Fiodor

So, there is no information… If the camera only reverses, it is not too helpful. And if it does some kind of automatic adjustment, like a scanner would do, it should create a RAW file for further editing. In fact, the ideal option would be that the scanning software does this particular job of properly reversing RAW files gotten from ”DSLR scans”. Is there any application which does this job? Or even you could do the settings before actually shooting the photo, the camera connected to the computer and truly acting as a film scanner, but probably I am asking too much, or most probably what I just said doesn’t make any sense.

“Using a lens such as the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED attached to the D850, the camera's digitizing function automatically reverses the colors and stores them as JPEG images. This once time-consuming process involving a film scanner can be done much more quickly.” Anyone has more information about this? I mean, reversing the colors is as easy as pressing a button on an editing software. And it would be more interesting to have the image as RAW and not as JPEG, for editing it. Does this D850 supposedly reverse the colors “intelligently”, taking into consideration it is photographing an “orange” negative, etc., making the process really easier? I haven’t practiced this technique yet, but some dispersed anecdotes I read said that dslr digitizing negatives is not so easy precisely because of certain difficulty to edit colors and making them look natural, and to do this more or less quickly.

Glen_h, thanks for your comments. I sincerely don’t understand your last post about lenses. Are you talking about lenses for DSLR digitizing? Or about lenses used in scanners?

Thanks, Wouter. Well, I am going to digest all the information given in this thread. About dsrl scanning, I have found two techniques: - One described by Ed_Ingold, using a slide copying adapter: A digital camera + macro lens + extension tube (to achieve 1:1) + slide copying adapter (+ another extension tube in the case the camera is DX/non full frame, as far as I understood) - One described by, for example, this dude: Yes, your DSLR really is the best film scanner He doesn’t use a slide copying adapter, but a light pad and a copy macro stand. This is one of the millions of articles that I should read before asking stupid questions. But if someone could tell me in a few words why to use one technique or the other, it would be helpful. Is it just because this guy Jamie doesn’t have a real macro lens? Is it always preferable to have 1:1 macro and a slide copying adapter? Anyway, I promise I am going to study this matter more deeply.

Those are the only old dedicated scanners available right now on an online shopping website from my country. Probably if I see the scanner, and talk to the owner, and it not too expensive… that is the only way I could consider buying a used one. If it is too expensive, I am risking more. Yeah, probably that Nikon is too old and used. But it scans much better than my v500, that’s for sure… Wouter, is the Reflecta 10M exactly the same than the Pacific Image Prime film XA? So why is it two times more expensive? https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Image-PrimeFilm-XA-Automatic/dp/B00GABQCRS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503356717&sr=8-1&keywords=pacific+image https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reflecta-RPS-10M-film-scanner/dp/B00NFWS994/ref=sr_1_1s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1503356596&sr=1-1&keywords=reflecta+10m If I dare to buy one of these or one Plustek (which I tend to like more), I won’t have a warranty either. Well, I will have it, but, if there is a problem, I would have to send the scanner by plane or boat to who knows where.

Would you buy a Coolscan III for USD 150-200? And a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 II, for the same prize, with no negative holder (only slide holder)? (In my country, imported electronic products cost at least two times more than B&H, as a reference)

William Kahn, thank you for the image. When I began using the v500 I tried another software, I don’t know if it was the SIlverfast or the Vuescan, but I didn’t get good results, so I continued using the Epson software. Anyway, I think that its soft “focus” is less noticeable in medium format, and some MF photographers are very happy with the Epsons. James G. Dainis, thank you for your explanation about printing and resolution, which complements what Jochen told me. The problem with the v500 is that even if you can get the resolution required, for some reason scans look soft. Surely if the image in the page is not big, probably you won’t notice a difference compared to a better scan, in terms of sharpness. But colors could not look as good as other scanners either. That depends also on personal taste, and the scans could be more compatible with certain styles of photos than with others. This is especially evident with minilab scanners like Noritsus or Frontiers, which have a distinguished look that goes very well with the work of some photographers. LesDMess, thank you for sharing your great comparison tests. I see that you are in love with your Coolscan, I don’t blame you. But I wouldn’t buy a used one. If I want to try something different from the Epson, right now my best options seem to be buying a Plustek or a Reflecta (to get a bit more of real resolution), or trying to build a DSLR digitizing system, first with what I have, and then with a new camera and a macro lens.

James G. Dainis (and LesDMess), I am doing a series with film, a work-in-progress. I don’t plan to print a book soon. I have never done that and I don’t know about the printing techniques. Surely this is interesting and something to consider later. Offset or digital? As far as I know, it depends on the number of books : for big quantities, offset is used, but I don’t know really. Why do you ask me? I would like to have a better scanner (or scanning technique). I want to try something different from the Epson. This would allow me to have from the beginning better and “final” scans to show my work, and not doing the work two times. Who knows, maybe I end up deciding that the Epson is the best… I could probably apply for a grant and include the costs of scanning (whether the buying of equipment or the payment of a lab scanning service). But I suppose it must be reasonable (I don’t know if I could include the buying of a digital camera for "scanning" film, even though the drum scanning of 200 photos would be more expensive). So I need to think what strategy would be the best, according to my short experience (I can’t be too pretentious). Apart from this project, I shoot film usually, so a good home scanning system is something I need.

