Scanning negatives with DSLR - need help with setup

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Hello forum,<br /> <br />I recently started shooting film and I have a few rolls of 35mm and 120(medium format) film developed - some were scanned at a local lab but they can only give me 6 mega-pixel scans.<br /> One way to do it myself would be to buy a 250€ Epson V600 or Canon 9000F but I think they are not very good for the tiny 35mm film. On top of that, for 35mm film those scanners could probably give me 3000x2000 resolution or so which might not be enough if I have a very good photo that I want to print big - like 60x40cm. <br /> <br />I found out the digitizing can also be done with a DSLR and a few accessories. I'm planning to build a relatively cheap setup - others have done it in a similar way and I really liked the results I've seen. For those of you who have done anything similar - I need your help with the elements that contain a star below.<br /> <br />In the order of their mounting:</p>

<ul>

<li>DSLR (Pentax K-50)</li>

<li>Extension tubes (K mount)</li>

<li>M-42 to K adapter</li>

<li>Voigtlander 40mm f2 M42 with 52mm filter thread (superb lens, exceptional resolution but not macro - should work with extension rings)</li>

<li>step-up/down from/to 52mm</li>

<li>* bellows or tube</li>

<li>* 120 and 35mm negative film holders (with diffuser)</li>

<li>Light</li>

</ul>

<p>I've seen there is a product on the market called <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polaroid-Slide-Duplicator-Capabilty-Digital/dp/B005UEN2Y2/ref=sr_1_15?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424694058&sr=1-15&keywords=slide+duplicator">Polaroid HD Slide Duplicator</a>. The problem is that it can only take 35mm film in its negative holder.</p>

<ol>

<li>Is there something on the market such as this slide duplicator that offers 120 holder too?</li>

<li>I could buy separately bellows + negative holders compatible with the bellows - do you know of such a combination that worked for you?</li>

</ol>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[borrel1]

<p>This is my rig for 135: <a href="http://abdallah.hiof.no/pb-4/">http://abdallah.hiof.no/pb-4/</a> You would have to compensate for the APS-C size sensor. I use a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 lens (not mounted in the picture) which is sufficient to digitize 120 with no additional tubes or bellows. (But that does require a different setup to hold the 120 film or slides.) My light source is a Kick (Rift Labs.) LED panel.</p>

[peter_simpson1]

<p>+1 for the PS-4/PB-4 and 55mm micro-Nikkor. The bellows allows you the necesary adjustment to fill the frame. I use it with my D700. Light source is an electronic flash on manual, set to low power, with an LED flashlight used for alignment.</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Thanks for the responses so far - I checked on eBay and this PB-4/PS-4 is too expensive for what I want to achieve. I didn't mention in the first post but I'm talking of <100$ investment in bellow + holder.<br>

Apart from that, I couldn't figure out from the web but does the holder take 120 negatives? I suspect not but correct me if I'm wrong. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are Spiratone (and many others) versions of the Nikon set up.<br /> They are mostly offered on eBay in original box, because most of them were used just once and then put away into the closet.<br /> Les's suggestion of a copy stand, diffused light source and bellows with a decent copy lens is the best way to do direct to digital camera reproduction.<br /> There once was a general version of the Heiland Repronar called the "Universal Repronar" to which any camera can be mounted with appropriate adapters to bellows (M39) and a copy lens. I was lucky enough to get one cheap, but there are reasons why I went to the trouble and expense to get an old Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 for my slides to replace my broken Canoscan 4000 film scanner.</p>

<p>Anything short of a dedicated film scanner will necessarily involve considerable experimentation before it comes out right. Fortunately, with digital you don't have to wait for the film to come back.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here is a May, 1980 ad from <em>Popular Photography</em> for the various Spiratone slide copiers:</p>

<div></div>

[walter_degroot]

<p>I WAS ABOUT TO SUGGEST.<br>

i DO NOT HAVE A DSLR.<br>

but my old spiratine vario=-dupliver with the proper t adapter<br>

should be ok for most dslrs.<br>

mine wirked to make a film striop )( half frame images_<br>

on my film slr. the exposuire seemed not to be a problem</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Wow, you all seem to have lots of info on this! (those old ads/leaflets)<br>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a>, I'm not afraid of post-processing DSLR scans - once I would get the settings right I could save them in a style and apply to all the future scans but I do expect quite a bit of experimentation until I'd be happy.<br>

