Well, for 35mm this setup (700d + kitlens) just does not work properly. Medium format 6x7 however is very okay. However, I think I finally have a reason to get the goddamn 100mm L 2.8 lens. Manually focusing in tethered shooting should be cool with it as well since you don't get all the goddamn noise in liveview with that aperture. What do you use for film scanning? Any particular tips how I can improve my setup right here?
All that white light causes lens flare and lowers the contrast of your scans. Mask off all the light that isn't behind your film with something opaque like black construction paper.
>>2846298
Thank you very much!
>>2846295
Nice setup. I have a similar one where I place 2 pieces of cardboard with a piece of plexiglass in between held together by clamps. I then illuminate the negatives with a super bright tractor light that I have
>>2846295
Can't you see the grain of the paper behind the film once you stop down for optimal sharpness?
My setup isn't perfect either, but I avoid this problem by using a self made film holder on top of a small wooden box with the light source in it, so the film is suspended.
I'm still looking for a way to improve film flatness though. Scanning 120 format Fomapan 400 is a PITA.
>>2846335
can you show us?
>>2847071
It's a piece of plastic bag,not paper. I use it to be able to not see the pixels of the tablet PC at f8.
By the way, I really got the 2.8 L lens and it's fucking brilliant. Gonna post some results today. If anyone of you could point me to a good tutorial how to do batch color processing that would be great. By batch I mean : set your stuff right once per film type and use the settings for every frame of the film.
>>2847372
you could just make a preset in lightroom and then use apply settings on import
>>2847381
Yes, I know how to make and set presets. The issue is that I first scanned some colorful pictures with flowers on them, matched the colors to an optical print I already had and after an hour of tweaking I was satisfied. Applying this preset to a portrait however turned out to be horrible with abysmal skintones and other problems. Both negatives were from the same roll of film. I need a general course in color management of scanned color negatives I guess.
>>2847372
>By batch I mean : set your stuff right once per film type and use the settings for every frame of the film.
You can't.
Or you can, but it just looks like shit, as you discovered.
And the thing is, even when you find something you can apply to a few similar looking images and get ok results, the sheer fact that you know you can get better results by making a few tweaks means your never going to be happy leaving well enough alone.
>and it gets worse, because if you get fed up and ragequit back to digital, once you know how to manually colour correct, you're never going to be happy with your digital colours either
>>2847495
OK if it simply doesn't work that's also no problem. I've got all the time in the world to tweak each image as long as I can properly preview each one of them.
I shoot mostly black and white anyway and for the few remaining dying velvia I have in Stock it will be okay to do them individually anyway.
>>2847391
You don't make your preset to match the film perfectly, you do it to get to a flat base-point and then go the rest of the way from there. If you're matching to an image that has lots of yellows and greens and blues, you can match it perfectly, without realizing what that edit would be doing to reds and oranges and purples. So applying the same preset to another image with different colors and intensities will show dramatically different results.
The only way to make it more or less universal is to do make the preset using a color picker chart, and probably at multiple exposures to have the affects to colors shifted for bright light and for dim light as well.
>>2847581
Thanks for all those tips. I will postpone posting examples until I'm 100 % satisfied with color PP as well.
can't you just buy a scanner for $20 from ebay?
>>2847673
Sure, but the results will be dog shit. Cheap scanners don't handle the range and density of film well, and also have trouble with colors. The largest issue by far is fine detail though. They don't have any of it.
The less expensive good scanners are all used and old, which is fine, except they aren't supported by their manufacturers anymore, and many of them have archaic software and interface that won't work with modern machines. Like, need to have a dedicated machine running windows 95 in order to use it, type thing.
The modern (by comparison) high quality scanners are usually like $3000 and up, used.
>>2847681
what''s the dpi required to get a good scan from 35mm?
>>2847690
Its not so much DPI as it is optics. They just don't focus well at that small level. But more importantly, you can't trust the resolution they claim anyways. Something like a V500 will claim it can do up to like 6400ppi, but anything higher than about 1600ppi is just a bigger file, without any additional detail.
