I've recently made 4 shots with a roll of film dating back to 1950-1955 or so. It was a roll of Agfa Isopan Super Special, 100ASA black and white film.
This film was still in a Tahbes Synchro Camera, which dates back to 1948, and it still had 4 of the 12 slides unexposed.
The entire roll was developed at a local store (HEMA, for the dutchies a well-known shop) for just € 2,65, but they did not provide me with scans of the negatives.
Today I took them to the local photoshop, but unfortunately that guy stopped scanning anything larger than 35mm film/slide 6 weeks ago. The only other option is Foto Weert, and there they charge € 1,05 per negative, and all you get is an 8 bit JPEG. [:'(] I've given them the negatives to scan, so I'll know in a couple of days what their quality is.
However, this all made me think. Isn't it possible to create a simple but effective negative-scanner based on a normal scanner or a normal dSLR? Just backlight the negative, put the SLR on a tripod, take a RAW capture of the negative... Wouldn't that work?
The other option is that I get a relatively simple flatbed scanner with a backlight lit, such as the Epson Perfection V500 Photo, or the HP Scanjet G4050 (L1957A). However, as I'm still a Dutchman [:o)] I want to prevent costs as much as I can, and a decent scanner is quickly over € 200....
backlighting and taking a phot should work fine, theoretically you should be able to just scan it like a normal photo and then just make a negative of the negative in lightroom
Yes, I bought a low end HP Scanjet G3010 specifically to copy color slides mounted in frames. The scanner produces remarkably good scans of regular photos and pretty good scans of slides. I think it is an excellent scanner for light weight home use, but probably wouldn't be adequate in a commerical studio environment.
The scanner has a special slide holder built into the lid which when closed, almost touches the scanner's glass bed. The slide holder is illuminated from behind (there is a milky glass plate with illumination behind it). I think that is a problem because the slide film isn't placed directly on the scanner bed's glass plate.
None the less, I've used it with fair success using the slide holder in the lid.
I'm a spend-happy American so I didn't try to photograph the slides. It would be do-able simply by sandwiching them in glass plates, backlighting them, and photographing from the front.
There's only just one glitch - you should have a flat-field lense designed specifically for copy work. Otherwise, expect less than professional results.
Originally posted by HuwR on 17/10/09 @ 18:18 backlighting and taking a phot should work fine, theoretically you should be able to just scan it like a normal photo and then just make a negative of the negative in lightroom
Well, I already read that making a normal scan of the negative will create so-called Newton-rings. This is caused by the film-surface touching the scanner's glass surface. Example: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AUfk That's why in a negative scanner, the negatives do not touch the glass of the scanner.
Rich, how can I recognize a flat-field lense? I've seen a fair amount of lenses, but I've never read a remark about them being flat-field or not. I was thinking of using the DA* 50-135mm at 135mm at f/4 for this purpose ; no vignetting and zero barrel/pincusion distortion, combined with a high resolution. By the way, at maximum I can create photoscans this way of 3104x3104 pixels (as the negatives are already square, and my K20D has a resolution of 4672x3104). So theoretically, this dslr-photoscanner has a resolution of 1314 ppi when 'scanning' 6x6cm negatives....that doesn't really come close to the 6400 ppi of the € 200 Epson v500 scanner. I think I'll just have to discuss this with my CFO.
You will not see much about flat field lenses unless you worked for a lab that does copy work. The most accurate web based source of information about copy lenses that I could find is here: http://www.tpub.com/content/ph../..4209_218.htm
I don't know who makes a copy lens to fit a Pentax but I'm sure that some does. Maybe search B & H ??
That's some very usefull info for sure! Thanks! I don't think I'm going to purchase a flat field lense for this, as purchasing a simple scanner such as the Epson v500 or the HP G4050 is good enough and well under € 250. I don't expect a flat field lens for Pentax at that price.... I just saw the Pentax smc DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro which (according to what I read) is suitable for copy purposes, and that lens alone is € 550.....
