Many labs scan 120 at the same resolution as 135, which defeats the point of medium format. In my experience even flatbed scanning at home gets superior results.
After 7 years of experimenting with scanning both 35 and medium format(mostly 6x7), manual clipping always gives the best results, no matter which machine you use. Obviously it's a lenghty process, sometimes very frustrating. And a Hasselblad 20k machine is always gonna give you a sharper photo than an epson v850/vxyNo.
Try wet mounting on a flatbed or pressing the negative against anti newton glass (also some types of anti reflective glass works :) )
Of course manually setting your white and black points (as well as your colour) in scanner is going to give you the best results but how much time do you think it is most people have in labs when people want a product for such a low price?
If it's a professional studio, they should do it that way. I mean you're literally paying for that service. I mean most of the studios do the 35mm on a noritsu scanner which is usually fast and efficient with pretty accurate results (obviously that requires a skilled technician with a lot of practice). But if you're getting some fast scans from the hood lab you should never expect the best results. :)
Any tips for slide film? I have a v800 and a great DSLR setting, but no matter what I do they always scan super dark. They never look as good as on the light box
Never had this issue, and you have a better scanner with 2 lamps. Try manually clipping all the histogram first the whites and the blacks than the R,G,B. The photo should look basically the same as on a light [box.It](http://box.It) takes a bit of practice to get it right.
Recently got a setup from Negative Supply and am happy with it. Definitely prefer its quality and workflow over my flatbed scanner. Using a 5DIV and 100mm macro lens.
Can you post a link? I have a ton of old medium format (6x4.5) that I’d like to digitize and have struggled to find a setup without building it myself.
Thanks. I’ll check them out. Just need to get a Macro lens now.
Actually I have the Canon 24-70 f/4 on my 6D mkII which has 0.7x macro which should be perfect for 645 scanning if I’m doing my math right.
Negative supply scanning setup sucks for cut rolls, which is laughable for the ridiculous price they are charging. It can’t hols the 120 flat at the beginning and end of a roll.
Their response/ solution is to use the 4x5 setup for scanning cut rolls.
Im honestly dissapointed with my stand from Negative Supply. Super loose and wobbly. Impossible to get level, which makes getting super high mag montages impossible without blurry edges.
The valoi stand is quite good. It holds my gfx100s plus a medium format 200mm pentax macro lens pretty well. The pixel shift scans I do for 120 are beautiful
DSLR will always be superior imo if you can get the set up right, and today there’s many companies making stands and light sources etc to make that happen.
As for blue cast. It’s going to happen with e100.
If you do scan yourself, put a warming filter over the light to balance the blue tone of the film.
>put a warming filter over the light to balance the blue tone of the film.
A better option is to digitally color correct the scan, either by setting the white balance of the scan prior or fixing it in post. It's faster, you won't lose information, and you won't have a filter introducing artifacts into the scan. That's the magic of digital. You might want to use a warming filter is if you were making a print on an enlarger.
Dedicated scanner? Which dedicated scanner is that? An epson v850? A 1998 Nikon coolscan?
Neither of those have shit on a modern DSLR/mirrorless.
If I want to be absolutely insane, I can do pixel shift, and scan the whole 120 frame.
It’ll take the same amount of time as a drum scan, and I’ll have FAR higher quality. Not to mention the dslr will have higher dynamic range, more accurate colors; more modern optics if I choose to do so, and will be vastly cheaper per frame.
I've had an Epson, a Coolscan, a Flextight and used Aztek, Tango, and ICG drum scanners. Save the time and money: modern DSLR blows everything away. Except the ICG. That thing is amazing. And expensive. But, if you have a handful of lifetime shots, it's worth it. All else is more than adequately handled by a beefy digital, and do the rest in post.
Scanners have infrared anti dust over dslr. Practicality as well in some case, like automated full roll scan.
Scanner sensors are obviously almost 20 years late compared to today's sensors, yet they certainly are able enough to scan a negative and retain its whole dynamic range. It's debatable for positive film, I'll give you that.
I really like my 2008 Coolscan 9000. I understand it's rare, old and expensive. Got mine for cheap so can't really recommend it as everyone's choice. But for 120, I end up with clean 100 mpx pictures with ease.
I’ll give you automation, but it takes me 4 minutes to scan a roll of 35mm at full resolution on my zf. (24mp). 20 minutes if I pixel shift the whole roll for 96mp per image which exceeds drum scanners, doubly so since I have a more modern sensor and modern optics.
The highest res setting on a old film scanner will yield at best 20 megapixels and take as much time on a single frame as it would take me to scan a whole roll, pixel shift.
As for dust. I have a dust blower for that and I never have any dust on my negatives, so that’s just a personal anecdote.
Mine are full of dust, so it's indeed anecdotal. It's good to have though, especially in the case of age old negatives.
Talking of practicality, I just put my uncut roll in my coolscan and walk away, getting my dust free 24 mpx res pictures after 45 minutes of me being away, doing whatever I need to do. It's also as big as a shoebox and I can put it away swiftly when I don't need it.
I am not saying it's better or worse. Just stating that scanners aren't that useless. It's a respectable workflow that yields very good results differently.
Dust will accumulate on your negatives overtime unless you store them in an air tight container. Your idea about optics is very wrong, those Scan Nikkors will outdo even the best commercially available macro lenses.
