Digitize 4x5 Film Using DSLR Camera vs Flatbed Scanner

[ethan_haun]

<p>Hi all, new guy here.</p>

<p>I have a bunch of 4x5 negatives that I would love digitize. I can't afford drum scans or buying a Hasselblad Flextight. It seems that the only options left for me is getting a flatbed with a Transparency Media Adapter (TMA) that will do 4x5.<br>

I have used (not owned) a Epson V700 before and frankly I am NOT impressed. The latest trend is to shoot the negative with a DSLR -- I am sure you all are familiar with what I am talking about here, so I won't elaborate.<br>

I've seen some websites showing the shooting method and the results -- if accurate -- look pretty impressive.<br>

I am wondering if any of your guys have real life experience comparing film scanned with flatbed TMA vs shooting it with DSLR?<br>

I am aware that for 4x5 film it is more difficult to shoot it with DSLR b/c I'll need really long bellow extension due to the the large size difference between the film and the camera sensor. Am I correct?</p>

[wogears]

<p>How large are you going to print?<br>

FYI: You would need <em>less</em> bellows extension, not more.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I have a V700 and it scans fine, even 4x5. But I have been scanning for about 10 years now. Is it possible it's a learning curve? Scanning is a skill, and it takes time to learn.</p>

[lwg]

It's easier than 35mm, and easily done with macro lenses, no bellows required. The downside is less resolution than the

flat bed scanners. But it's quite likely enough for a decent 16x20 with a 24mp camera.

[ethan_haun]

<p>@Les, I usually print no bigger than 16x20. And you are exactly correct, I need less bellows extension not more. I was mistaken — being a printer for decades, I instantly thought about it as if I was printing and the distance between the negative stage and the lens stage came to my mind instead of the distance between the lens stage and the camera sensor.<br>

@peter, I am familiar with scanning. Not a master of it, probably in the mid-level in term of skillfulness. Let me put my question in a different way. Assuming that I am equally skilled with both methods, which one of them give better quality (assuming at same resolution) copy in terms of sharpness, dynamic range and D-Max?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Epson V700 will give better quality.

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I have been using my DSLR, a Canon 5 DII with a 100mm Canon macro lens, to successfully "scan" 4x5 negatives. I described the set-up on page 4 of, <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk?start=30" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk</a> , and results at <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00bH3q" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bH3q</a>. I have settled on using four overlapping images to record one 4x5 negative (mostly black and white). The resulting stitched, approximately 100 MB images, are sufficiently sharp to resolve film grain. Precise alignment and focusing is necessary with this method at the magnification that I use, since the depth-of-field using a 100mm macro lens at f:8.0 is only about 0.05 inch. But, focusing, as well as vibration control, is fairly easily achieved with live-view at 10X magnification.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Flatbed scanners are not so good as dedicated film scanners, but there are few dedicated film scanners for 4x5.<br>

I agree with QG that the flatbed scanners that <em>will</em> cover a 4x5" negative will do better than direct-to-camera.<br>

So many variables (evenness of light, lens field curvature, etc.) are controlled better than is easy to do with a camera setup.</p><div></div>

[walter_degroot]

<p>if you do now own a dslr, a canmera with an elecronic vieswinder such as a olympus c750 uz or the later spp series.<br>

or a camera with a clear lcd could be used.</p>

<p>some kind of copy stand would be needed.</p>

[ethan_haun]

<p>@Les Sarile, they are mostly TMax, some Fuji Velvia, no color neg at all.<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=696354"><br /></a><br>

@JDM, dedicated film scanners are better. I have a Nikon 4000 and a 5000. But as you noted, there are very few dedicated film scanner for 4x5 and even if you can find one, it costs too much (for me).</p>

<p>@Q.G., for some reasons, the V700 scans never seem to be sharp enough for me. NOT that the scans are unsharp per se, I just always feel that they "should be" sharper.</p>

 

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Using a DSLR to "scan" 4x5 negatives can produce excellent results, certainly better than I was able to achieve with a flatbed scanner, in my case a Microtek (I forget which model). But, it requires a DSLR with live-view, a quality macro lens, and a precise setup, with special care for alignment, evenness and spectral characteristics of illumination, vibration control, and focusing. One advantage over a flatbet scanner is that once the apparaus is in place and aligned, the four images that I use to stitch together to make the complete image can be obtained within a minute, including time to load the film and focus.</p>