Guys, I can confirm that using a normal flatbed scanner (in this case a HP Photosmart C4180 All in one) is NOT suitable for scanning negatives... I've tried several methods, including backlighting with a halogen lightsource, etc etc, and this is the best scan I've made.... It's a 600dpi scan of a 35mm Kokak Gold 400 negative. Because of the bad negative<>positive transformation, I've converted it to grayscale... [img]http://q.oxle.com/files/1/thisisasbadascanbe_thumb.jpg[/img] That's just downright awful....[:'(]
To sum up, have a serious chat with yourself if you plan to scan a large film collection with a flatbed scanner. Consider using a local lab for the collection and investing in a high-end scanner with good software to tweak special images.
The V600 is a valiant attempt to deliver the goods at half the price of the flagship V700/V750 but Epson Scan won't let you profile the scanner and couldn't deliver reliable results from a variety of Kodak color negatives we tried. The V600 itself did much better when run from VueScan, but if you have to buy software to use the scanner, it puts the flagship scanner back in the picture.
But if you can live with an unprofiled device and primarily want to scan black and white images or slides, the V600 did well enough to make prints to hang at home.
I think it's fair to say that with an entry level filmscanner - and even with a decent filmscanner such as the v750 - the results will not be what you expect from your once so great slides and negatives, while the process to accurately digitize the slides/negatives is very time consuming.
So....perhaps I'll just have to give up, and resort to sticking with APS-C sized digital altogether, until an affordable 6x6 digiback is available. [:'(]
Nope. And, to be honest, from the looks of that device (and it's price) I really do not expect much. Single pass scan, resolution 2592x1680 (that's something like 1700 dpi?), no RAW (TIFF) output, no 6x6 support. Hey, what do you expect for $ 99.
Today however I got an 8 year old Epson 1640SU ; 1600 dpi, does 35mm, 5x4" (and I can make it work with 6x6cm slides), 40 bit color depth, the whole chabang. There's no driver for this ancient scanner for Windows 7, but ofcourse Vuescan supports it. [good] Best thing is the amount I paid: zero. [8D] That's pretty Dutch isn't it. [;)]
Here's the first quick result ; it's the same 35mm slide as before now scanned at 1600 dpi, in TIFF format. Some postprocessing in Lightroom (curves) and that's that. [img]http://q.oxle.com/files/1/MG_0003_thumb.jpg[/img] Okay, the result is only 3.2 megapixels and very grainy, but it does the job relatively well. I think the quality of the negative in this case is also pretty bad, so I'll try some better negatives. I'll have to fiddle around with some cardboard to have it accept 6x6 negatives, but that's a project for the weekend.
Here's another 35mm scan, this time one shot on Quelle Revue ISO 200. That's a rather unknown film type, and I noticed that VueScan had some serious issues converting the negative into a positive... Exported from Vuescan as 48bit TIFF, and applied curves in Lightroom, together with a auto white balance. [img]http://q.oxle.com/files/1/MG_0002_thumb.jpg[/img] BTW, this is the car my wife and I married in (well, we didn't get married *in* the car, but you know what I mean...)
BTW, together I can pick up the scans made at Foto Weert, of the >50 year old roll of Agfa Isopan Super Special. I'm quite anxious to see what they've been up to.
They're not bad, really. A little grainy perhaps, but I'm not sure that you'll get much better unless you spend a big pile of money for gear.
BTW, I get an error message if I click on the picture, then click on "Discuss this photo" on the next page. I'm not trying to hack your database, honest!
Originally posted by PacificNorthWest on 23/10/09 @ 04:48 They're not bad, really. A little grainy perhaps, but I'm not sure that you'll get much better unless you spend a big pile of money for gear.
Yup, that's what I conclude from this experiment too. Scanning 35mm negatives isn't going to get much better, and I'm sure not going to spend any money on getting a scanner that does the job better than this. Heck, I just advised BoredCat to get a simple negative-scanner, like the VuPoint Solutions scanner you posted yesterday. If it has an autofeeder system it's much more efficient than a "pro" flatbed. I cannot imagine scanning the hundreds and hundreds of 35mm negatives I have laying around with the flatbed. It's just too much work. For the occasional 6x6 negative I think it'll do the job very well.
quote :
Originally posted by PacificNorthWest on 23/10/09 @ 04:48 BTW, I get an error message if I click on the picture, then click on "Discuss this photo" on the next page. I'm not trying to hack your database, honest!