The Spiratones as suggested by <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> seem to have a fair price - I will probably get one even if it doesn't take 120 film. On eBay Europe I can find Panagor branded ones only - they seem to be exactly the same as Spiratones. </p>

<p>I'm still open to suggestions if anyone knows a decently priced (like the Spiratone/Panagor) 120 film duplicator. </p>

<p> </p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>I'm also wondering if there is a way I could take multiple shots at my 6x6cm negatives and stitch them afterwards. I sort of doubt there is an easy to do way to achieve this, except for a DIY holder on which I simply move the negative around?</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>It may not be exactly what you're looking for but here you've a link to a stitching method to digitize negatives of several formats.<br>

I can't give you a personal opinion about the results because I only read the texts (the one of the link and the other where the author doesn't favor the macro 1:1 ratio):<br>

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/</p>

 

[c_watson1]

<p>Those ghastly trombone slide duplicators work no better today than they did decades ago.</p>

<p>Just Google "DSLR Scanning." Tons of hacks and homebrew solutions to try.</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>The idea you linked to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6506393">António Gomes</a> is so simple and looks very efficient! It even takes care of film flatness as a side effect of pressing it with the hood! Damn, why didn't I think of that myself first?! :D<br>

I wil get myself a lightbox (or hack a screen) and whatever I need to try that super low-cost solution first. If that doesn't come out right for 35mm film I'll also get a Spiratone/Paragon extender but if all goes well I expect to be happy with 120 film scan resolution after stitching. </p>

<p>Thank you all for the suggestions! </p>

<p> </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p><a href="

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Excellent short guide Michael<br>

I will do pretty much the same thing except that I will use my tripod (a <a href="https://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B004OYUDG4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1">Vanguard Alta Pro 263AB100 </a>), it's one of those that are very "gymnastic", if I may say so, and I can invert the middle column so that the camera moves vertically downwards. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm working on 'spotting' (as it was called in film days) rescans while the weather outside is frightful.</p>

<p>I am about "calmed" out to the point of stupor, however....</p>

<p>I have one of the Spiratone devices, but I confess that I am a Spiratone 'collector' (in the same sense as 'trash collector'), or I'd give it to you.I never found it to be enormously useful.</p>

<p>Some few people have had the patience to use it, but as I keep saying, there are good reasons why I have gone to the trouble and expense of getting a high quality film scanner. However, buy carefully on eBay and you can get one of the Spiratone setups for very little $, so you won't lose much by trying.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>To help with minimizing dust and scratches, Google around for a download of the old Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal software. It's free abandonware, but still useful. It's a little fussy to set the parameters but works well - sometimes better than the very good dust removal that comes with Epson flatbed/film scanners.</p>

<p>Be careful where you download it from. Most sites that host free older software don't carry malware (viruses, etc.), but will often cram adware onto their downloads - pop-ups, toolbars, etc. So be very wary when installing any software from any free file host. Read everything carefully to be sure you've opted out of any adware. They won't usually cram the crapware in without warning, but it's usually "yes" by default, so you'll need to opt out to avoid installing toolbars, browser hijackers, etc.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Lex, being an old (2002?) and abandoned piece of software it hasn't been updated therefore it can show potential compatibility problems. Did you try it or do you know if it will work under a 64 bits OS (Mac OSX, in my case), pls?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Polaroid Dust and Scratch Removal software works fine on my Windows 7 PCs. Windows 7 has excellent legacy compatibility - so far I haven't found any of my old Windows software (back to Win95) that won't run on Win7. No idea about Macs, haven't used them since the 1990s.</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>I haven't seen any mention of the Nikon ES-1 52mm slide copy adapter. It costs only about $60 and then with a 55mm Micro Nikkor, a couple of narrow (say 2 or 3 mm) extension rings you're all set. Although it's listed as a slide copier, I was able to copy selected frames of a 35mm strip of negs by using a film strip holder from my scrap box.</p>

<p>I'm in a rehab unit now but when I get home in a few days I can post photos of my setup. Google on the name of the item and you're sure to find more info.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>Here's a good link: http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[bubo_bubo1]

