My first attempt at copying with a dSLR

I don't yet have a LED lightbox, I used my smartphone with the brightness turned up. Is that the issue here?

 

So I set my tripod low on the carpet, popped a few books and then some DVD cases. I used a Nikon D600 FF with a Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro lens I couldn't get that close to fill the frame, prob need an extension tube. Images underneath. Like to know your views.

 

The left is the Nikon Coolscan 4000 before mine broke and the right is the Nikon D600 dSLR camera.

Edit to add the film here is Kodak E100G slide, 35mm film mounted slide. The camera on tripod was taken with wireless remote with mirror lockup.

 

 

 

I also did shoot 6x7 medium format from my RB67 which with the Nikon D600 I was able to fill the frame top to bottom but some empty space left to right. It seems the Epson V700 with MF film is sharper than my D600. Thoughts? I can post these images if you like.

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

I had another go instead using a book to alter the height, I used a few more DVD cases (!) so I could fill the frame more. I manually focus the lens with live view, UV filter off the lens, holding my breath, wireless remote, mirror lock up etc.

 

TBH, I'm not not sure what exactly your question is.

Of the first 2, the right one looks sharper but it's also smaller (which normally has less details=looks sharper).

In the 2nd two, the left photo has a lot of noise in the sky and the right one has a texture.

You mention different cameras/scanners but it's not clear to me which photos were taken with with which cameras/scanners. Maybe it's just me that's confused :)

I am asking is this what is expected? It is my first time doing a camera copy of film.

 

All the left ones are the Nikon Coolscan @4000 dpi. The ones on the right are the Nikon D600 copying the film. The last photo there I redid it and got the D600 a bit closer to the film. Instead of using a larger book I used many DVD cases so could fine tune my focus rail in a way.

 

To me using a tripod and then a light box or a smartphone for me so far is quite a bit of work ... esp if one is going to scan/copy all the images from the several rolls of films they get back from the lab. Scanners make life quite a bit easier, there are Nikon ES-1 type things but they don't really work with different sized formats.

It all depends on what you are willing to accept. Using a dedicated scanner which is properly tuned can usually beat the DSLR copy, but not by much. In your case you are using a jerry-rigged setup with your dslr which isn't that good of a test case for comparison. If you have a proper light source and rigid setup, it would be pretty hard to distinguish a difference in the two. I might add that I designed my lightbox with a mask and glass pressure plate so that I can feed a strip of film thru it faster than my scanner does. I had thought about designing the lightbox for different formats, but decided against it, as most of my film work is 35mm and only rarely these days medium format.

You need to fill as much of the digital frame as possible. For 35 mm, that means a lens capable of 1:1 magnification. If that takes extension tubes, so be it. You also need close control over the distance to the film being copied, because that's the only way to focus at 1:1. Everything needs to be parallel, and the focus must be precise. The light source can be improvised, as long as it is uniform and has a continuous spectrum. I would not rate a cell phone well on either attribute. The cell phone pixels are clearly visible in those images.

 

In a practical sense, a makeshift setup like you describe will never be more than a curiosity. You need a good copy stand or copying setup for ease of setup and stability. For 35 mm, something like a Nikon ES-1 or ES-2, along with a suitable lens (40 to 60 mm 1:1 macro), may be all you need.

 

A 24 MP copy if a color slide gives better resolution than the slide possesses. If you leave as much of the mount as shown above, you are getting use of only 12 MP or less, which is marginal. MF is more challenging in that regard, and you must improvise some means of handling the film. Converting negative color film is relatively easy if you have the right software and technique, but takes a lot of time at best.

 

It doesn't require a big expenditure for copying slides. I use a Nikon 55/2.8 Macro lens with a PX-13 extension tube, and a Nikon ES-1 (slides only) or ES-2 (slides and film strips). For light, I use an LED replacement bulb in a desk lamp, bounced off an angled white card for uniformity and convenience. The camera, lens and holder are fastened together solidly, so any shutter speed can be used without a tripod. Typically, I use 1/4 sec @ f/5.6.

 

There is a lot of "ink" in Photo.net on this subject, if you care to look.

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

It was a curious attempt with stuff lying here just to see and get a feel for it. To me copying film is quite labour intensive. Ie if someone got back 10 rolls of film from the lab and were to sit down and digitise every frame they can at least have them in LR to preview them.

 

A flatbed scanner might not be that sharp. One can load half a roll of film, press the automatic button and walk away and watch TV.

 

Maybe also a bit of reality. Even in the film days when film scanners were still being manufactured, many pro's might not had used them due to the time and expense involved. They just got some prints made with the local lab they had a working relationship with. Maybe wedding work was instead shot with 645 medium format and again put thru the local lab. Apart from going thru old film, if one wanted this much detail maybe just shoot digital, simply download the memory card and be done with it. The USA might be holding prices a bit better but in some other countries I have seen something like a Phase One AF body with a P45+ for maybe $4-5k USD.

