What is your digital camera “scanning” setup?

I didn’t see a general thread like this (if there is one, please merge!), but while I was trying to get away from computers, my darkroom has been unusable for a few months, so I haven’t been able to view my negatives as positives, so I broke down and decided to setup scanning with a digital camera as a temporary measure. While I’d probably get better results with a scanner like a V850, I seriously have nowhere to put it. My computer is a laptop that I use on my couch, so a big bulky scanner really isn’t usable.

So here is my current setup for “scanning”:

- Pentax K3 II, APS-C sensor, 24 mega pixels
- Pentax Copipod stand
- Fuji transparency viewer

The copipod is less than ideal, with 4 legs, I need to find a lens that allows the legs to extend far enough that the Fuji viewer fits between instead of under the legs. On the plus side, it is small and easy to pack away. It’s not as rigid as I like, but I deal with that by taking all the shots with a several second delay. I’ll probably find a remote trigger for it.

I think I can make it work with two lenses—a 35mm f2.8 will allow a 8x10 to mostly fill the frame. Right now I have a 50mm f1.7 that works for 5x7 to mostly fill the frame, but it won’t focus close enough for 4x5 to get more than ~8 megapixels after cropping. I’ve ordered a 50mm f2.8 macro lens that should work for both 4x5 and 5x7.

If I had a full frame camera, I’d probably be using a 100macro for the smaller formats, and a 50 macro for 8x10. Overall, the results I’m getting are…ok. I’ve only done a dozen test scans, so I haven’t tweaked it yet. So far, it’s good enough for web and simple proofing, but doesn’t feel radically more resolution that my medium format scans.

Right now the software I use is Apple’s discontinued app—Aperture—because I know it, and own it (no subscription.)

I’m very curious what other people are using, what your process looks like and how satisfied you are with the results?

I have been camera scanning for more than a few years now. I left behind my Epson V700 and other Microtek scanners years ago. Photography is fun for me, but not scanning, so digitizing film via a camera and copy stand works a lot better for how I like to work. I mostly use my digitized images for prints less than 18x24" (although I have had prints printed larger for exhibit shows), and web usage. My setup reflects the commercial usage side of my work, but whatever equipment one has to start with I would recommend they begin. I have a room dedicated in my home for my stored film and digitizing workstation. I started with a smaller Kaiser copy stand, but quickly learned it would not be sufficient for my medium format digitizing workflow. It does a good job with my smaller setup and is portable whereas the CS copy stand is not. My digitizing station reminds me just a little of the enlarger room I had setup in my prior home, and the fact it is permanently setup makes it an easier task for me to use.

--

My LF/MF setup for the past few years:

Beseler CS Copystand
ALPA TC camera body
Hasselblad CFi 120 macro lens
Hasselblad Variable Extension Tube
Hasselblad CFV II 50c (upgraded from CFV 50c)
Skier Sunray Copy Box 3 (upgraded from Box 2)

Setup for 35mm films:
Fujifilm X-Pro3
Kaiser Lightbox (contact sheet creation)

--

Here are a few links to articles I wrote a couple of years ago if anyone is interested.
Just remember some of my gear has changed since I wrote the articles, but it can give an idea of what is involved.

Digitizing Film - Part 1
Digitizing Film - Part 2

--

A snapshot of my current setup in use with 4x5 film (from World Pinhole Day shoot):

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/...m-digitize.jpg

Since I only scan for online imaging

I am now using iPad5 on a camera copy stand, using a grid to align

I scan small prints, but also use a V700 for LF negs

iPad lighting is very good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/...m-digitize.jpg

---

Wow, that is a nice (and rigid looking) setup. At 18x24, do you feel the digital capture isn't evident in your end result? I don't think my setup would manage that yet (maybe when I get the kinks worked out.) The main benefit I'm hoping to get from a macro lens (aside from the fact that the tend to be sharper) is that (at least on Pentax) the macro lenses' focusing have much more throw, so I'm hoping it will be easier to dial in accurate focus. I have a 100 macro but aside from being too long for the copipod, being an AF lens, if I put it in manual mode, it creeps horrible. (worse on the copipod because the lens is supporting the camera.) Aside from that it is a beautifully sharp lens with a huge long turn to get from infinity to 1:1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tin Can

iPad lighting is very good

---

When I was camera scanning medium format, my first try was a white screen on the iPad and the camera above, but the problem I had was grid of pixels was clearly visible in the photos. I ended up "solving" that by placing the film in the enlarger negative carrier (to make it rigid) then placing the carrier on blocks to space the negative ~1inch from the iPad to move the pixels out of the range of focus. It actually worked pretty well, aside from being a bit of a hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abruzzi