<p>Thanks Paul for the suggestion, good news there is such a cheap slide copier. Right now (as Les I think mentioned) I can't use Nikon equipment on my Pentax as Nikon has smaller flange distance but I plan to move to smaler mirrorless Fujis and I would be able to use Nikon stuff.<br>

I ordered in the end a light pad (A4 size) and a Lomography DigitaLIZA 120 film holder. I will be hanging my camera on a very sturdy tripod veertically downwards to photograph the negatives. I gave up the idea of a tube between the lens and the negative as I've seen very good results on the web from people who didn't use it. I'll report back my results here.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Why not try one of the cheap slide duplicators sold on ebay? Similar in design to the Spiratones. You may be surprised. The issue in the past was that they were so slow (f/8 or so) that it was almost impossible to focus them accurately as the image was too dark and required very bright illumination. Now with magnified live view on DSLRs this issue no longer holds to the same extent. The focusing will not be as nice as a dedicated macro lens, but they are cheap and you may find that since they only have to be optimized for a single distance the performance may be a lot better than one's knee-jerk negative reaction might suggest. But you will need one that will work satisfactory with a non-full frame camera. Then all you need is a (preferably bright) light source. Given their price I think it worth a shot. You'll need another solution for 120 film however.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think the problem with your new setup will be lack of parallel alignment and vibration. That will likely ruin any good resolution. The advantage of a real slide copier (and even the cheapo ebay versions) is that alignment is fixed and accurate - not easy to do with a jury rigged tripod system. A real copy stand would be much better, but more pricey. Well, you will find out.</p>

[etienne_w]

<p>A couple more hints on top of what has already been said.</p>

<p>(1) Use a proper, reproductible light source, such as a light table. I get good results with this one:<br /> http://www.kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=2448<br /> You can then develop a typical color correction and apply it to all your scans. Take a picture of your light source without any film, it will give you a starting point for color correction (in particular color temperature) to apply. Do not use an iPad or similar as light table. Even with the high-resolution display of the latest models, your macro lens will pick individual pixels.</p>

<p>(2) Use mirror lock-up and a cable pre-release on your camera to reduce camera shake, in particular if it is on a tripod. The ideal setup in my opinion is the one Michael Darnton posted in his flickr image.</p>

<p>(3) Use a good macro lens, ideally going down to 1:1 reproduction ratio. Older, manual-focus macro lenses are relatively inexpensive on the used market. A good characteristic to look for is "flat field" which means a flat surface will transfer to a flat surface on the film/sensor. Close your lens to around f/5.6 - f/8. Do some bracketing and pick up the best exposed shot. (look at the histogram)</p>

<p>I am getting very good results with this setup with color slides. I do not need to apply much color correction (apart, of course, from color temperature adjustment) contrarily to what has been said above. I am struggling with inverting B&W negatives, hence if someone has good recipes for that, please share :-)</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br /> Etienne</p>

[rory_clague]