Haha, I'm sure you have no bad intentions. I got several warning mails from the forum regarding your alledged "hack attack". It seems that the link back to this topic also included these two characters: "?拘" I'm not sure why that is, so I'll sort it out and make sure the link is clean. No worries. [:p]
The VuPoint Solutions scanner mentioned earlier is available for a lot less than $99 USD - I only posted that link because Amazon.com had one review about the product. The reviewer posted that he could scan about 100 slides in an hour while watching TV.
Today I got the roll of Agfa Isopan Super Special back from the store, together with the scans. They're all JPG's, scanned at 1200dpi. [:'(] Pretty lousy quality if you ask me, but the age of the roll (>50 years) didn't help either. [:p]
I also scanned one negative with the Epson, just to see how this scanner does the job. Here's the comparison, at full res though converted to JPG, 90%.
First the result of the shop, the scan for which I paid € 1,05 a piece.
Now the scan I just made myself, using a DIY 6x6 frame and the Epson 1640SU. [img]http://q.oxle.com/files/1/MG_14-2_EPSON_thumb.jpg[/img] It's a close call to be honest, but I think the pros (in the shop) didn't do a better job than me on the 8 year old scanner.
No, the "pros" did a worse job. It's a bit tricky with Oxle, but if you view both photos at maximum size and place them side-by-side (one overlapping the other) and look at the chair arm shown in the picture on the left side, you will see more detail in the shadow area than the "pro" reproduction.
The pro image has lost information in the shadow areas - it's increased contrast gives a false impression of "sharpness". Plus, the pro image introduced dust spots to the image. The dust spots are inexcusable from a commercial "pro" lab. Your DYI job is superior to the commercial lab results.
Well, it's definitely the last time I go there for anything. I've had several issues with them, but as they are the only photo-gear store where I live, you cannot get around them easily..... I'll just resort to a lab in Eindhoven instead (FFS).
WIth respect to scanning ; I'm going to get a couple rolls of color and bw 6x6 film, and use my wife's grandfather's Zeiss Ikon Nettax to shoot some landscapes. Now just find an address where I can order those rolls.
I sold my 6x6 Bronica two years ago. The only professional lab (it was a lab, not a camera store) in town that processed 6x6 closed about 8-10 years ago. The 6x6 is a dying breed.
I don't think 6x6 is really dying ; there still is no digital alternative for it. Phase One doesn't make 6x6 digital backs ; I think 4x4 is the biggest they're doing.
Regarding processing ; I also assumed that I needed to go to a real lab for developing the rollfilm, but to my surprise I learned that you can take the 120 rollfilm to HEMA, a dutch department store. Just € 2.65 to develop a roll! [:)]
Today I purchased 6 rolls of rollfilm on eBay ; 2 rolls of Kokak Ektacolor 160, 2 rolls of Fujicolor Pro 160s and 2 rolls of Fujicolor Pro 160c ; all with expiration date in or after 2011. For a grand total of 24 euros they're coming my way, all the way from Australia. [:D] I cannot wait to get my hands on them, with the Zeiss Ikon Nettax, or my father in law's Rolleiflex.... I'm beginning to fall in love with analog (and especially with 6x6!) I even have to admit I was looking on eBay for a Mamiya C220....
I had a Mamiya C220 as a back up camera when I shot weddings. It had interchangeable lenses, but the old Rolliflex produced better quality images. I think you'd be happier with a Rolli.
Rich...stop it...this will only make me want a Rolleiflex even more... [oO] My father in law has a Rolleicord, but I'll just have to find out if it still works, and whether or not it accepts 120 roll film.
How to scan 6x6 (b/w) negatives, Dutch style?