Something like 3600ppi TRUE resolution would do nicely, but that's really hard to find, and impossible to find for cheap and modern.
There's a company called Better Scanning (and by that I mean one guy named Doug) that makes different film holders that are better than the supplied ones you get with shit flatbeds that try to deal with the normal issues, like optics that focus a few mm above the glass, and film that isn't held flat, but those are sort of a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
>>2847698
still though, does the $1000 ipad + rabal rig beat a $20 office scanner?
>>2847698
>Something like 3600ppi TRUE resolution would do nicely,
To expand on this, since that's a generalization:
Film is about 1 inch by 1.5 inches (24mm x 36mm). So a 3600ppi scan would give you ABOUT 3600x5400, which is just under 20 megapixels.
If you've shot well, and your negative/slide has detail down to that level, then it leaves you with a nicely detailed 20mp file. If you've shot poorly, or shot on bad film, or you have a crappy lens that won't resolve that much detail, then it's overkill.
>>2847720
Chances are good the office scanner can't even scan film, as it requires a back-light. Reflective scanners won't work for film.
But in the hands of someone who knows how to process the files, with a middling to good setup, a DSLR+macro lens capture rig will demolish any scanner you can get your hands on.
>>2847723
what happens with reflective scanner? does the reflection just wash out everything?
>>2847720
No.
Rabal, optically triggered flash, macro lens, tripod, bubble level, light mask, and shoot through diffuser box beats shatbed, dedicated scanner, and poorly thought out camerra scans though.
>>2847724
There's just no color or contrast. It looks like a brown mush, for negatives. Film is specifically designed to be used with the light source passing through it. That's how negative film works, the final result is a positive, because what's on the film is blocked out. Slide film is specifically for projection.
>>2847727
>shoot through diffuser box
can you explain this part a bit more?
>>2847733
The problem with using a flash is that it's a point source light, even with it set to wide and the diffuser panel in place. The solution is to take a sufficiently long container and put diffusing material between the flash and the film. Now you have diffuse, full spectrum, daylight balanced light that is instantaneous. All you need now is a camera with live view (or CDAF), a tripod, a level, and some time to kill.
I'm at work, I dont have pictures of my setup, just the results. I'll try to remember to take a picture later.
>tfw no macro lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 662 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:08:21 01:52:56 Exposure Time 1/200 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 1/3 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Focal Length 5.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2847733
>can you explain this part a bit more?
>>2847730
>Film is specifically designed to be used with the light source passing through it. That's how negative film works, the final result is a positive, because what's on the film is blocked out. Slide film is specifically for projection.
Diffused light to keep it even and balanced, with no hot-spots. Diffusion away from the light to keep from seeing details like you would get when laying film against a screen like a phone or tablet.
>>2847746
wait don't you need to use back light why don't you just use a light table?
>>2847754
A backlight for what? Focusing? I use a flashlight. For light source? I don't want 2 second exposure times. It takes too long, you have to remember not to shake your tripod, and you have to worry about ambient light. A speedlight and a flashlight is much easier to deal with. Also it's quick to adjust exposure with a speedlight without messing with your aperture and worrying about focus shift.
>>2847761
I trigger my tripod via tethered shooting (canon EOS utility). No camera shake, especially with mirror lockup which the 700D supports. You can focus via 200% loupe included in the program which you can freely move around the frame. Only recommend for relatively fast lenses though otherwise background noise of live view is unbearable. This way you can quickly see whether your film is REALLY plane at 2.8 aperture and 100mm focal length with 30 cm focusing distance as well.
>>2847776
Forget the mirror lockup part, the mirror is up in live view anyway. But it's useful when shooting with a normal remote.
>>2847698
>>2847722
I use a flatbed (Canon 9000F MkII) and the results are decent for 6x6, but I can totally see how it'd be garbage for 35.
I have one of those glass "sandwich" contact sheet holders and an actual lightbox, I wonder if that would work well for DSLR scanning or if the glass would bring too much distortion with it.
