Discussion in 'Film Discussion and Q & A' started by Bill Thornhill, Oct 19, 2015.
I wonder if they have compared them to a Hasleblad scanner
Seems like a digital variation (quite a variation!) of using a copy stand for film... those photos of Times Square aren't the same, but I couldn't access it anyway without an account to find out what was done, so I don't get it...
And I have a problem with the second sentence... this happened 20 years ago? gee I must have missed it... didn't get the memo!
nm I found the pdf.
Oh for cryin' out loud, it is a copy stand!!! Why didn't they just say that in the first place? Reinvent the wheel, get a copy stand, so much for reading the article.
I'm gettin' more and more like this all the time...
There is a 36 page free .PDF file writeup of the experiences and observations the two authors have with using a digital camera to "scan" film. The PDF file is located at https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf using the Canon 5D-III and the Sony.
Todd used 35mm slide holder from a Spiratone Vario Dupliscope, Canon 5D Mark III, diffusion glass and a Canon 430 EX-II flash at 1/16 power, and a Canon macro lens. Mark used a Sony a6000 camera, Zeiss Touit 50mm Makro, with electronic flash, and a light table
The processes used above sound a hell of a lot higher-tech than me taping a negative strip to a window with a piece of typing paper taped onto the outside of the window and using a macro lens to shoot .NEF files of my 120 rollfilm negs...
36 pages??!!! That's the one I found Derrel, they did post the pdf I just didn't see that in the text of the article.
A Spiratone, what's old is new again.
Just Google "DSLR scanning" to get an idea of what you can cook up at home. Lotsa snow day projects ahead...
Very detailed scan. What were your settings?
I use veuscan and alter every scan manually
I do not quite understand this thread. A lot of people are posting film versus digital shots, but the question I believe is whether scanning a film negative will provide quality results.
The simple answer is, yes. This was how any magazine, newspaper or advertiser produced images for print in the fifteen to twenty years prior to digital capture coming of age. Virtually nobody did color separations for press in the darkroom after around 1990.
There are a few things to think about, however:
1) The quality of the scanner makes a huge difference. I do not know anything about capture in camera, in theory it should work, but I very much doubt that the quality will be on par with a truely high end scanner.
2) In the 90's and 2000s you could spend a lot on scanners. I mean, *a lot*. While, yes, $100K production drum scanners scanners weren't hardly typical, scanners costing $5K-$30 were not at all uncommon. In this same period consumer models were also available for $120. Today there is limited market for higher-end scanners, and while scanners available today are better, I still very much doubt that they compare to the workhorses of the past. So it's important that you do research. A $50 is still a POS.
3) Color negatives have that orangy mask, which is actually kind of hard to remove (without a good profile), and removing it does affect image quality. B/W and Slides scan much better, but then with slides I'm not wholly convinced you gain much, unless you're shooting medium format or larger.
I am using a scanner to take film to digital only ... If I plan to go to print I will just print the neg (no colour for me) when I eventually get a darkroom setup.
Dedicated film scanners are pretty good, but difficult to get ... there used to be a number of vendors (decades ago) but now there are only a few, especially in medium format.
Problem with many older ones is that they were primarily SCSI interface.
Scan of 6x6 B&W neg on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi (not pro) coupled with a SCSI to USB/Firewire adapter. I have forgotten what film that was ... could be Ilford Delta 100 developed in Rodinal shot with a Minolta Autocord (TLR).
Don't think you need to worry since no one said that.
Don't tell me how to live!
Separate names with a comma.