Wow, that is a nice (and rigid looking) setup. At 18x24, do you feel the digital capture isn't evident in your end result? I don't think my setup would manage that yet (maybe when I get the kinks worked out.) The main benefit I'm hoping to get from a macro lens (aside from the fact that the tend to be sharper) is that (at least on Pentax) the macro lenses' focusing have much more throw, so I'm hoping it will be easier to dial in accurate focus. I have a 100 macro but aside from being too long for the copipod, being an AF lens, if I put it in manual mode, it creeps horrible. (worse on the copipod because the lens is supporting the camera.) Aside from that it is a beautifully sharp lens with a huge long turn to get from infinity to 1:1.

---

I have absolutely no problems with large prints made from digital camera scanning.
Here is an example of the size of a file made from one digital frame capture:

https://photoscapes.com/wp-content/u...ngle-frame.jpg

Here is an example of the size of a file made from four heavily overlapping frames:

https://photoscapes.com/wp-content/u...hed-frames.jpg

With enough slices stitched, an extremely large print can be made without much difficulty.
I use Lightroom to stitch the slices and it is an automatic process.

I use a manual lens and if I run into a negative that is difficult to focus, I will focus on the film data on the rebate.
Besides a macro lens, I think the quality of the light source and film holders are very important for optimum results.

Obviously we all have different standards

I don't use a negative on top of iPad

The iPad is the camera and the built in flash illuminates print only

Very high rez DIGI is good for DIGI prints

If I want DIGI, I shoot DIGI

ah, so you're photographing prints, not negatives? I misunderstood. Unfortunately, that won't really work for me, since the point of this (for me) is that my dark room is currently out of commission, and I need a way to evaluate negatives until I get the darkroom operational again--which could take some time.

Elinchrome D-Lite4 with 60x60cm Softbox pointed upwards
MDF board on trestles with cutout for enlarger negative carrier
7' camera stand with horizontal boom and geared head
Pentax 645z with 120mm macro lens
USB cable to laptop computer

Attachment 228174

I built a digitizing stand with a Beseler 45V-XL enlarger, Z-axis micrometer stages, and linear rails.

I use a Canon 5D II mounted to a basic riser from Negative Supply, 50mm Sigma macro lens, Essential Film Holder (with various masks), and a high CRI light source (forget the brand.) This is for 35mm - 6x9. I still do LF on my Epson scanner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by younghoon Kil

I built a digitizing stand with a Beseler 45V-XL enlarger, Z-axis micrometer stages, and linear rails.

---

I have the shell of an Omega D3 in my garage (I bought it with a D2, and scavenged the best parts from both to build my enlarger.) I consdered using that as the basis for my scanning rig, but I'm horrible with DIY, so making a mount for the camera that is level or adjustable to make level is a bit out of my skills, but your setup looks very nice. The D3 is still in the garage gathering dust. My current plan (mentioned earlier in another thread) will be to build a "copy stand" out of spare sinar parts, and mount the camera to a P2 rear standard. When the parts arrive I'll try it out to see if it might work well.

An old version of my setup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmRHTausFls

Daniel's version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy7RJwIBAo&t=0s

Just posted Part 3 of my digital scanning journey for anyone interested.

Best to you,
darr

Darr,

Great article quite clarifying, and I like the font choice on your website.
For me I still have mixed feeling about camera scanning, I see the advantages but struggle with the levelling, stitching and bracketing, for now I find this to be hassle mainly with 6x6 or larger.
You end up with HDRI + pano stichting in Lightroom and my MacMini struggles with this.
Also now after covid I must work 2 day’s from home and this means clearing out my desk of photography material each time.
I have a Nikon D750 with a 60mm macro lens and the Negative Supply holders, but a cheap copy stand, perhaps I must give this another go … now after reading your post .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickMarq

Darr,

Great article quite clarifying, and I like the font choice on your website.
For me I still have mixed feeling about camera scanning, I see the advantages but struggle with the levelling, stitching and bracketing, for now I find this to be hassle mainly with 6x6 or larger.
You end up with HDRI + pano stichting in Lightroom and my MacMini struggles with this.
Also now after covid I must work 2 day’s from home and this means clearing out my desk of photography material each time.
I have a Nikon D750 with a 60mm macro lens and the Negative Supply holders, but a cheap copy stand, perhaps I must give this another go … now after reading your post .

---

Thank you Patrick.