>>2847781
Use a single piece of glass with electrical tape to keep the film flat, and shoot that with a strong wide spectrum light source and a good lens on a DLSR set up correctly and you'll find out you have DRAMATICALLY more detail in your photos than you think you do currently.
>>2847776
Alas, nikon cannot into features. If it were an option, a tethered live view loupe would be ideal. I'd still shoot with a flash though. Multi-second exposures drive me crazy.
>>2847782
I get enough detail for the sizes I post shit at with my MF photos, but I'll definitely have to do that if I shoot 35.
Lens is the big hangup for me at the moment, I don't have anything that focuses close enough. (Except, ironically, a 4/120 makro and extension tube for my Hassy.) I may grab a cheap extension tube so I can use one of my primes as a macro for this.
I'll use this as a scanning general.
anyone know a better way for 4x5 that doesn't involve a drum scanner or Imacon?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH Camera Model GXR MOUNT A12 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:25 13:06:37 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Brightness 0 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 960 Image Height 1280 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2847824
Why not just tape the film to the light box...? Also, unless you do that with all the lights in the room turned off, and any windows blocked, you're going to be losing a lot of contrast to light spill.
>>2847834
light box is about 2 feet behind the holder, i find any closer and i get imperfections from the white plexi coming through
>>2847824
What if you made a rig out of cardboard or foam core that would hold the film at one end, and the lightbox at the other? It'd direct the light into the neg better and keep external light from fucking with the white balance or exposure.
Personally I think a flatbed is probably pretty OK for something as big as 4x5, too. Maybe scan all your frames on a flatbed to preview and catalog them and then use the rig for the keepers?
>>2847372
ah thanks for the plastic bag idea. was just starting with dslr scanning and ran into the pixel problem as well
>goes in all threads
[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
>>2847856
>>2847834
pumped the contrast up too high and I think I got a tiny bit of motion blur. the grip arm holding the neg is slightly shaky
[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 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:25 14:02:23 Image Created 2016:05:25 12:59:20 Exposure Time 1/3 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -4.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Day White Fluorescent Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 791 Image Height 1000 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2847897
my 35mm scans w/ >>2847891 are streets better.
For big film, you should be stitching a few shots, but to start getting better quality with what you're using, switch off all the room lights and use a diffused flash to illuminate your negative.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1194 Image Height 800
>>2847905
I was going to suggest flash, but I'm not sure how he'd get it even enough with the setup he has. Even a good softbox is going to have a hot spot.
>>2847246
Here ya go
Only thing missing is my camera on my tripod (obviously)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-N910P Camera Software N910PVPS4DPD1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:25 21:17:19 Exposure Time 1/24 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 0.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID H16ULHK02SA
>>2848065
I cut out 135 slots but found it easier to just use the larger space for the 35mm roll.
Also I can scan much faster right after developing since it's all on the roll before I cut it.
My only worries are that I'm scratching the film while I slide it through the cardboard. Maybe I could place some felt in between?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-N910P Camera Software N910PVPS4DPD1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:25 21:17:43 Exposure Time 1/24 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 0.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID H16ULHK02SA
Here's my setup. Not shown: light mask/film flattener, large diameter cardboard tube to reduce ambient light (even though I shoot at 1/200), flash, and flashlight (RIP).
White parchment paper in 2 layers, and aluminium foil covering all brown surfaces on the inside. Rickety legs and film guides glued on. Film sliding surface covered in electrical tape. Box used is a Honda Odyssey fuel pump box from when they were doing those recalls. Anything similar should work. Shooting my YN560III at 1/8-1/32 and a reversed 50/1.8D at F8-11.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make BlackBerry Camera Model BlackBerry Q5 Camera Software BlackBerry 10.3.2.2639 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 30 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Exposure Time 20801/500000 sec F-Number f/2.4 ISO Speed Rating 83 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 3.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2847823
you probably should get a macro though, a non macro would have bad IQ at close focusing distance
I currently do not own a DSLR. I have Nikon lenses (and macro lenses) so would a cheap second hand Nikon crop-frame DSLR be alright?