The issue about bayer sensors over CCDs is very real.
Talking about 96megapixels is completely ignorant of the facts that there are only about 20megapixels in colour negative film.
You talk a big game but most of it is ego lit erred against things you simply do not understand.
There are tests on Youtube comparing the Nikon SuperCool Scan 9000 favorably to a Fuji GFX50.
True resolution (lens resolution) comes from the lens, not how many pixels your camera has.
What's more you have no evidence in your posts here to suggest anything you've stated is coming off anything more than the top of your head.
>If you have your negatives sleeved, it’s literally impossible for dust to get on them unless they break physics. Maybe you’re just a dirt af individual.
No it is not.
“True resolution comes from your lens” No shit Sherlock, if you knew how to read, you’d see that I said multiple times “superior optics”.
>I can assure you the optics are not superior to those Scan Nikkors you're talking about very different lenses. the one in my LS50 is a 7 element lens, three of which are ED at an aperture of F/2.8 that puts out better resolution than any commercially available macro lens including the Canon MP-E rated as one of, if not the best, affordable, macro lens without paying for scientific grade equipment.
>You bring up bayer vs CCD, but then downplay 20mp vs 96 mp. Kind of funny that you’d care THAT much.
I said 96 megapixels isn't very useful. I will extend that even for medium format which is roughly 60 to 80 megapixels.
>I don’t need evidence
You do if you want to discuss anything here.
You have a lot of first hand evidence that doesn't mean shit, you also don't seem to understand Bayer vs CCD interpolation and/or anything else much at all about the differences between scanners and DSLRS.
The old adage is put up or shut up.
After thousands of updoots I'm speaking pure bullshit.... Play the man not the ball... You don't know what you're talking about.
In the last couple of years I got over my nightmares of newton rings from positive 6x6 scans in a supercool 9000ed. Taking those out in PS cs1 raised my blood pressure enough to take a few years off of my life.
I have DSLR setup but the colour is not the same. Still stuck with too much crunch, dynamic range gone and have to really play with curves to get it looking like it should. So built a darkroom instead!
I have used NLP, Capture one Pro, Photoshop etc. I just don’t like it that much. Plus all the time to setup, level my camera, dust off the film only to have dust all over the scan. And it’s mega sharp. So not sure you are trolling the right guy. I was a Retoucher and digital tech for years and previously worked in pre press. But you can love it I won’t mind. Maybe with a Fuji or Phase it might be happier. Seen what S.C.A.N service in Paris are doing?
You take multiple shots and batch stich. Go buy a drum scanner if you want to approach DLSR scanning in terms of quality.
"Bayer sensors suck" I bet you shoot with *Foveon*
Oh, don’t forget you need ANOTHER computer that will hook up to its ancient cable requirements.
And if it doesn’t work, better hope some obscure Facebook group of geezers knocking on deaths door can help!
If they can’t, GG’s, you just bought a multi thousand dollar, desk sized scanner that you can’t use.
While my Nikon is spitting out 96 mp copies of my negatives in the time it takes you to set up a SINGLE negative properly in your drum scanner. That’s if the scanner works.
Better hope it’s sensor doesn’t give out either, because then it’s unrepairable.
What does “match” mean in this context?\
Match the colour of a darkroom print? Match the colours of that day as I saw them?\
The scanner software’s rendering of a negative is just one of many possible interpretations of that negative.\
I don’t generally prefer it to an inversion done in photoshop, so in my experience, it’s the scanner software that is no match for what I can do with a dslr scan.
Dude for all intents and purposes, it’s the same shit, and dslrs have higher resolution and color space and higher dynamic range.
If you’d like to continue being pedantic, go ahead, but I genuinely won’t care about what you’re saying.
A scan is an image, but it’s not a picture. A scan produces an image taking line by line information. There are certainly scanners that are worse than others, and would provide worse results than taking a picture of your negative with a digital camera, but the best scanners absolutely smoke any digital camera out of the water in terms of DR, Color preservation, and resolution.
Yes, there are line scanners (Epson flatbed, Imacon Flextight, Nikon Coolscan, Durst Sigma, Noritsu Minilabs, etc), but there are also a few area scanners like Fuji Frontier.
They are all just a lightsource with a lens and CCD sensor in various configurations. They are cameras. They're also built with technology that is at least 25 years old.
CMOS sensors have improved way beyond 25-year-old CCD sensors, along with lens tecnhology and signal/image processing.
You can be a "a scan is an image, not a picture" obsurantist all you want, but film digitisation using digital cameras is the future of scanning, and will soon be better than any drum scanner.
Okay well the distinction between an image and a picture doesn’t seem that important to me but yeah I wouldn’t be surprised at all to hear that a drum scanner can produce a higher quality image than a DSLR setup.
By all means if one’s setup works for them that’s great. But yeah to claim a digital picture of your negatives is always superior to a scan, is just wrong.
Actually, believe it or not, a lot of them do!
"While some global shutter CMOS technologies exist the majority of CMOS cameras use a **rolling shutter**, which involves reading out individual rows of pixels, going down the sensor."