I do shoot auto-bracketing on all my negatives because the camera is setup to take a series of one stop brackets and it happens in the blink of an eye. However, I do not use brackets in post all the time; only on difficult highlight areas which is not that often. I also prefer using the little bubble levels placed on my camera back to level, which takes no effort at all if you have a copy stand with either a leveling base or ball head attached. A leveling base that can stay permanently attached is best as I find mine has stayed level over time, even when moving the copy stand back to storage. The advantage of the copy stand in part, is its grid. When digitizing my 4x5" film, I slide the Skier Copy Box (copy box) so I am making four parts of the rectangle quickly. First I align the copy box on a horizontal grid line under the camera in preparation for my first slice which is the bottom left film rebate to two-thirds across the film. Then I slide the box a little along the horizontal line until the right film rebate is under and aligned at the edge of the lens, and take my second slice. Then I slide the box along a vertical grid line and align the top right rebate corner to the edge, shoot a slice, and slide the copy box again using a horizontal grid line (I eyeball it once I got good at it) for the final top left film rebate shot. Once I got the hang of it, it goes quicker than it sounds.

I do understand my technique for digitizing 4x5" film requires a copy stand, and enough computing power to allow Lightroom or Photoshop to piece them together. But in all honesty, my iMac is getting old in the tooth (late 2015), but my 64GB RAM probably helps more than I realize. It sounds like you have great tools, you just need a copy stand IMO. I would not be able to do what I do without a copy stand and using a tripod would not work for me as it would not be precise enough and standing over a tripod looking down would hurt my back making me not want to do it.

Feel free to contact me if I can help answer any questions for you.

Kind regards,
Darr

Darr,

I have done some test with some 35mm film, bracketing 3 images, the results where quite impressive especially comparing them to the same scans done with my Reflecta ProScan 10T. Sharper more detail …
For a long time I was happy with the results !
But the horror when executing those tasks in Lightroom and some in Photoshop. My Mac Mini has only 2 core CPU and 16 GB ram.
So after some consideration I have ordered the basic Mac Studio M1 Max.

Patrick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickMarq

But the horror when executing those tasks in Lightroom and some in Photoshop. My Mac Mini has only 2 core CPU and 16 GB ram.
So after some consideration I have ordered the basic Mac Studio M1 Max.

---

You're going to see quite an improvement in performance :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatrickMarq

Darr,

I have done some test with some 35mm film, bracketing 3 images, the results where quite impressive especially comparing them to the same scans done with my Reflecta ProScan 10T. Sharper more detail …
For a long time I was happy with the results !
But the horror when executing those tasks in Lightroom and some in Photoshop. My Mac Mini has only 2 core CPU and 16 GB ram.
So after some consideration I have ordered the basic Mac Studio M1 Max.

Patrick

---

Wonderful!!
You will have a screaming machine now. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by younghoon Kil

Attachment 228174

I built a digitizing stand with a Beseler 45V-XL enlarger, Z-axis micrometer stages, and linear rails.

---

This looks like it employs multiple Z-axis stages. Are they all turned independently or can they be “left loose” and a single stage being turned will move the remaining three?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abruzzi

I have the shell of an Omega D3 in my garage (I bought it with a D2, and scavenged the best parts from both to build my enlarger.) I consdered using that as the basis for my scanning rig, but I'm horribthfor le with DIY, so making a mount for the camera that is level or adjustable to make level is a bit out of my skills, but your setup looks very nice. The D3 is still in the garage gathering dust. My current plan (mentioned earlier in another thread) will be to build a "copy stand" out of spare sinar parts, and mount the camera to a P2 rear standard. When the parts arrive I'll try it out to see if it might work well.

---

I've managed to build this contraption and it works. I didn't dump lots of $'s into it. As may have been indicated, good & reliable light is essential and so is level adjustments.
Attachment 229530
In order for this to work accordingly, and it does not matter how expensive the contraption, one has to be able to adjust and set the taking lens - it needs to be parallel to the scanning material and to the light, IMO.
Attachment 229531

Nice work, Les.

Thanks, Peter.

I read that some people here use the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D 75mm f4 (1x). I am scanning 6x7 negs with a Canon R5 and 100mm RF L Macro lens. Would the Rodagon bring me any meaningful improvement in
my "camera scans"? For a reference, they are virtually indistinguishable in terms of detail from my 5000 dpi Screen Cezanne, when I divide the negative into 4 RAW captures. When photographing slides, the colors and
shadow detail from the camera is visibly superior compared to the Cezanne scan. Deep shadows can't really be recovered from the Cezanne tiffs, it only brings up red bands of sensor noise, whereas the RAW files
come with all the improvements of modern technology.