 

One could also go to the hardware store and build a horizontal thing with some timber. Put in a screw for the tripod mount camera and then go to the art store and pick up some cardboard and glue 2 or 3 piece together to hold the film with a LED lightbox behind that. Ie 2 diff positions one for 35mm and one for medium format.

To me, film is maybe just the enjoyment of shooting film the slower approach, handling a older camera and the different look / feel of the images like b/w film or maybe color neg film and film processing aspect of it, no wet printing for myself yet. No windowless bathroom....

A lot of us have gone through the same process, seeking a proof of principle. If you want to "scan" film with a camera on a regular basis, you will want to tidy up a bit. Make it a process, not a project. I may not shoot film any more, but I have hundreds of rolls never scanned or printed (beyond the basic 4x6 minilab version).

 

Good scanners are either extremely expensive or no longer made and serviced. While the quality was good in the Nikon series, they were slow and noisy. Flatbed scanners are mediocre and slow, and cheap optical scanners offer little on the quality side, with poor film handling. They are basically P&S digital cameras in a box.

I am asking is this what is expected? It is my first time doing a camera copy of film.

- Frankly, no!

Balancing a makeshift light box on top of stuff that probably doesn't lie flat is no 'proof of principle'.

 

For a start the pixel matrix of your smartphone is showing through - noticeable in the sky area of your example.

 

You need to get the camera exactly parallel to the slide, and to ensure everything is vibration free if you're using a continuous light source.

 

I strongly recommend a setup like that shown by Ed Ingold. My own setup is similar, except I use reflected flash as the light source. Even the little popup built-in flash can be used; 'bounced' from a white surface back into the copier attachment.

 

The whole setup moves as one with the camera, so the vibration is much reduced and there's no need for a tripod, balancing things on books or wasting time trying to square up a tripod with a light box.

 

The sharpness I get with my setup and a 24 Mp camera is as good as any filmscanner that I've used, and twice as quick.

- Frankly, no!

Balancing a makeshift light box on top of stuff that probably doesn't lie flat is no 'proof of principle'.

 

For a start the pixel matrix of your smartphone is showing through - noticeable in the sky area of your example.

 

You need to get the camera exactly parallel to the slide, and to ensure everything is vibration free if you're using a continuous light source.

 

I strongly recommend a setup like that shown by Ed Ingold. My own setup is similar, except I use reflected flash as the light source. Even the little popup built-in flash can be used; 'bounced' from a white surface back into the copier attachment.

 

The whole setup moves as one with the camera, so the vibration is much reduced and there's no need for a tripod, balancing things on books or wasting time trying to square up a tripod with a light box.

 

The sharpness I get with my setup and a 24 Mp camera is as good as any filmscanner that I've used, and twice as quick.

 

I know that. I was just playing around without buying any stuff to get a rough feel of it. Yes the smartphone's lines are showing up but I ignored that and just looked at the detail.

 

Overall for me, I would just use something like a still produced now Plustek or Pacific Image scanner or the Nikon scanners which can be repaired privately with at least 3 individuals in the USA one is a former Nikon employee. It's a lot less work but if I had such high standards and perhaps camera copying is better, I may just shoot digital to begin with. I guess it's like in the film days, when film scanners were readily available many professional photographer didn't scan their film like wedding and engagement photographers. Some of the publication / commercial types might had simply just paid someone else to scan for them ...

 

VueScan Newsletter 7

 

The 3 individuals that still service Coolscans. FYI.

A lot of us have gone through the same process, seeking a proof of principle. If you want to "scan" film with a camera on a regular basis, you will want to tidy up a bit. Make it a process, not a project. I may not shoot film any more, but I have hundreds of rolls never scanned or printed (beyond the basic 4x6 minilab version).

 

 

Interesting you say that because online some individuals shoot a few hundred of rolls per year (2018). Someone who is retiree at my camera club has a darkroom in his home, doesn't have a digital camera, his wife does. He also shoots no more than 20 rolls per year unless he is doing a trip away oveseas. He doesn't digitise any of this shots, he just get a local lab to do the printing with a Fuji Frontier, even asking them to stitch his frames together and then a print made. OTOH I was able to scan all my rolls of film including before I took up this hobby when I had a $100 point and shoot, at least I could see it.

Overall for me, I would just use something like a still produced now Plustek or Pacific Image scanner or the Nikon scanners

- That's fine if time is no issue, but no scanner currently being sold gives quality and speed together.

 

All I'm saying about your jury-rigged setup is that it's hardly a fair comparison between a scanner and DSLR copying. I've used both, and the scanner doesn't warrant the extra time spent for any slight increase in quality.