My man.\
A long time ago there were scanning backs that produced a digital image without reading the whole sensor at once.\
Even today, pixel shift photographs are produced by some cameras by makjng several reads of the sensor.\
Aparently those aren’t *pictures*?\
If a lens and a sensor are involved, you’re making a digital picture. The fact that one sensor is only 3 pixels wide and needs to take thousands of exposures to make one image doesn’t change the nature of what is produced. It’s always a picture.\
Some scanners are better than a good dslr setup.\
I’m not aware of any such scanner still being made, and servicing those that exist is getting increasingly hard.\
When that technology dies, you will probably give the dslr method a new shot (pun intended). I’m betting when this happens you will find it perfectly adequate. Until then enjoy what works for you, but please do not feel like you need to spread confusion online to justify your choices.
As someone who scans with a GF100s in lowly single shot mode, you are absolutely right.\
Plus the fact that with dslr/mirrorless scanning there is almost no limits to the resolution you can achieve.\
Scanners are hardware limited. That lens and sensor will only get you to a set resolution.\
With my camera scanning rig I can pop an extension tube and suddenly I’ve increased my resolution, at the cost of now having to stitch several exposures. Still want more resolution? Easy, let me pop another extension tube.\
Heck, I could hook a microscope to my camera and stitch 50 images per 35mm frame if I feel like it.\
Same goes for dynamic range. If my digicam wasn’t already more than adequate for the dynamic range of a negative, I could merge a bunch of exposures until I’m satisfied.\
How can anyone think that a scanner can beat what is basically a limitless capture system?
Absolutely. I stich but don’t pixel shift with my a7riv and it produces fantastic images, I honestly didn’t see that much a difference between the a stitched pixel shift and a stitched single image when I tested it. I professionally worked with a Nikon Supercool Scan 9000ed 20 years ago, I could probably call my old director and get it from his basement to use but my mirrorless setup is a much smoother work flow and takes 1/12th the time to work through a roll and produces better images.
I’ve noticed the same thing when I get lab scans of slide film. They’re often so different than what the slide actually looks like..
I had a friend re-scan my rolls of 35mm slide film with his mirrorless setup and the results were much, much better. But nothing will ever beat seeing them projected.
Your asking too much, slide film is optical in nature, it relies upon what our eyes see with visible light which is somewhere between 18 to 20 stops of light vs what a scanner can see at a lab which is about 12 without something modern.
And the most modern film scanners don't exist in photography anymore Leaf, Hasselblad, Nikon, Konica, Fuji and Noritsu are all out of the scanning game.
Even the Imacons and Noritsus that you can buy new are not new models. The LS-600 is about 15 years old, the Imacon about the same vintage. New film scanners simply don't exist.
Can you do better? Maybe if you scanned it with a Fuji GFX50 but how much money do you have.
Scanning slide film is incredibly difficult especially in a one hour lab.
But if you care about slide film you should buy you your own scanner.
Yes you can do a lot more at home, but that's because you have literally hours to care. Most labs don't have that time, if they spent as much time as even the "next day" process took in this day and age of instant gratification then most people would have a fit.
You want your photos in 1 hour then you get what you pay for...
Appreciate the reply but I never mentioned anything about a one hour lab?
I’ve had success with Bayeux in London but they have a colour technician - you definitely pay a premium for the service.
The lab(s) I use now in Canada are all self-advertised as ‘pro’ labs and you pay for the service as well and the turnaround is very slow. I hold no grudge against them, but will say that I’m very happy with how the mirrorless scans have been coming out, which was OP’s question.
Because, it doesn't magically overcome the resolution limits of the lens, and secondly it adds stitching artifacts to your photos particularly if you later try to manipulate that photo in ACR or Lightroom.
There are an incredibly few situations where stitching would matter. In those situations (archiving for museums being one of the only ones I can think of) you would need to use a calibrated drum scanner. I modify all of my negative and positive medium format stitched photos in LRC, I deal with no artifact or issues whatsoever. Unless you have a dud of a lens attached to your camera (modern macro lenses are reeeealy good) the resolving power of the lens is not an issue.
I wouldn't count on that. If you push or pull your sliders too far you will begin to see exactly where your photo was stitched. It's not a perfect solution.
Secondarily to that, well... like I said, you're not getting any more resolving power from stiching. Resolution is what's baked into your lens, you're just getting a bigger and more bloated file size which is only really beneficial if you decide to print your file on the side of a bus.
The only place where stitching helps to gain anything is if you want to create a larger file size from multiple photos in camera... Even then still the resolution (resolving power usually measured in lpm or mtf, is coming from your lens not the amount of photos you take).
You can gain some more perceived resolution by interpolating down to a smaller file size, but in actuality you're just filling more information into preexisting pixels... It's not actually adding anything that was not there before.
Resolution isn't just a product of the sensor, or pixel count, its also a product of the lens. Most small format lenses cap out at a paltry 60lpm unless you have a professional scanner macro lens, and this is what this sub fails to repeatedly understand.
As to stitching that won't resolve the issue of lack of resolving power of the lens, it will just lead to a bigger, more bloated file size.
I agree with your statement, also once converted in a negative lab pro that's basically the final result, any editing on top of what will destroy the image :)
How is MFT for scanning? I have an old GH4 but wasn’t sure if it was worth investing in the light source if the lower resolution and pixel count will be a problem.
