Scanning Negatives vs. DSLR Imaging

[David]

So I finally figured out how to get suitable DSLR slide and negative scanning with my K-7. The problem was the distance between the lens and the slide carrier. To reduce the image size, I had to mount three macro tubes IN FRONT of the lens. I'll do a YouTube video on this next week (since I can stand again and get back to filming!) and show how I set up my gear.

As for the results, here are some comparisons. I scanned reversal, color print, and black and white film. For the color print and black and white, I revisited film from a year ago that was either taken in heavy fog, overexposed, or itself fogged.

For light, I used my Pentax 440 AF flash. It worked as long as there was a secondary light behind it to minimize the vignetting.

These first three photos were taken on Kodak Ektachrome 100. Or whatever the current Kodak slide film is. This was my first time using the film, and I loved it, by the by. The scanner is my Epson Perfection 1670 at 3,200 dpi (the highest optical scan setting.)

1 (scanner then K-7)



2 (scanner then K-7)



3 (scanner then K-7)



4 (scanner then K-7)



5 (scanner then K-7)


Both of these library photos were composited from four or five images to achieve eye-like dynamic range. I did some (shoddy) manual blending on #5. It was three AM, though, so cut me some slack.

6 (scanner then K-7)



7 (scanner then K-7)



8 (scanner then K-7)


A note on 7 and 8: Each of these took three shots from the K-7 to compile. F16, f11, and f8. I layered the shots in Photoshop and had the software automatically blend them. Then I had to contrast and tone balance the results to correct for the low-contrast negative captures. It was a lengthy and unpleasant process.

9 (scanner then K-7)



10 (scanner than K-7)


For these color negative scans (the next four), the K-7 did NOT record all the color negative data, so the reversed images came out cyan. So, to make them in any way palatable, I converted them to black and white. All the dust on the negatives really shows up when photographed, too. Much more so than when scanned.

11 (scanner then K-7)


Sometimes, I put the negatives in backward. Oops.

12 (scanner then K-7)



13 (scanner then negative) -- Fuji Velvia 50 converted to black and white


My macro bellows is a bit of a Frankenstein, so the camera mounts at a slight angle. These last three were early scans before I figured out how to correct for the angle.

14 (scanner then K-7)


As with the black and white photos, this K-7 image required multiple blended photos to get the best result.

15 (scanner then K-7)



So, my feelings?
Pros:
1- The DSLR yields MUCH better detail and image quality. Straight out of the camera, stopped down to f8, 11, or 16, the details are as sharp as the film grain (but the Takumar 55mm 1:1.8 is softer than the scanner at or below f2.
2- The DSLR yields greater dynamic range than the scanner. (It also has greater latitude to correct negative errors such as fogging or image thickness)
3- The DSLR allows bracketing for additional image manipulation.
4- The DSLR was able to capture image data on extremely thick negatives that my scanner couldn't even see.

Cons:
5- The DSLR takes A LONG TIME. Yes, the image capture is 1/125th of a second with a flash pointed at the slide, but color inversion, balancing, and such take longer than the scanner.
6- The DSLR is much more susceptible to dust than the scanner. Because of the tiny aperture and straight-on flash orientation, ALL the dust on the negative, glass, lens, and sensor show. That's a lot of room for dust problems.
7- Unless you have a solid workflow and a bunch of good Photoshop scripts, then scanning is still going to be somewhat faster.

I'll keep trying the DSLR technique out as I think it has promise. But I wouldn't suggest running out and starting a business to convert people's old slides into digital images.

