Negative Supply For Digitizing 4x5 Negatives?

[neil poulsen]

Does anyone have experience with this system for digitizing 4x5 negatives? Is it effective; can one achieve better results with this system than one would get from an Epson prosumer scanner?

For capture, I would be using an MP4 Polaroid copy stand with an Arca 6x9 system and a Phase One P45+ digital back (39mpx) along with a Nikon 120mm f5.6 AM ED Macro lens.

They have two light sources: one with a CRI of 99%, and a second, less expensive light source rated at a CRU IF 97%

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't used that system, nor your equipment, but I do have a fair amount of experience with camera scanning. My _guess_ is yes, you can do better than an Epson scanner, including about 1 stop more dynamic range. Currently, I use a DIY system where I take 3 images of a 4x5 negative, using a sliding negative carrier. Nikon Z9. Fujinon 90mm EX lens. Alignment, freedom from vibration, and minimization of extraneous light are all critical to the best results.

I highly recommend getting one of Vlad's targets to help optimize your system. They're also great for making comparisons. https://www.film4ever.info/

[Sal Santamaura]

Neil, do you have a glass 4x5 enlarger negative carrier? A light box? If so, why not just use them to illuminate and hold the 4x5 negative rather than buying more stuff from Negative Supply?

[darr]

I have not used the Negative Supply gear, but I have been digitizing with digital backs and with an APS-C camera for 10 years and will never go back to a scanner. I have used different gear over the years and wrote about what I have learned from it thus far here:

https://photoscapes.com/mastering-film-digitization/

Will you be tethering to a computer? I ask because the P45+ does not have a usable Live View. I have a P45; the only difference between it and a P45+ is the longer exposure time available. The option listed in the back menu that says “Live View” is not actually usable as Live View, like in a CMOS sensor back or camera.

[Alan9940]

I don't even have a glass 4x5 negative carrier, as Sal suggests. I use the standard 4x5 negative carrier from my Beseler 45MX and simply set it on the light source. I do all my camera scanning in a dark room so reflections are not an issue. Works great for my needs...and much better than my Epson flatbed scanner.

[neil poulsen]

I do have an omega glass carrier. Will need to look 'round for a light source. Thanks for the input.!

[neil poulsen]

What a reasonable resolution of the sensor used for camera scanning?

My Df, which I really like, offers 16mpx. As mentioned, my P45+ has 39mpx.

[Peter De Smidt]

Work backwards from the size prints you might make.

[neil poulsen]

Indeed; I wasn't thinking too straight earlier today. :)

[brian mcweeney]

I gave up using my Epson 4990 scanner. Even with better software it just had too many problems to fix just to get a decent scan.
I now make camera scans of my 4x5 film using a brand new piece of white plexi, a Profoto strobe underneath and my Nikon D850.
Shoot tethered to Capture One and have 16 bit 24x30 PSD files that print great on Hahnemuhle Baryta paper.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Fabulous gear you have there. I've got a bunch of Negative Supply gear. Quality stuff, but whether it really solves the problems, I'm unconvinced. FWIW, I found DSLR scanning such a dust battle I literally gave up and bought an Epson V850 with which I'm reasonably pleased - wet scanning and wet scanning only. With your copy stand and camera, I'd consider giving the Epson wet mount ($50-ish) a whirl BEFORE Negative Supply's over priced stuff. But if you want NS's stuff, I'd be willing to make you a good deal on my very lightly used stuff - if I have what you're looking for (and it's likely I may for 120 and/or 4X5).

[Alan Klein]

Fabulous gear you have there. I've got a bunch of Negative Supply gear. Quality stuff, but whether it really solves the problems, I'm unconvinced. FWIW, I found DSLR scanning such a dust battle I literally gave up and bought an Epson V850 with which I'm reasonably pleased - wet scanning and wet scanning only. With your copy stand and camera, I'd consider giving the Epson wet mount ($50-ish) a whirl BEFORE Negative Supply's over priced stuff. But if you want NS's stuff, I'd be willing to make you a good deal on my very lightly used stuff - if I have what you're looking for (and it's likely I may for 120 and/or 4X5).

Why wet scanning only?

[darr]

I’ve been digitizing film with a camera for about ten years, and dust has never been an issue for me. Just as I did when using a film scanner, I make sure to clean the film thoroughly before digitizing. A few strokes with a antistatic brush on each side of the film surface usually does the trick. As for wet scanning, I heard enough photographers complain about residue left by the wetting agent that I decided not to try it, even back when scanning was the only option. Nothing beats a clean workflow and solid techniques.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Alan: In my experience, the difference in favor of wet scans is just far better. Literally said, "Wow" a few times. That never happened with the dry scans AND I'm typically not fighting dust devils. Did a LOT of dry scans. But with wet, the film lies flatter and it just turns out better. Some say the tonalities come out, the grain recedes, etc. I can't claim that 'cause I"ve not done a side-by-side of the same photo, but if you've not tried it you should.