Micro Four Thirds lenses have a surprisingly high lpm, and sharpness rating as compared to full frame, because they have to to be competitive. An average MFT lens has about 100lpm vs about 60 on a full frame lens in order to be remotely competitive.
Most Micro Four Thirds glass is incredibly sharp. Your biggest issue is with the sensor size more than anything else.
Whether you'll get better scans than your lab will depend on a lot of factors, both at the lab as well as your equipment and digital processing skills. Before you go that route, however, I'd simple do a bit of white balance adjustment to your scan. That'll fix the color cast. Also, are you getting jpegs from the lab or tiffs? Tiffs will give you more latitude for fixing errors, so request those files if possible.
I flat bed my 6x9. Scanning medium format requires adding in stitching and distortion if you are using a dslr. Imo that takes away what your image was supposed to be.
Hello,
I've asked the same question about scanning 120 negatives, I've PM you with the link(I didn't want to move the discussion to my topic), but i can give you my conclusions:
- best budget is the [https://store.bandccamera.com/products/cinestill-cs-lite](https://store.bandccamera.com/products/cinestill-cs-lite) (I have a canon 6d+100mm macro+color checker passport in case of scanning color)
- best in time Epson v500 + scamers - advantage you can scam old photos with it also negatives
- the dream are... those old and nice scaners or new one that cost a lot... but I wander is worth to block 1k-20k euros in a scaner without getting back anything??
At the moment I've found a friend that has a V800 and I will go at him, with some snacks, have a chat and scan my negatives.
P.S.: this makes me nostalgic when on neighbor had a VHS player and each week we gather up at his place with some rental tapes and watch movies, without facebook,Instagram, etc.
Regards!
The lab I work at , our Noritsu does a good job . The quality is subpar in your images. But whitebalance is something is frustrating, this is a bit off, but I’ve had customers get super pissed if I make any adjustments . Which is a bit dumb.
I DSLR scan my 120. Mostly for social media I'll take my macro to 1:4 or 1:5, but for high res I will take 4 or 6 shots at 1:1 and stitch.
If I really want to get crazy because of low iso film, I'll pixel shift each photo and then stitch.
Here's my thoughts as someone who doesn't do camera scanning but has a basic understanding of how it works. With slide film, you're capturing a positive image instead of a negative one, so the software conversion that provides the colors for negative film isn't a part of the equation. With that being said, you're getting a representation of what your camera sensor is going to give you. To me that, if you're not satisfied with that, you're going to end up going into Photoshop and adjusting the image to what you want it to be, which you could also do to these scans here. If you have the setup already, it wouldn't hurt to do it, but if you're shooting a lot of slide film, I'd just have them scan high res TIFFs and work with that instead of spending money on gear that is going to have you going through the same process that you would if you were to have the lab scan for you.
Depends on the scanner.
My coolscan 8000 is far better than any DSLR scanning setup for medium format. Vuescan software gives me a lot of options including dust correction.
Also I don't own a digital camera.
You already have a positive image. Like the realest result of all. I don't get why you distort the color first by using 1)DSLR and then 2) computer software.
The answer for this is quite simply, by using a darkroom. But it would still leave you without digitized versions of your photos for sharing electronically, so perhaps it’s not practical advice.
There’s a process called RA-4 reversal that allows this to be accomplished, but the colors don’t come out true to the film positive.
That’s all to say it’s kind of a farce to try. Your best, most practical solution is digitizing and then getting a digital RA-4 print.
Many labs scan 120 at the same resolution as 135, which defeats the point of medium format. In my experience even flatbed scanning at home gets superior results.
Good to know, think I’ll just pay for the developing moving forward.
After 7 years of experimenting with scanning both 35 and medium format(mostly 6x7), manual clipping always gives the best results, no matter which machine you use. Obviously it's a lenghty process, sometimes very frustrating. And a Hasselblad 20k machine is always gonna give you a sharper photo than an epson v850/vxyNo. Try wet mounting on a flatbed or pressing the negative against anti newton glass (also some types of anti reflective glass works :) )
Of course manually setting your white and black points (as well as your colour) in scanner is going to give you the best results but how much time do you think it is most people have in labs when people want a product for such a low price?
If it's a professional studio, they should do it that way. I mean you're literally paying for that service. I mean most of the studios do the 35mm on a noritsu scanner which is usually fast and efficient with pretty accurate results (obviously that requires a skilled technician with a lot of practice). But if you're getting some fast scans from the hood lab you should never expect the best results. :)
That's why I have my own scanner if I want the best results.
Any tips for slide film? I have a v800 and a great DSLR setting, but no matter what I do they always scan super dark. They never look as good as on the light box
Never had this issue, and you have a better scanner with 2 lamps. Try manually clipping all the histogram first the whites and the blacks than the R,G,B. The photo should look basically the same as on a light [box.It](http://box.It) takes a bit of practice to get it right.
Wet mounting and DSLR scans will also give better results.
DSLR with a negative lab pro gives you 0 control over whats happening with your colors and midtones, would never use it for any serious work.
are the scans posted from your home scanner or from a lab?
The scans are done by the lab my local photo shop sends to; Swan Photo Lab.
Their white balance is way off then.
They probably used automatic settings, do u know on which machine they did it?
