Printable View
The title says it all, but to clarify: What would the quality be if I were to take a Nikon D70s (which I don't have) and my 105mm micro Nikkor and shot 4x5 film on a lightbox (I use Velvia and FP4+ for the most part)? A D70s is less expensive than the new epson 750 scanner. I know 'quality' is not a well defined term but I guessing that since people buy scanners that's the way to go but would the DSLR work for an 8x10 proof?
While I haven't tried doing so, I'm confident that a reasonable "representation" of the negative is possible by that method. Whether it would qualify as a "proof" would depend on how closely the proof is intended to represent the final print, I'd think. Wouldn't it be one of those, "The final print will look just like this, but different" sort of things?
You'll want (need) a brighter light than a lightbox, more like a slide projector onto translucent white plexi -- but it will work for an 8x10 print. In the end, you can probably pick up a used Epson 3200 for under $200 that would do a better job and certainly be more convenient.
Since their aspect ratios are different you will not be able to use all of the dslr pixels.
Also consider that a DSLR uses a lens with issues from image flatness to distortion, while I would argue a flatbed scanner has no distortion at least. A micronikkor should be reasonably square, but hold a ruler at the edge of the frame, and I bet you will notice a tad of distortion. I did that with my marcoplanar, and although it is just a little, the ruler does bends just a bit.
If you use a lightbox with DSLR, also mask the remainder of the lightbox to reduce flare.
Not for me. Certainly not for me to show to anyone else. But clearly, YMMV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Kathe
If you are going to buy the D70 anyway, why not just take it in the field with you and use it to make "field duplicates" of your 5x4 shots? Your image quality would much improve...
I tried just what you are suggesting before I got my scanner, and it was only good for posting images on the internet. I wouldn't want to make even a small print using a digital camera to reproduce 4X5 film.
Thanks for all the replies. I love shooting film with my 4x5 but for 135 I'm finding the film, processing and scanning to be pretty expensive for what I get out of it. I never thought I'd say this but I'm thinking about getting a DSLR for non-critical work. I didn't want to get a scanner too, the less time in front of a computer the better! Maybe I'll get into the darkroom tomorrow :)
Scott