Ed, thank you for the image and all the info. I also searched on Flickr for “dslr scanning” and this technique seems like a very good option for digitizing film photos if you are interested in definition. It really gets a lot of detail, even more than dedicated scanners (and even drum ones?). In some photos I see like too much grain, but I don’t know if it is the grain or some pixelation added to the grain. A Nikon, or a Pacific, have a softer image, and that seems like a flaw, not a virtue, but is it really like this? I mean, an analog print looks sharp but pleasing, with no pixels. Have you printed some of your Nikon scans and “photo scans”? Which ones look better on paper? I need a new digital camera. I should study this subject more, but do you think I could do it with a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and extension tubes? I also have a reversal ring!

Thank you everyone, great information. Diego Buono, thanks for your info about the Hasselblads. I did a quick research… they call it the 3F. Here is a link if someone is interested: The 3F system | The revolutionary professional scanning system by Hasselblad - Know How Transfer It would be interesting to scan at least one photo to see really what can you get from this machine. Jochen, I recently began to process my negs. I don’t shoot too much actually, and I don’t have an enlarger. I could try scanning with my Epson one of the B&W prints I made in a school lab to see how it looks. Wouter, the Reflecta seems very good. I think there is a new Pacific model where you can scan the whole roll at once.

Thank you, Bill. I think your scan looks good and the Epson v500 is a good scanner, but far from perfect. I wouldn’t say my scans are “mushy”. The lack of “focus” I mentioned is “subtle” in a way. And the difference between an Epson scan and a Nikon one is also “subtle”, but this subtlety pays off, makes a difference to the eye. And apart from the definition, there is also the quality of colors or tones. Have you scanned that same image with a Nikon or a drum scanner? Only there you could see the difference. Or better, have you made a print with an enlarger? I suppose my scans are similar to yours, as far as I can see, but when I did some prints with an enlarger was really like discovering the reality of the images, the difference is huge. A good scanner would be one that gets as close as possible to an analog copy. Yeah, in the specific case of a photo book, there are limitations on the print quality, or the paper, of course it is not the same than looking at analog prints, not even close. But I think it is always better to start from scans as good or satisfying as possible. It would be interesting to know the experience of someone who has already published a photo book, especially with film scans.

Thank you, Ed. They are different images, but very similar. Is the second one a digital photo of a slide? Is it possible to see the whole, uncroppped images? Do you have to do a lot of editing and “cleaning” to the photos of films?

Hi. I have an Epson V500 for scanning my 35mm film (color and B&W negatives, not slides). It is quite good, but the lack of “focus” always leaves me unsatisfied. Even if I apply the “unsharp mask” on “medium” mode and if I don’t see the image very big, it is clear that the scanner doesn’t have too much definition. Dedicated 35mm scanners have better “focus”. The best seem to be some which are not made anymore, like Nikon’s, Minolta’s or Canon’s. I would not buy one of these machines online, used and from a faraway country. Plustek and Pacific Image are producing new dedicated scanners, I don’t know if there is another brand. They are not as good as Nikon’s, but still are better than Epson’s. There are labs which offer the service of drum scanning. This is expensive and doesn’t allow you to control scanning settings, and they could not interpret the image the way you like it. This is especially decisive when you are looking for a moody scene, not a very bright one, and the lab starts working with automatic adjustments which “explode” the image to the maximum level. In my city, a lab with a Hasselblad scanner charges more than 10 dollars for image in its smallest dimension (like 8x12 inches at 300dpi). So, imagine you are going to publish a book with your film photos, and obviously you want the scans to be as good as possible… What scanner would you use? If you had an Epson v500, would you buy a dedicated 35mm scanner like a Plustek or a Pacific Image? Or would you pay a drum scanning service in a lab, even though you can’t control the settings? (Note: At the moment, I don’t have the equipment to try "DSRL scanning". I only have a Nikon D80, and no macro lens. Also, I read that this method is more recommended for slides, not negatives, but I haven’t studied the subject too much really)

<p>Mark, thank you for your response. So, in your opinion, it is impossible to know exactly what happened, but probably it is permanent.<br> I´m glad that you can develop your rolls. One day, I should learn to develop film, B&W and color, that would be great.</p>

<p>Peter, John, Bethe, thank you very much.<br> So… is this issue reversible? If the film is washed and stabilized properly, can I get the same result as if it was processed fine from the beginning? Is it all about clean it a bit or I am risking loss of quality, even in the best hands? I ask this because, of course, I would like the negative to be clean (I could make copies directly from it, I can scan it whenever I want without retouching it every time, etc). But if I´m risking loss of quality or something… (there are a couple of images that I like very much)<br> Also, if I go to the lab and ask for a roll and a refund, they could offer me that, instead of that, they could wash the film themselves, and I want to be prepared to know what to do in that situation. Probably John is right (thanks for the suggestion) and I should try to look for another lab to do that job.<br> This lab is considered a “pro” one, and I processed there some rolls with good results. But probably they are not at their best moment, for whatever reason. Or just an employee’s bad day, who knows.</p>

<p>Hi...<br> I developed a 35mm film in a lab and the negative is all stained with little spots (which appear white on positive).<br> The film is a boxed Kodak.<br> I show you an image.</p> <p><img src="http://s33.postimg.org/rfw7ciitr/Rollo_109_008.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="456" /><br> <img src="http://s33.postimg.org/gjb05dpe7/Rollo_109_008_crop.jpg" alt="" width="674" height="517" /><br> The stains are on the negative, the problem has nothing to do with the scanning.<br> It seems like a process mistake, bad washing or something. I know almost nothing about film developing. I always develop in labs and this is the first time something like this happened. Well, in fact, the second one. In the first one, a B&W film in another lab, there was an evident intrusion of light during developing, and also the film was stained with little spots of the same kind.</p> <p>Do you know what the mistake was, technically?<br> Is it a mistake that an experienced lab could make easily? Or is it about complete negligence?</p>