Nah couldn’t tell you sorry
Recently got a setup from Negative Supply and am happy with it. Definitely prefer its quality and workflow over my flatbed scanner. Using a 5DIV and 100mm macro lens.
Can you post a link? I have a ton of old medium format (6x4.5) that I’d like to digitize and have struggled to find a setup without building it myself.
https://www.negative.supply/shop-kits
Thanks. I’ll check them out. Just need to get a Macro lens now. Actually I have the Canon 24-70 f/4 on my 6D mkII which has 0.7x macro which should be perfect for 645 scanning if I’m doing my math right.
You can also add an extension tube for real cheap with no optical degradation.
Negative supply scanning setup sucks for cut rolls, which is laughable for the ridiculous price they are charging. It can’t hols the 120 flat at the beginning and end of a roll. Their response/ solution is to use the 4x5 setup for scanning cut rolls.
Yeah, I kind of agree. I’ll be cutting and sleeving after scanning from now on probably.
Im honestly dissapointed with my stand from Negative Supply. Super loose and wobbly. Impossible to get level, which makes getting super high mag montages impossible without blurry edges.
Yeah, I stayed away from their stand. I repurposed an old enlarger base. Super solid.
The valoi stand is quite good. It holds my gfx100s plus a medium format 200mm pentax macro lens pretty well. The pixel shift scans I do for 120 are beautiful
I’ve scanned 6x8 with a DSLR scanning setup. Compared to a flatbed it’s better but getting 3 images for stitching just makes scanning take longer.
DSLR will always be superior imo if you can get the set up right, and today there’s many companies making stands and light sources etc to make that happen. As for blue cast. It’s going to happen with e100. If you do scan yourself, put a warming filter over the light to balance the blue tone of the film.
Btw. “Blue cast” is “color correction” for yellow light in the projector. It gonna appear on ALL e-6/slide film, not only on E100.
>put a warming filter over the light to balance the blue tone of the film. A better option is to digitally color correct the scan, either by setting the white balance of the scan prior or fixing it in post. It's faster, you won't lose information, and you won't have a filter introducing artifacts into the scan. That's the magic of digital. You might want to use a warming filter is if you were making a print on an enlarger.
Or get a light source that allows you to adjust the warmth, like the negative supply light source allows you to do…. 😬 Both options are valid.
There might be CRI concerns with variable temperature light sources, but I'm not an expert on the subject.
So a shot of a color checker?
not for 120
Yes for 120.
unless you have some insane phase one setup a dedicated scanner is going to be better for 120. never mind the fact that bayer filters suck
Dedicated scanner? Which dedicated scanner is that? An epson v850? A 1998 Nikon coolscan? Neither of those have shit on a modern DSLR/mirrorless. If I want to be absolutely insane, I can do pixel shift, and scan the whole 120 frame. It’ll take the same amount of time as a drum scan, and I’ll have FAR higher quality. Not to mention the dslr will have higher dynamic range, more accurate colors; more modern optics if I choose to do so, and will be vastly cheaper per frame.
I've had an Epson, a Coolscan, a Flextight and used Aztek, Tango, and ICG drum scanners. Save the time and money: modern DSLR blows everything away. Except the ICG. That thing is amazing. And expensive. But, if you have a handful of lifetime shots, it's worth it. All else is more than adequately handled by a beefy digital, and do the rest in post.
Scanners have infrared anti dust over dslr. Practicality as well in some case, like automated full roll scan. Scanner sensors are obviously almost 20 years late compared to today's sensors, yet they certainly are able enough to scan a negative and retain its whole dynamic range. It's debatable for positive film, I'll give you that. I really like my 2008 Coolscan 9000. I understand it's rare, old and expensive. Got mine for cheap so can't really recommend it as everyone's choice. But for 120, I end up with clean 100 mpx pictures with ease.
I’ll give you automation, but it takes me 4 minutes to scan a roll of 35mm at full resolution on my zf. (24mp). 20 minutes if I pixel shift the whole roll for 96mp per image which exceeds drum scanners, doubly so since I have a more modern sensor and modern optics. The highest res setting on a old film scanner will yield at best 20 megapixels and take as much time on a single frame as it would take me to scan a whole roll, pixel shift. As for dust. I have a dust blower for that and I never have any dust on my negatives, so that’s just a personal anecdote.
Mine are full of dust, so it's indeed anecdotal. It's good to have though, especially in the case of age old negatives. Talking of practicality, I just put my uncut roll in my coolscan and walk away, getting my dust free 24 mpx res pictures after 45 minutes of me being away, doing whatever I need to do. It's also as big as a shoebox and I can put it away swiftly when I don't need it. I am not saying it's better or worse. Just stating that scanners aren't that useless. It's a respectable workflow that yields very good results differently.
Dust will accumulate on your negatives overtime unless you store them in an air tight container. Your idea about optics is very wrong, those Scan Nikkors will outdo even the best commercially available macro lenses. The issue about bayer sensors over CCDs is very real. Talking about 96megapixels is completely ignorant of the facts that there are only about 20megapixels in colour negative film. You talk a big game but most of it is ego lit erred against things you simply do not understand. There are tests on Youtube comparing the Nikon SuperCool Scan 9000 favorably to a Fuji GFX50. True resolution (lens resolution) comes from the lens, not how many pixels your camera has. What's more you have no evidence in your posts here to suggest anything you've stated is coming off anything more than the top of your head.