Darr: Yep for some folks DSLR scanning works great. Then there are folks like me who for whatever reason, it just doesn't and seems like more work. For me, one answer is to move to a format like LF where you shoot less anyway, so you have less to scan and then the difference becomes one of preference in workflow. When I did DSLR scans, the results were quick but nothing I'd hang my hat on.

[chris kleihege]

Hi All,
I rarely weigh in on topics in the forum but I read it quite avidly. I scan using both a drum scanner and a Negative Supply rig. I also have used an Epson 800 or 850 but found it was not my thing. The drum scanner is better. It is also a wet process, messy and time consuming (an added joy, my scanner model seems to have a problem with capacitors popping off so I keep a fire extinguisher next to it). I have made thousands of drum scans.
I have also made thousands of scans of 4x5 and 35mm with a Negative Supply rig. I use their film holders and their light box and they are very well made and easy to use. I cannot speak to their copy stands; I use a rock solid Kaiser purchased sometime in the 90’s.
I think the results with the Negative Supply gear is dependent on the digital camera, the macro lens and technique. The lens and the film must be absolutely parallel. If you do this and you have an excellent quality lens on a camera with acceptable resolution (for you), you should be pleased with the results.
I view leveling out the camera and lens and film as like using a view camera. Anything can be out of whack and you’ll probably spent a little time adjusting the lengths of the feet of the light box and the like. And as I wouldn’t bother trying to focus on a ground glass without a loupe, no eyeballing here either. I find if I use a target in the film holder getting the parts aligned is much more accurate. I use one of these https://www.freestylephoto.com/64404-Vlads-Test-Target-4x5
I don’t think you can scrimp on a light box either. None of mine perfectly appropriate for viewing film will work well while scanning. The light is not cast evenly over a 4x5 or larger area. Put a spot meter on various places on your light box and grind your teeth at another purchase.
In summary, if you want a gb file, drum scanner is the way to go. If you really only want a file the size of your digital camera output, Negative Supply gear is very well made, much easier to use and with proper technique will produce excellent results.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Chris: I don't want to leave the wrong impression - if I did. Digital scanning with a camera is great... I just hit a roadblock and swerved to a scanner rather than do my usual "head down and bull your way through". So I'm still up for better. With that, may I ask: What light ARE you using? I found the Negative Scan lights probably the best out there, but pricey. Very curious. But I've read some pretty great flash setups, too. I didn't have that as an option at the time, but inevitably of course, do now.

And with the Epson V850 now out of production, it's a question of time. Scanning is a time sink that DSLR scanning does address nicely, but often I'm scanning in the set-up-and-walk-away mode. So time hasn't been a big deal per se.... though it is slow. Drum scanning from what I see is even slower. But having just put my Nikon Coolscan LS8000 and film holders up for sale with a dealer who'll warranty it, I won't buy another scanner... so the next step would either be to pay for 3rd drum scans, or back to the Neg Supply stuff.... which as you say is VERY well made. Their MF 120 film stuff in particular is rock solid. And my experience with 3rd party scans locally is that even with the Imacon scanner, you're dependent on a tech with less investment and less skills than the photographer, and definitely less commitment to the image. Finding the right person is kind of important, and not simple. I know Alex Burke fits this profile for sure in terms of someone I'd trust 100%, but how many like him are out there?

I can make a case for a wet scan - which I think is normal for drum scanners anyway - and I'd stick with that rather than a film holder to avoid the deflection in the middle of the image. Again, with the onesies we do in sheet film this isn't a constraint. Using art supplies (rather than the same products packaged for photographers) makes the cost nominal anyway: I have years and years of supply of mylar and fluid for around $ 100.

FWIW, I think once you've got a contemporary 24 MP camera, the MP applied is less important than whether it can multi-shift which in theory should be equivalent of multi-scans on the Epson or drum scanner (per Sandy King who is of course using a Fuji MF I think). My Nikon Zf will do this, but I haven't stepped up to a Macro lens yet. The used Kaiser copy stand I bought from Adorama for digital scanning is as rigid and heavy duty as an analog englarger. But orienting the camera correctly almost wants a dedicated camera - do it once and be done. I'm not there yet. Were I to upgrade the Zf to a Z6III one could do the job, I'd keep the Zf as a dedicated scanning camera - possibly. Having done the FUJI R50 MF and sold it, I'm not feeling MF digital is necessary (or a price I want to deal with). But gee.... it sure was nice while it lasted. The FUJI MF systems are beautifully made, a joy to the touch, and the dynamic range amazing, but Nikon Z's are pretty decent as well. YMMV.