<p>Les. Almost all of my several hundred 4x5 photos were black and white (TRI-Z, Tmax 100 and 400, Ilford, etc), but a few were Ektachrome positives. For B&W I use a cold-light head from an old enlarger for illumination, but this is unsuitable for color because the cold-light produces blue and green light, with no red. For color I used the lid of the Microtek flatbed scanner that I mentioned above as the light source. I did not remove the lid from the scanner, but folded it back, and placed both the lid and scanner (attached to a laptop to run it) under my copy stand. If I had more than a few color films to record, I would have devised an independent power source for the lid.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I have a stack of 4x5 sitting next to me. My friend shoots these and he wants me to scan them. My scanner is a V700. Not meaning to insult the pretty people with DSLRs, but if you can't get exceptional detail from this scanner and a 4x5 look in a mirror; it's you that is the problem.</p>

<p>It does take skill and maybe you don't have it. I would agree that a DSLR may be an easier learning curve up to a quality point, but a 4x5 has tons more information that a DSLR could possibly capture. My scans from 35mm are over 150 mb. But I can tell you that size does not matter if you don't know how to capture and it's not the software its how you use it.</p>

<p>I can't fathom why someone would shoot 4x5 and desecrate it with a DSLR. What would be the point?</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

Les. The film used for the example image was 4x5 Polaroid P/N. I used the film at the time because I needed to quickly see the results.

This was another fine film that has gone away. I see from reading my old post that my scanner was a Microtek i700, not one that I would

recommend for scanning 4x5, but which, because of poor results, inspired me to pursue this project. Also, I see that I called Tri-X Tri-Z, which sounds like a new and improved version, developed just before Kodak went bankrupt:)

[ethan_haun]

<p>@peter, how do you obtain great scans with a flatbed TMA? I understand that drum scanning take considerable skills, but are there technique using flatbed TMA that are not common known? Please don't mistake my question as a sarcasm or a debate (tone of speech on the internet is difficult to detect; just wanna clarify that); I truly simply wanna learn. I mean, like using multiple passes to reduce noise, etc. What else?</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>The big hurdles with most flatbeds is getting away from software that wants to do everything for you and get the film in the plane of focus.</p>

<p>Focus on 35mm film can be a nightmare as there is almost always curl involved. 4x5 is not really going to have that problem. The stock mounts for 4x5 on my v700 are fine. However I go a step further and use a wet mount tray which also allows me to adjust the height of the film. The V750 comes with a wet mounting kit, but better scanning also makes a wet mount tray. I made my own here.....http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html for less than $10.</p>

<p>I use Vuescan for my software, as it allows me too manually control every step of the way. Not getting into specifics, I do the following. 1) calibrate the film (BW or Colour) for the base colour. This gives me a calibrated maximum black and get's your scans away from dealing with base+fog. In the filter tab, select sharpen and unselect everything else. In the preview window I go under the color tab and adjust (auto levels) the curve low and curve high for maximum contrast. I scan with 3200 dpi (6400 and over sampleing with 35mm and below) and reduce size under the output section by about 3 to 4 for a 4x5. The big deal here is to use the highest DPI you can afford (time wise) and use the output scale down to bring the file down to the usable size (displayed bottom of preview window).</p>

<p>If you don't have sharpening down, I would suggest FocusMagic as a tool. All scans require sharpening to some degree. The better you are at this, the better your images will appear.</p>

<p>To state the obvious, garbage in is garbage out. If your shot is done with below par gear, a good scan will not make it any better.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Here is a 35mm, scanned as above</p>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/12332937625_41f7bc465e_c_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And a 645 ...</p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3941/15144318354_afa323fda3_c_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I would post a 4x5 but they are not my images. They are comparable to the above.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Les. You can get an idea of the magnification by considering that the actual bolt head was approximately 1/2" diameter. The "apparatus close-up" figure in the posting measures about 4" diameter on my 24" monitor, so the displayed magnification is about 8. This would approximately correspond to looking at a 8x(4x5) = 32" x 40" print from about two feet. Rather extreme pixel-peeping! What you see in the posting figure is probably a result of the camera sensor starting to resolve but not completely resolving film grain. With increasing magnification, an individual film grain should appear increasingly more distinct. If I were to stitch 8 or more images together, rather than 4, to form the final image, resolution of individual film grains would increase, but with no appreciable gain in print quality for normal size prints (up to say 16" x20").</p>