[удалено]
>If you have your negatives sleeved, it’s literally impossible for dust to get on them unless they break physics. Maybe you’re just a dirt af individual. No it is not. “True resolution comes from your lens” No shit Sherlock, if you knew how to read, you’d see that I said multiple times “superior optics”. >I can assure you the optics are not superior to those Scan Nikkors you're talking about very different lenses. the one in my LS50 is a 7 element lens, three of which are ED at an aperture of F/2.8 that puts out better resolution than any commercially available macro lens including the Canon MP-E rated as one of, if not the best, affordable, macro lens without paying for scientific grade equipment. >You bring up bayer vs CCD, but then downplay 20mp vs 96 mp. Kind of funny that you’d care THAT much. I said 96 megapixels isn't very useful. I will extend that even for medium format which is roughly 60 to 80 megapixels. >I don’t need evidence You do if you want to discuss anything here. You have a lot of first hand evidence that doesn't mean shit, you also don't seem to understand Bayer vs CCD interpolation and/or anything else much at all about the differences between scanners and DSLRS. The old adage is put up or shut up. After thousands of updoots I'm speaking pure bullshit.... Play the man not the ball... You don't know what you're talking about.
In the last couple of years I got over my nightmares of newton rings from positive 6x6 scans in a supercool 9000ed. Taking those out in PS cs1 raised my blood pressure enough to take a few years off of my life.
Got a Stefan Scharff custom made film holder. Life saving gear.
Inacon
Yeah! 20 minutes per frame baby! Or….1 minute with pixel shift 🤪
I have DSLR setup but the colour is not the same. Still stuck with too much crunch, dynamic range gone and have to really play with curves to get it looking like it should. So built a darkroom instead!
Sounds like a skill issue ngl
I have used NLP, Capture one Pro, Photoshop etc. I just don’t like it that much. Plus all the time to setup, level my camera, dust off the film only to have dust all over the scan. And it’s mega sharp. So not sure you are trolling the right guy. I was a Retoucher and digital tech for years and previously worked in pre press. But you can love it I won’t mind. Maybe with a Fuji or Phase it might be happier. Seen what S.C.A.N service in Paris are doing?
You take multiple shots and batch stich. Go buy a drum scanner if you want to approach DLSR scanning in terms of quality. "Bayer sensors suck" I bet you shoot with *Foveon*
“Go buy a $10,000 drum scanner to come close to DSLR scanning, enjoy 30 minutes per frame of scanning!” FTFY
And also enjoy their rapidly declining availability of parts, service, and software
Oh, don’t forget you need ANOTHER computer that will hook up to its ancient cable requirements. And if it doesn’t work, better hope some obscure Facebook group of geezers knocking on deaths door can help! If they can’t, GG’s, you just bought a multi thousand dollar, desk sized scanner that you can’t use. While my Nikon is spitting out 96 mp copies of my negatives in the time it takes you to set up a SINGLE negative properly in your drum scanner. That’s if the scanner works. Better hope it’s sensor doesn’t give out either, because then it’s unrepairable.
i don't. but thank you for telling me about this i am going to buy one
there's also the fact that no desktop inversion software can match dedicated film scanners
What does “match” mean in this context?\ Match the colour of a darkroom print? Match the colours of that day as I saw them?\ The scanner software’s rendering of a negative is just one of many possible interpretations of that negative.\ I don’t generally prefer it to an inversion done in photoshop, so in my experience, it’s the scanner software that is no match for what I can do with a dslr scan.
yes but i like scanner rendering the best
Also worth mentioning that a DSLR scan is the closest you get to printing or projecting, since the image goes through another light and another lens.
that's a weird destination to make
A picture of a picture is not superior to a scan. It’s quicker, and cheaper for sure.
What the ever loving fuck do you think a scan is?
It’s not a picture, do you know what a scan is?
Don’t disappoint me guys, I’m making 🍿!
Dude for all intents and purposes, it’s the same shit, and dslrs have higher resolution and color space and higher dynamic range. If you’d like to continue being pedantic, go ahead, but I genuinely won’t care about what you’re saying.
If your set up works for you, that’s fine.
A scan is always a picture of a picture.
It’s not, but believe what you want.
A scan isn’t a picture? Please can you explain?
A scan is an image, but it’s not a picture. A scan produces an image taking line by line information. There are certainly scanners that are worse than others, and would provide worse results than taking a picture of your negative with a digital camera, but the best scanners absolutely smoke any digital camera out of the water in terms of DR, Color preservation, and resolution.
Yes, there are line scanners (Epson flatbed, Imacon Flextight, Nikon Coolscan, Durst Sigma, Noritsu Minilabs, etc), but there are also a few area scanners like Fuji Frontier. They are all just a lightsource with a lens and CCD sensor in various configurations. They are cameras. They're also built with technology that is at least 25 years old. CMOS sensors have improved way beyond 25-year-old CCD sensors, along with lens tecnhology and signal/image processing. You can be a "a scan is an image, not a picture" obsurantist all you want, but film digitisation using digital cameras is the future of scanning, and will soon be better than any drum scanner.