And would the 1x Version of the Rodenstock lens work for 6x7 Film, or do I need the 2x Version? It says in the description:
"Recommended Scale Range 0.8× - 1.2×
Maximum format 6x6 cms
Apo-Rodagon-D: duplication and macro photography with practically no loss in definition and brilliance.
Bellows extension required to use this lens at 1:1 - 136.7mm"

I don't have any Canon gear, and so I don't know about the 100mm.....If you are scanning at 1x, well, you'd want the 1x Rodagon version. (I have both.) That would mean you'd scan a sensor sized area at a time, which is what my old system did. The Rodagon is excellent for that, with none of the 20 lenses or so I tested being better. Richard Karsh has one for sale right now, if it hasn't sold. Check his Facebook page.

But...what are you trying to improve? Are the scans not good enough? A Rodagon will require an extension tube/bellows, and at 1x you want to focus by moving the whole lens + camera system up and down, as opposed to changing lens extension.

I have started scanning using my Hasselblad H3D-39 with HC 4/120 macro lens mounted on a tripod via a Manfrotto Macro focusing rail. The film, 35mm and 120 is held in a DigitaLiza film capture system. I have yet to start with 4x5 film.

I wonder if there is a benefit to wet the film before photographing it, like they do with a drum scanner.

There are potential benefits, such as flatter film and slightly finer grain, but there are also downsides, such as the cost, hassle, and danger of scratching film. The best way to make an informed judgement is to give it a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pchong

I have started scanning using my Hasselblad H3D-39 with HC 4/120 macro lens mounted on a tripod via a Manfrotto Macro focusing rail. The film, 35mm and 120 is held in a DigitaLiza film capture system. I have yet to start with 4x5 film.

I wonder if there is a benefit to wet the film before photographing it, like they do with a drum scanner.

---

I always thought wetting the film was to get it to adhere to the curved surface of the drum. A “wet gate” is used for motion picture transfer (basically scanning to video) to protect the film and minimize scratches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

I don't have any Canon gear, and so I don't know about the 100mm.....If you are scanning at 1x, well, you'd want the 1x Rodagon version. (I have both.) That would mean you'd scan a sensor sized area at a time, which is what my old system did. The Rodagon is excellent for that, with none of the 20 lenses or so I tested being better. Richard Karsh has one for sale right now, if it hasn't sold. Check his Facebook page.

But...what are you trying to improve? Are the scans not good enough? A Rodagon will require an extension tube/bellows, and at 1x you want to focus by moving the whole lens + camera system up and down, as opposed to changing lens extension.

---

Thank you Peter and sorry for the late reply. I am really pleased with the Canon and after a lot of tweaking with the "dslr scanning" setup I have nevertheless decided to dust off my arsenal of three ancient scanners, which haven't been used for more than 10 years. A Cezanne and a couple of Scanmates, an F10 flatbed and a 11000 drum scanner, which is lacking everything except for a pretty scratched up drum. The F10 used to beat the Cezanne for scanning transparencies, while the Cezanne was pretty awesome scanning negs, so I guess I am pretty covered, if I get the old behemoths up and running again. The dust that has gotten inside looks pretty frightening I must say... I did some tests comparing old scans of 6x7 transparencies between the Canon R5/100 mm macro setup and the Cezanne. Both seem to out resolve the film, couldn't see any meaningful difference except for the Cezanne picking up an awful amount of very sharp "microdust" which isn't present in the DSLR scans. Colorwise the Canon however records a lot more and better color in very deep shadows, where the Cezanne shows mostly noise and faint red banding. Hardly surprising since we are comparing 20 year sensor tech to today's state of the art technology. You might see me around in the Cezanne thread...

I use room size lighting system

with my best NIKON

setup is key

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joelio

This looks like it employs multiple Z-axis stages. Are they all turned independently or can they be “left loose” and a single stage being turned will move the remaining three?

Thanks.

---

Attachment 238174

I level the light source by adjusting each z-axis stage individually.
The camera is leveled with an Arca-Swiss Cube geared head and Rogeti CAP-GZA geared panning head.
And I use JINGYAN Digital Level TLL-90S to check the level.

- http://www.jingyan-tech.com/en/html/product/25.html


p.s. Initially I used the Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS macro lens on my a7R IV camera, but it didn't reach my Haselblad X1 scanner. So I switched to Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art, and the results outperformed X1.