<p>Hi, I use a Canon 7D and a 100mm f/2.8L macro lens for 1:1 magnification. I prefer the APS-C sensor to my 5D3 for this work, actually, because I can get a higher pixel density and therefore less problematic grain aliasing this way. It comes out to something like 5900 ppi rather than 4000 ppi (as the 5D3 is). The problem with this approach is that it requires more images to cover 120 film (about 24 images) and even 35mm film (requires 4-6 images). With the 5D3 I can get 35mm in 1 image and 120 film in 6-8 images, depending on how much overlap I want. The 5Ds will give me the pixel density I want, but the ability to stitch fewer images. Of course, another potential problem with using a full frame camera with this approach is lens edge sharpness. When using an APS-C sensor camera, I use the best part of the 100mm macro lens. <br /><br />My rig consists of securing the 7D onto a tripod with two settings for the legs, one for a tall orientation with the legs close together, and one with the legs spread far apart, which puts the camera closer to the floor (or ground). I use the latter setting, and extend two of the legs by 2 segments, and a third leg by 3 segments. The long segment I secure underneath a couch. I then press down on the tripod head so that the legs are very secure and don't move. Now the tripod is oriented at an angle, i.e. it is not extending at a 90 degree angle with respect to the floor, but rather something like an 50-60 degree angle. I then place the camera on the tripod head so that the lens is pointed straight at the floor. I place a heavy textbook that is something like 4-6 inches thick on the ground underneath the lens. I check the alignment of the lens with the book by placing a mirror on the book. I look through the viewfinder at the mirror at check that the lens is in the exact center of the viewfinder (as reflected by the mirror). This ensures that the lens is exactly orthogonal to the surface that the film will be placed on. I remove the mirror from the book and place an Artograph lightbox on top of the book, and turn it on. Any LED light box with even illumination of the surface will work. I place the film on the lightbox and place a couple of heavy glass plates (they happen to be coasters in my case), but any flat heavy object or even a really good slide holder will work. I don't bother masking the film or anything, but the glass plates are merely used to keep the film flat on the surface of the light box. Of course, the light box must be perfectly clean and dust-free. I keep a blower handy and have a steam humidifier set up next to the work area to minimize dust. Finally, I adjust the location of the camera as well as the focus so that the lens is as close to the film as allowed by the macro lens while maintaining focus. I then set the aperture to 5.6, the ISO to 100, and the shutter speed to whatever gives me a histogram in which the shadows are as bright as possible without the highlights being clipped. I use the highlight clipping warning on the 7D to check this. With black and white film, there is just enough density range to cover the entire histogram. With color negative film, the density range is quite compressed and the histogram usually occupies a small area of the dynamic range of the sensor. With positive film, bracketing is necessary to cover the density range with a Canon sensor. With a D800, this is less of a problem. <br /><br />Once I have chosen a shutter speed, usually 1/5 to 1/10, I use live view to focus on the grain at 10x magnification, and I scan the whole imaging area to be sure all the grain is in focus across the image. If it is not, that means that the lens is not aligned with the negative. Usually because I use the mirror, this is not a problem. I use f/5.6 because the 100mm f/2.8L is sharpest at that aperture. I then take an image. When I want to scan around the image, I simply move the light box around on top of the text book. Alternatively, you could move the text book itself. I then take up to 24 images with 120 film, and up to 6 with 35mm film. I use the raw format for all of these.</p>

<p>To process, I open the raw files in DxO Optics Pro and use the distortion correction, vignetting correction, and softness correction to be sure all the images stitch together well. For black and white I convert the images to greyscale. It is important that all the images have the same white balance setting for color negative film, and all the images to be stitched together must have the same exposure corrections applied. I usually adjust the microcontrast setting (clarity slider in Lightroom) to my liking. I don't apply any USM sharpening - rather, the DxO lens softness correction does all the sharpening I want. Finally, I convert the negative to a positive using the curves tool. With black and white, I simply invert the RGB curve so that it moves from the upper left to lower right corner rather than vice-versa. For color negative film, I adjust the R, G, and B curves individually, leaving the RGB curve alone. I use the R, G, and B histograms separately at this stage, and basically you want to slide the R curve in such a way that the red histogram is distributed throughout the entire luminance range rather than squashed together. You want to do this for all three curves. This usually makes the color look great. For black and white film, I apply a bit of contrast by introducing an S curve into the RGB curve. It's very important for color negative film that you select the same white balance for all 24 of the images to be stitched, and apply the same curves corrections to all images.</p>

<p>I export each of the images from RAW to 16-bit TIF. I then use Microsoft ICE to stitch the TIF files together. I choose the planar with skew setting, crop to my liking (usually getting rid of the black frame around the image), and export as both a TIF for printing and a jpeg. I then open the TIF back up in Photoshop or DXO and use the clone stamp tool to deal with any pieces of dust I missed.</p>

<p>For color negative film it's important to prevent Newton rings. This can be achieved by not dusting the light box off too much before applying the film, as it causes a charge to build up. I've never noticed Newton rings form with my 120 film.</p>

<p>The results are a good resolution scan. I was verbose above, but the process does not take any longer than 2-3 minutes per picture, and I think the results are good enough for me. The camera's AA filter as well as the small pixels help prevent grain aliasing.</p>

<p>Check out full-sized 13200x13200 images on Flickr:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16660912378/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16656069705/" alt="" /><br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16441147657/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16441147657/" alt="" /><br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16660912378/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16660912378/" alt="" /><br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16272310908/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16272310908/" alt="" /><br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16272310908/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16272310908/" alt="" /></p>