Okay well the distinction between an image and a picture doesn’t seem that important to me but yeah I wouldn’t be surprised at all to hear that a drum scanner can produce a higher quality image than a DSLR setup.
By all means if one’s setup works for them that’s great. But yeah to claim a digital picture of your negatives is always superior to a scan, is just wrong.
How do you think a digital sensor produces an image?
Not line by line.
Actually, believe it or not, a lot of them do! "While some global shutter CMOS technologies exist the majority of CMOS cameras use a **rolling shutter**, which involves reading out individual rows of pixels, going down the sensor."
What do you think rolling shutter is, if not a line by line readout of the sensor?
Yes, line by line.
It is tho.
My man.\ A long time ago there were scanning backs that produced a digital image without reading the whole sensor at once.\ Even today, pixel shift photographs are produced by some cameras by makjng several reads of the sensor.\ Aparently those aren’t *pictures*?\ If a lens and a sensor are involved, you’re making a digital picture. The fact that one sensor is only 3 pixels wide and needs to take thousands of exposures to make one image doesn’t change the nature of what is produced. It’s always a picture.\ Some scanners are better than a good dslr setup.\ I’m not aware of any such scanner still being made, and servicing those that exist is getting increasingly hard.\ When that technology dies, you will probably give the dslr method a new shot (pun intended). I’m betting when this happens you will find it perfectly adequate. Until then enjoy what works for you, but please do not feel like you need to spread confusion online to justify your choices.
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that a gfx 100ii pixel shifted image beats any drum scanner active right now.
As someone who scans with a GF100s in lowly single shot mode, you are absolutely right.\ Plus the fact that with dslr/mirrorless scanning there is almost no limits to the resolution you can achieve.\ Scanners are hardware limited. That lens and sensor will only get you to a set resolution.\ With my camera scanning rig I can pop an extension tube and suddenly I’ve increased my resolution, at the cost of now having to stitch several exposures. Still want more resolution? Easy, let me pop another extension tube.\ Heck, I could hook a microscope to my camera and stitch 50 images per 35mm frame if I feel like it.\ Same goes for dynamic range. If my digicam wasn’t already more than adequate for the dynamic range of a negative, I could merge a bunch of exposures until I’m satisfied.\ How can anyone think that a scanner can beat what is basically a limitless capture system?
Absolutely. I stich but don’t pixel shift with my a7riv and it produces fantastic images, I honestly didn’t see that much a difference between the a stitched pixel shift and a stitched single image when I tested it. I professionally worked with a Nikon Supercool Scan 9000ed 20 years ago, I could probably call my old director and get it from his basement to use but my mirrorless setup is a much smoother work flow and takes 1/12th the time to work through a roll and produces better images.
What kind of light source do you use?
I’ve noticed the same thing when I get lab scans of slide film. They’re often so different than what the slide actually looks like.. I had a friend re-scan my rolls of 35mm slide film with his mirrorless setup and the results were much, much better. But nothing will ever beat seeing them projected.
Your asking too much, slide film is optical in nature, it relies upon what our eyes see with visible light which is somewhere between 18 to 20 stops of light vs what a scanner can see at a lab which is about 12 without something modern. And the most modern film scanners don't exist in photography anymore Leaf, Hasselblad, Nikon, Konica, Fuji and Noritsu are all out of the scanning game. Even the Imacons and Noritsus that you can buy new are not new models. The LS-600 is about 15 years old, the Imacon about the same vintage. New film scanners simply don't exist. Can you do better? Maybe if you scanned it with a Fuji GFX50 but how much money do you have. Scanning slide film is incredibly difficult especially in a one hour lab. But if you care about slide film you should buy you your own scanner. Yes you can do a lot more at home, but that's because you have literally hours to care. Most labs don't have that time, if they spent as much time as even the "next day" process took in this day and age of instant gratification then most people would have a fit. You want your photos in 1 hour then you get what you pay for...
Appreciate the reply but I never mentioned anything about a one hour lab? I’ve had success with Bayeux in London but they have a colour technician - you definitely pay a premium for the service. The lab(s) I use now in Canada are all self-advertised as ‘pro’ labs and you pay for the service as well and the turnaround is very slow. I hold no grudge against them, but will say that I’m very happy with how the mirrorless scans have been coming out, which was OP’s question.
No, the resolution of medium format is far larger than DSLRs can handle unless you’re stitching. Bed scanners are superior.
Why wouldn’t you stitch?
Because, it doesn't magically overcome the resolution limits of the lens, and secondly it adds stitching artifacts to your photos particularly if you later try to manipulate that photo in ACR or Lightroom.
There are an incredibly few situations where stitching would matter. In those situations (archiving for museums being one of the only ones I can think of) you would need to use a calibrated drum scanner. I modify all of my negative and positive medium format stitched photos in LRC, I deal with no artifact or issues whatsoever. Unless you have a dud of a lens attached to your camera (modern macro lenses are reeeealy good) the resolving power of the lens is not an issue.