<p>Polaroid Type 55 P/N film was designed to make both a positive print and a negative, which was, for my experimental purposes, great for both pasting the positive in a lab notebook as a record, and for later having the photo lab make a large print for analysis. It required a special Polaroid model 545 film packet holder to fit a Graflock type view camera back. More information at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_type_55</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_cox3]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"a 4x5 has tons more information that a DSLR could possibly capture"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>This assumes only a casual commitment to the DSLR technique. I've done both, and have a V750 that gets the job done faster and is more appropriate for volume scanning. But when I really want an obscene amount of detail, then the DSLR with a macro lens is the clear winner. But it's not a quick single scan. I'll do multiple shots of several "panels", perform super resolution and HDR on each panel using PhotoAcute, and then use CS6 to stitch the .hdr files into a final single .hdr file. Then Photomatix is used to do normal "photo realistic" tone mapping, producing a 16-bit TIFF. I'll put these up against any drum scan. But just like drum scans, they are not cheap when you consider your time. It all comes down to commitment and balancing how much detail is needed against the technique. <br /></em><br /> <br /> <em>Ditto the recommendation on FocusMagic, too.<br /></em></p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Alan, you are obviously coming from a more informed perspective and the DSLR is merely another tool in the pile. This does not align with the original post. My posts were to enlighten on a more literal light.</p>

 

[ethan_haun]

<p>@peter, I haven't tried wet-mounting and I doubt I'd invest the time wet-mounting all my neg, which I have a lot. As as I understand it, wet-mounting has 2 purposes: 1) dust and scratch reduction and 2) better focusing. For the former, I don't worry about it too much b/c I am pretty good at cleaning all the surface to begin with and any left over dust and scratch I will just deal with them post-scan -- I've found it better anyway. For the latter, I just don't understand why Epson can't provide auto-focus for the V7XX/V8XX scanner. Unless, there are inherent technical issues, I just find it disappointing for a $700 - $900 scanner.<br>

Also, may you elaborate on "calibrate the film (BW or Colour) for the base colour. This gives me a calibrated maximum black and get's your scans away from dealing with base+fog"? Is that a function of Vuescan?</p>

[ethan_haun]

<p>I think I should clarify my inquiry a bit more.<br>

Techniques can be learned and I'll be glad to learn them. My question is really about the "inherent" pro and con of the two methods. In other words, is there any inherent reason why one method is better than the other?</p>

<p>[To be honest, I am old school, and, stubbornly, I still shoot film (although I shoot digital for my "less-than-serious" projects) and most of my prints are still wet printed by myself. I do recognized and appreciate the digital process (I am quite good with Photoshop). But as we all know, the analogy process is getting more difficult by the day. The reason I am digitizing my film is literally to prepare for the day when supplies are no longer available.]</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The inherent advantage of scanning is that it delivers better results.

[ethan_haun]

<p>@Q.G., may you elaborate on it a bit? Why is it inherently better with scanning. (Note, I am not debating, I am asking 'cause, I don't know.)</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Wet mounting can be daunting when you are new at it, but is quite quick when you get used to it. I do it in my sleep now. As far as the results, see the above posts. I don't do it for dust and scratches...it's the detail you get out of it. There is no substitute for clean film.</p>

<p>As far as focus is concerned, the V7XX has it....but more of a micro focus adjustment. Vuescan exposes the adjustment. I'm not sure why Epson hides this ability.</p>

<p>The calibration of the film base is done the same way for C41, SLIDE or BW. This is a feature specific to vuescan. Make sure Vuescan is in the appropriate mode first. I doubt if this will help anyone that insists on scanning BW films in colour. There is absolutely no need to do this if you are outputting raw scans.</p>

<p>I am using the 9.5.x pro version, but this can be done on much earlier pro versions. This is not scanner specific.</p>

<p>if you don't have a graph box on the lower left hand side, hit CTRL-2</p>

<p>1) In the input tab, set the options to professional.<br>

2) in the colour tab, set the color balance to auto-levels.<br>

back to the input tab<br>

3) If the lock exposure is not selected, select it<br>

4) make sure lock film base color is unselected<br>

5) unselect lock exposure<br>

6) do a preview<br>

7) This next part can be a pita, but must be done. If you are scanning 35mm, use the leader. Select a blank area of your film. This is what we are calibrating. Your scan window may start to look funky at this point, but you are doing good.<br>

8) select lock exposure<br>

9) do a preview again<br>

10) select lock film base color</p>

<p>Select where your image area. It should look more normal, at this point. You need to keep the color in auto-levels for this to stay working.</p>

<p>This calibration should be good for the entire film, if not the entire batch of films you have developed in the same session. Use the right slider in the exposure boxes for slight scene changes.</p>

<p>When you change films, you need to back out in reverse. That is unlock the base, then unlock the exposure. Otherwise the base will stay when you try to re calibrate next time.</p>

<p>Clear as mud?</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The most important aspect of it, Ethan, is that there is an awfull lot of information in a 4x5" negative which a DSLR will not be able to capture. A scanner (even an Epson) will be able to reproduce quite a lot more of it.<br>To get all of what is in a 4x5" you will need a good drum scanner. So using the Epson you will be throwing image detail away. But that is considerably worse using a DSLR.