[Esox lucius]

Here's a similar approach, using a DSLR with macro lens to make a stitched panorama of the flattened slide/negative and then stitching together. Same experience, flatbed sucks

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

...taking multiple shots of each film frame, and then combining the individual photos using panoramic software. How many shots you’ll need will depend on:

The reproduction ratio you (and your lens) will use
How detailed the picture is
The resolution of your camera
The sensor size of your camera (full frame, APS-C, or smaller)

Generally I use a 1:2 enlargement ratio on medium and large format film and a 3:1 ratio on 35mm, and I get more or less these results:

35mm -> 4/6 shots
4.5×6cm -> 3/6 shots
6×6 & 6×7 -> 6/8 shots
4×5in & 13x18cm -> 20/30 shots

[peterqd]

Well done David! I'm impressed with the results from the DSLR. How do you mean, "tubes in front of the lens"? How did you connect the tube to the bellows? The DSLR still crops the image slightly, was that your choice?

I have a great way of correcting the base colour of neg film in Photoshop if you're interested.

[David]

@ Esox: That's a pretty great article. He gets good results, and it makes tons of sense for medium- and large-format.

@Peter, the color correction would be very helpful, yes. As for the cropping, part of that is because of my bellows. The bellows is an M42 Pentax Bellows 2, but it has no camera mount when I got it. So I screwed a flanged K mount adapter onto it and was off by about 1.5 or 2 degrees.

The problem I had with the K-7 is the same and APS-C sensor DSLR has: With the slide copier and camera both set to 1.0X magnification, the slides are cropped by about 33%. So the 1.5X markings on the bellows and slide copier are closer together than the 1.0X, meaning that to reduce magnification the camera and slide need to be further apart (with the lens as close to the camera as it can go on the bellows.) My slide copier has a VERY short bellows, getting the camera and bellows far enough apart meant there would be a gap between the slide copier bellows and 55mm lens. I remedied that with three M42 extension rubes. I bought a 49mm-42mm step-down ring and put that on the lens. Then I put the three M42 tubes (standard lengths) on the step-down ring. That gave me enough distance between the lens and slide to get about 1:1 magnification. It might crop about 3-4% of the image now, but that's fine for me.

I'll put together a YouTube video tonight and explain the process. That ought to help.

[miran]

Good results. I've been trying this technique myself and so far I'm finding colour negatives quite difficult to "scan" properly. Comparing with Epson V700 the difference is barely noticable, definately not on the same odred as in that article. B&W films scanned with a digital macro rig are quite visibly better than scanned with the Epson.

Btw, the author of the petapixel article is also a member on this forum: http://forum.mflenses.com/scanning-films-with-a-digital-camera-revisited-t55295.html

@Petere: I'd be interested in your orange mask correction procedure too. I'm using negfix8 but I'm not entirely satisfied.

[David]

The video should be live in about 12 hours. It's uploading and I have a REALLY slow connection. Here, in advance, is the link showing the YouTube video showing how I set up my rig and why:

http://youtu.be/Xh8vJCvsZtY

[peterqd]

David, I've tried using the same Pentax bellows set but for an APS-C camera I found it's impossible to capture the whole frame with
any of my lenses, even with the maximum distance between lens and slide. A slightly longer FL lens helps (a 58mm Helios 44 is the
best coverage I've managed) but the lens has to be very short in size - my 85 Takumar is too large. The ideal answer would be to
extend the rails.


OK, for David and Miran, this is what I do to correct the colour cast. Not sure this is the right place for it, but here goes:

For each scanned image of film strip, or individual image if you do it that way, make sure there is a piece of unexposed neg in the
image. It doesn't really matter whether you invert the neg at the time of scanning or in PS later - I always do it later, so I am talking
about looking at a negative image in PS.

In the image on the screen, the unexposed part of the film will have a brown/orange colour but this should actually be white on the
corrected negative. Select the whole image, go to Image > Adjustments > Curves.... and click on the white colour sampler below the
histogram - it's the one on the right. If you are working with a positive image, choose the black sampler of course. Now click the
sampler in the area of unexposed film and it removes the colour cast from the whole picture. Sometimes a bit more adjustment is
needed - I often use the standard grey sampler (the middle one) and click on something grey in the image to make minor corrections.

You can make it even simpler by recording an action, but you have to make a different one for each film type.

[ForenSeil]