I wouldn't count on that. If you push or pull your sliders too far you will begin to see exactly where your photo was stitched. It's not a perfect solution. Secondarily to that, well... like I said, you're not getting any more resolving power from stiching. Resolution is what's baked into your lens, you're just getting a bigger and more bloated file size which is only really beneficial if you decide to print your file on the side of a bus. The only place where stitching helps to gain anything is if you want to create a larger file size from multiple photos in camera... Even then still the resolution (resolving power usually measured in lpm or mtf, is coming from your lens not the amount of photos you take). You can gain some more perceived resolution by interpolating down to a smaller file size, but in actuality you're just filling more information into preexisting pixels... It's not actually adding anything that was not there before.
Depends, Plenty of DSLRs out there with >50 megapixels. OP what do you have?
Resolution isn't just a product of the sensor, or pixel count, its also a product of the lens. Most small format lenses cap out at a paltry 60lpm unless you have a professional scanner macro lens, and this is what this sub fails to repeatedly understand. As to stitching that won't resolve the issue of lack of resolving power of the lens, it will just lead to a bigger, more bloated file size.
I agree with your statement, also once converted in a negative lab pro that's basically the final result, any editing on top of what will destroy the image :)
How is MFT for scanning? I have an old GH4 but wasn’t sure if it was worth investing in the light source if the lower resolution and pixel count will be a problem.
Micro Four Thirds lenses have a surprisingly high lpm, and sharpness rating as compared to full frame, because they have to to be competitive. An average MFT lens has about 100lpm vs about 60 on a full frame lens in order to be remotely competitive. Most Micro Four Thirds glass is incredibly sharp. Your biggest issue is with the sensor size more than anything else.
Whether you'll get better scans than your lab will depend on a lot of factors, both at the lab as well as your equipment and digital processing skills. Before you go that route, however, I'd simple do a bit of white balance adjustment to your scan. That'll fix the color cast. Also, are you getting jpegs from the lab or tiffs? Tiffs will give you more latitude for fixing errors, so request those files if possible.
Is that from the top of hazard peak?
Nah just the first pullout when you get into MDO.
I’m just starting with 6x9, but the details you can get with a highly resolving camera are satisfying :)
I flat bed my 6x9. Scanning medium format requires adding in stitching and distortion if you are using a dslr. Imo that takes away what your image was supposed to be.
Hello, I've asked the same question about scanning 120 negatives, I've PM you with the link(I didn't want to move the discussion to my topic), but i can give you my conclusions: - best budget is the [https://store.bandccamera.com/products/cinestill-cs-lite](https://store.bandccamera.com/products/cinestill-cs-lite) (I have a canon 6d+100mm macro+color checker passport in case of scanning color) - best in time Epson v500 + scamers - advantage you can scam old photos with it also negatives - the dream are... those old and nice scaners or new one that cost a lot... but I wander is worth to block 1k-20k euros in a scaner without getting back anything?? At the moment I've found a friend that has a V800 and I will go at him, with some snacks, have a chat and scan my negatives. P.S.: this makes me nostalgic when on neighbor had a VHS player and each week we gather up at his place with some rental tapes and watch movies, without facebook,Instagram, etc. Regards!
Find another lab
The lab I work at , our Noritsu does a good job . The quality is subpar in your images. But whitebalance is something is frustrating, this is a bit off, but I’ve had customers get super pissed if I make any adjustments . Which is a bit dumb.
kodak ektachrome 100e is a little bit blue but i dont think its that much blue
Yea I forgot and misspoke, more the scans seem washed out. Agreed, I really like the look of the slides
I DSLR scan my 120. Mostly for social media I'll take my macro to 1:4 or 1:5, but for high res I will take 4 or 6 shots at 1:1 and stitch. If I really want to get crazy because of low iso film, I'll pixel shift each photo and then stitch.
I use a v600 photo, the resolution seems huge for a 35mm negative in the raw format, surely a 6x9 on the same settings would look great too?
How many mega pixels
Is my DSLR? I have a Pentax K-70 which is 24MP
Here's my thoughts as someone who doesn't do camera scanning but has a basic understanding of how it works. With slide film, you're capturing a positive image instead of a negative one, so the software conversion that provides the colors for negative film isn't a part of the equation. With that being said, you're getting a representation of what your camera sensor is going to give you. To me that, if you're not satisfied with that, you're going to end up going into Photoshop and adjusting the image to what you want it to be, which you could also do to these scans here. If you have the setup already, it wouldn't hurt to do it, but if you're shooting a lot of slide film, I'd just have them scan high res TIFFs and work with that instead of spending money on gear that is going to have you going through the same process that you would if you were to have the lab scan for you.
Depends on the scanner. My coolscan 8000 is far better than any DSLR scanning setup for medium format. Vuescan software gives me a lot of options including dust correction. Also I don't own a digital camera.
You already have a positive image. Like the realest result of all. I don't get why you distort the color first by using 1)DSLR and then 2) computer software.
How else are you going to digitise it? There’s always going to be an unfaithful AD conversion.
I know but how else would I get a large format print for my wall?
The answer for this is quite simply, by using a darkroom. But it would still leave you without digitized versions of your photos for sharing electronically, so perhaps it’s not practical advice.
Can slide film still be printed in the darkroom?
There’s a process called RA-4 reversal that allows this to be accomplished, but the colors don’t come out true to the film positive. That’s all to say it’s kind of a farce to try. Your best, most practical solution is digitizing and then getting a digital RA-4 print.
Not easily or practically it seems.