
>>2789663
He was talking about convenience of using a camera you already own to scan the film and not having to buy even more expensive equipment. Not convenience in taking pictures period.
>>2789629
for one digital still can't hold a candle to B&W film, even the Leica Monochrome has a completely different look to B&W film.
film produces a different colour, I find Portra 160 to be much softer and natural to a lot of what comes out of digital cameras. the foveon is the only thing that comes close to producing a film like colour.
thirdly for the look of different formats, most digital cameras are small format m34, APSc and even 35mm are all small format, film medium format can be had and shot relatively cheap, even my entire 4x5 setup cost less than a Rebel kit (film is another story)
a lot of the film properties carry over in the process of scanning in a way that is not easy to reproduce when shot solely digital.
personally I contact print and then scan either with a flat bed or camera because it maintains more of that film look.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:01:21 14:22:06 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Brightness -3.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2789732
>for one digital still can't hold a candle to B&W film, even the Leica Monochrome has a completely different look to B&W film.
>film produces a different colour, I find Portra 160 to be much softer and natural to a lot of what comes out of digital cameras. the foveon is the only thing that comes close to producing a film like colour.
I know nothing about post processing: the post
>>2789732
>film produces a different colour, I find Portra 160 to be much softer and natural to a lot of what comes out of digital cameras. the foveon is the only thing that comes close to producing a film like colour.
>a lot of the film properties carry over in the process of scanning in a way that is not easy to reproduce when shot solely digital.
the whole dynamic range thing isn't even remotely true anymore. as for colors, digital raw files are meant to be edited, and if "film like" colors are what you want to achieve with digital, it's not too complicated to do so.
the only real advantage that film still has is b&w printing, but that's only because of silver gelatine papers. it's much cheaper to shoot digital, edit your files to your liking and make digital negatives to contact print than to keep an all analogue workflow, and the same results are achievable.
I actually do shoot film occasionally, but I've moved past trying to justify its superiority over digital. I just do it because it's fun, you should too.
>>2789732
Go take a photo on film, and next to that camera, set D750, and take a well exposed photo of the exact same scene in the exact same light. Post both here, and give me 15 minutes, and I'll hand you a digital photo that has the same colors, same tones, and better detail than you film shot.
>>2789998
>and take a well exposed photo of the exact same scene in the exact same light.
How about if we took two photos with the same exposure?
>>2790009
Because that's not how a digital workflow works and you know it.
>>2790009
Why would that prove anything? If you want digital to look like film, you have to shoot it correctly. Is that somehow an inconvenience to you? Nobody is saying that digital works like film. It's exactly the opposite. Film isn't flexible. Digital can do whatever you need it to do, if you use it correctly. Removing "use it correctly" takes away its capabilities, and leads to film fags not knowing how to do one of the more important aspects of photography, and blaming their equipment.
