SteveH Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 <p>Well, the darkroom is going to have to go, and I've been investigating a means to digitize my negatives without spending a lot of money on equipment. So, pictured here is my solution. An old lightbox, my 5x7 Canham view camera, a Panasonic Lumix camera with 14-42 lens. I removed the back and replaced it with a board with 5x7 hole cut out on which to mount the negative. The first couple of images have turned out pretty good, processed in Lightroom. Hope this helps somebody. </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveH Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 <p>Here's my first try:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_clark Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 <p>Since you didn't mention it I'm going to for the benefit of others: RAW is probably a good idea, extra bits are even nicer when processing negatives.</p> <p>I'm also wondering if you have any flatness of field issues.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 <p>Do keep an eye out for used Epson V-700, V-750, V-800, or V-850 scanners. You will get more resolution out of your negatives that way. Sometimes they are under $150 on eBay. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 <p>+1 to John's comment. Buy a flatbed Epson scanner, digitize all your negatives, then sell the scanner. Probably will cost you only $50 total and will give much better results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 <p>For an example of my scanning of a 5x7 negative, see http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00NA2J</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveH Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 <p>Thanks for the replies above. Yes, RAW files are better. So far I'm pretty happy with the results. I'm now using a 45 mm macro lens. I get about a 20 megabyte file which seems plenty for me. I've made a couple of 11x14 test prints and they seem sharp and detailed enough. Maybe as I get a bit more sophisticated I'll feel the need for a scanner, but so far, so good (I have a scanner for smaller negatives). Lightroom doesn't have a specific process for negatives, but I've found a good workaround without having to go to photoshop. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_thomas1 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 <p>The Epson flatbed scanners although rated for 6400PPI can only resolve (poor optics?) about 2000-2400 real PPI of information. Still that gives you about 150 to 190 real megapixels. You can make a decent size inkjet print off of that. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_mason Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 <p>Great Idea!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now