[chris kleihege]

Hi Skip, I didn't see your message or questions. Let me get to them...I use a Negative Scan light box for the very reason you mentioned. Until I started doing some scanning with a digital camera I never really noticed how uneven the light is from my old light boxes. If you scan with a light box that has hot or dark spots you are baking in lousy results. I paid up. I gave a 1 minute shot with the Nikon scanning device, essentially oversized paper clips holding a 35 mm slide to a lens and using a flash to illuminate. Other people have been happy with the setup but I have started scanning thousands of negatives and transparencies from 35mm to 8x10 and the device didn't seem durable enough to make it thru its task. Also, due note that for it to focus on the 35mm slide I think you need to use a macro lens. You mentioned that you don't have one yet. Imacon scanners are nice, I used them for years, but you are right in that operator expertise makes a difference. This is even more true for drum scanners. My drum scanner, a Screen Dts-1041ai will scan 6 4x5's in about 8 hours. Fortunately I photograph archaeology so something has been there 5000 years, what's another day or two for the scan? If you haven't wet mounted before expect a learning curve. I've never multi-shift ed a scan but others do it beautifully. Right now I am leaving it to a 45mm full frame (D850) and a macro lens. I make scans with the Negative Supply rig and judge from them what to run thru the drum scanner. If you are interested in what I'm doing, take a look at www.ckphoto.org. Most but not all is film.

[chris kleihege]

That is "do note...", not due note. I hope that was some autocorrect. I was once a high school English teacher and I'll have to give myself a Saturday Jug. Back to using a flash as a light source. I've only seen that for 35mm but a different format rig might be out there somewhere. I'd imagine you'd need some serious distance between transparency and lens.

[Tobias Key]

Interesting thread. I have always thought that if you wanted to build a top notch camera scanning system, a repurposed monorail camera would offer a lot of what you need for very little money. If you could fashion a negative holder out of a lens board and attach a digital camera to the other standard you could create stitched scans using rise, fall and shift and the bellow would cut out extraneous light. The rail would keep everything in line.

[Vaughan]

...(an added joy, my scanner model seems to have a problem with capacitors popping off so I keep a fire extinguisher next to it)...

That's a whole other level of "other-level" right there.

Vaughan (all I have to worry about are mosquitos and bush turkeys) with two As.

[Joshua Dunn]

I recently invested in the Negative Supply Pro Kit. If you are going to scan 4x5, medium format (6x4.5 to 6x9) or 35mm, it is quite a well thought out kit. It has a great light source and, ergonomically well engineered. I did have an issue with the column on mine which Negative Supply replaced. This did give me an opportunity to speak with the C.E.O. of the company, AJ Holmes. As a company they are all in on the advent of digital scanning solutions. To include future plans for larger than 4x5 formats. I'm very encouraged for a U.S. based company to be taking this on, especially with all of the issues many of us had with companies such as Betterscanning.com. I am excited to see what they come up with next.

I have paid for drum scans previously and was thinking of purchasing one. I am new(ish) to the digital capture of negatives however since I invested in a 100mp Hasselblad, I purchased a Hasselblad macro and will use that for scanning. Once I get a good workflow in place, I will more than likely choose the size I want to print. If that is larger than the native size of the sensor, I plan on cropping (zooming in) into the negative and take several captures of it and stitch it together to get the desired size/resolution. To Chris Kleihege's point regarding using a drum scanner to get a gb sized file, I am hoping this will yield the best of both worlds. The dynamic range of a digital sensor and the resolution of a drum scanner.

-Joshua

[ZhanTeh]

I recently purchased Negative Supply's 4x5 Light Source Basic MK2 99cri to scan my 4x5 negatives and came across issues with bright light spots at the top and bottom corners. I have scanned multiple negatives and all of them have the same issue. I scan with a Fuji X-T5, 4 shots stitched in Lightroom.

Straight out of scan sample below with issue highlighted.
258433

Anyone using the same light source came across the same issue? It is making me wonder if the 4x5 Light Source Basic MK2 is not optimised for 4x5 scanning.

Also a question for those using the Pro light source - Do you encounter the same issue?

I sent the same question to NegativeSupply but disappointingly did not get a reply. It is a shame as I do like their product and believe it will improve my workflow if not for this issue.

[Joshua Dunn]

Zhan,

When I spoke to Negative Supply about light sources, the newer light sources are very different than the basic light sources. I have not had this issue with the Pro Light Source. They are also building the newer light sources to be scalable to larger sizes than 4x5. I have had good communication with them, I would suggest trying again.

-Joshua