 

Digital copying, like almost any other area of photography, only returns the effort you put into it.

 

Yes, you can use a flatbed to get multiple frames scanned in a reasonable time, but the quality is low and really only fit for preview purposes.

 

I strongly recommend a setup like that shown by Ed Ingold. My own setup is similar, except I use reflected flash as the light source. Even the little popup built-in flash can be used; 'bounced' from a white surface back into the copier attachment.

 

 

I've generally moved my film shooting to medium format now. I still dabble in the odd 35mm however. Even Plustek/Pacific Image 120 scanners cost $2k for a hobbyist. Likely just outsource the job for the few frames to be scanned.

 

Thanks for the replies though ... :)

Which Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro is it that can't get to 1:1?

 

AFAIK, it's only the early MKI Adaptall ones.

 

Tripod, books and lightbox, nah. Far too cumbersome.

 

Think more along the lines of an enlarger stand or one of the original slide duplicators where you could adjust colours with wheels (Durst Chromapro). You don't need the bellows and a enlarger lens, just a 1:1 macro. It's a nice solid set-up that allows a new slide to be popped in the holder and shot without waiting for tripods etc to settle down.

They are heavy for a reason, it's an old fashioned mass-damper in action!

 

I built one using an old enlarger inverted so-to-speak, using the condenser light to make very even illumination.

 

Old enlargers are VERY cheap now!

Which Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro is it that can't get to 1:1?

 

AFAIK, it's only the early MKI Adaptall ones.

 

Tripod, books and lightbox, nah. Far too cumbersome.

 

Think more along the lines of an enlarger stand or one of the original slide duplicators where you could adjust colours with wheels (Durst Chromapro). You don't need the bellows and a enlarger lens, just a 1:1 macro. It's a nice solid set-up that allows a new slide to be popped in the holder and shot without waiting for tripods etc to settle down.

They are heavy for a reason, it's an old fashioned mass-damper in action!

 

I built one using an old enlarger inverted so-to-speak, using the condenser light to make very even illumination.

 

Old enlargers are VERY cheap now!

 

Hi Mike,

 

The lens was able to do 1:1, I just had to fine focus but using less bulky books but thinner DVD cases, haha. Of course I wasn't gonna do this long term. I just wanna see how it went and what kinda detail I could get after spending 30mins for one scan/photo rather than spending money up front just to try this out that I might not like.

 

 

Maybe like many now, I shoot film for the look and feel, if I wanted a bit more detail with a photo I can always just outsource that scan. I am getting more detailed prints with a 24MP dSLr than my 6x7 Velvia shot on a tripod with an Epson V700. Sure one could use a better scanner or outsource the scan, this year I hope to get a few Imacon scans but I still have doubts if a 6x7 scanned this way and provide a similar detail to a 24MP dSLR.

This is a shot I took with a Hasselblad 500 c/m and C40 lens a few years back. The film was Fuji NPH400. Typical of Fuji film, it gets the "blues," more exactly the "purples" under overcast skies, It didn't help being at 10,500 feet elevation. One frame was scanned with a Nikon LS-8000 and Silverfast software. The other was taken with a Sony A7Riii + Sony 90/2.8 Macro, using a Novofles focusing rail and film holder attachment. There's no easy way to do an A-B match, so these were processed in Lightroom with minimal adjustments.

 

There are no absolutes when processing negative color images. You may prefer the warmer, scanner version or the cooler MILC version. Either image could be pushed in the other direction. Season to taste ;)

 

Nikon LS-8000 Scanner

 

 

Sony A7Rii + Sony 90/2.8 Macro, Silverfast HD conversion

Edited January 31, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

Thanks for that Ed :) I am liking the Coolscan a bit better. The A7rii is quite a bit more resolution than my 24MP dSLR. It's a bit like, how long is a piece of string. All of them is likely to get the job done. :)

I see that there are different methods to scan / copy film. After all we are now well into the digital era, if I was that driven maybe I would just shoot digital to begin with. So me shooting film it is maybe more the enjoyment and the process. I will be curious after I get my Imacon scan back to make a A3 print and just see how it compares to the flatbed scan and to the 100% digital approach.

Both master images show dye clouds, although they are less distinct in the A7Rii version. Resolution is 5340 px for the Sony, and 8800 for the LS-8000. Critical focus is easy to obtain with the Sony. The Novoflex rack has a pitch of about 0.8 mm, for rough focus and sizing, and all components are parallel. The Sony 90/2.8 macro has fully mechanical MF by shifting the focusing ring. Since the magnification is only abut 1:2, the lens can be used to fine tune the focusing at the selected aperture (f/5.6). The Sony offers a magnified view (6x, 12x) for focusing, from the sensor not the viewfinder itself. The pixels are much to small to see, and the dye clouds are clearly visible.