Article on digitalizing film with a digital camera, including color negatives

[Drew Bedo]

Isn't there a long, old thread on creating a DIY scanner using a DSLR?

[Peter De Smidt]

Isn't there a long, old thread on creating a DIY scanner using a DSLR?

Why yes there is. Why?

[Paul Ron]

so this isnt anything new... its taking a picture of your negatives on a backlighted surface on a copy stand. this fellow has gone to great lengths to assure flatness and parallelism which is typical of copy stands and would make a nice diy project. i like using the dslr to scan my negatives, i get a better quality digital image instead of scanning via computer n flat bed or drum.

he certainly has a nice setup and has inspired me to refine my set up a bit more.

[bob carnie]

I have a friend in New York who is working on this kind of system , he is close and some of the adaptions he is doing are encouraging. I have been aware of this type of capture for a very long time, today though we are
in a position where the sensors can capture incredible resolution and these really high end sensors have been on the market for awhile so the prices are going down. I am quite sure that within a few years I will buy
into a system that is completely current and be as good or better quality than my Creo Eversmart Supreme and my Flextight. I am really pissed at Hassalblad or whoever made the Imocans not to be supporting them any more.

[wayne77]

This is a really interesting topic for me for a couple reasons. The scanner I have, (Epson 4490) will not scan a 4x5. Even if it did, the scans I've done with medium format have only been mediocre at best. Coming from a prepress background probably raises the standard that I'm looking for beyond the realm of a consumer level device. Notwithstanding, the photos that I've seen on this forum from the higher end Epsons have left me salivating and jealous of the photos I see here on a regular basis.

Having read on the forum and elsewhere about digitizing large format with a digital camera really sparked my interest previously, to where I made a what I would consider a remedial effort back during the holidays with a still life I had been experimenting with. For the camera, I have a Mamiya 645 with a Kodak DCS digital back (14.7 mp). From a quality standpoint, I have gone as far up as 40 x 40 prints with detail and sharpness levels extremely high. With that in mind, I experimented with the attached neg on a small lightbox, shooting vertically from a tripod. I shot with the 80mm f/2.8 lens and an extension tube 1/10 sec at f/13.

What I was looking for primarily at first was sharpness down to the grain from the neg. Second, I was looking for tonality (I didn't modify the image). So the only edit I made to the scan was unsharp mask filter to hopefully bring out the sharpness.

So the initial hurdles were: flatness (taped neg emulsion down to the glass) squareness (used the edge marking of the sensor as a guideline and cropped the square image to the film edge), and importantly... cleanliness and elimination of dirt. With that, the IR filter on the back needs to be replaced, and even then the white spots in the scan were too plentiful to make this a useable digital image of the scan (it's a mess, but illustrates the problem).

So the larger issue and take away from the article and the discussion here are this... How much cost, and, more importantly: effort are justifiable with this method for digitizing LF?

I could throw money (that I don't have) at a system to digitize film with a camera. Or, I could spend a fair amount on an Epson 850--and that makes me nervous with two Epson scanners in the closet that are mediocre. It seems for every two good reviews online there is one negative review. My karma isn't good, so throwing money in that direction seems overly risky.

For now, with my 4x5 negs the solution seems best to send any winners off for a professional drum scan. At $25.00 - $40.00 a scan I can get a lot done before hitting $1,000 dollar mark that it would seem necessary to invest in either camera and shooting platform, or scanning device. With the Durst I already have a way to make traditional silver prints. That $1,000 it would seem would go a long way for other LF gear that that I'd like to have so that I can shoot more (scan and digitize less). I might dabble a little more digitizing with the Mamiya, but why devote so many resources to digitizing? I think the scale that some members are on with a lot more images than I have to digitize over the next 10 years or so influence my thoughts.

The article is great food for thought though, and is a step toward getting pixels from film depending on intent and need.

[Peter De Smidt]

I would have someone with a v850 make a scan for you. I'm sure there are people on here who would do it. Compare it to one of your images that you had drum scanned. Btw, 20-40 dollars for a drum scan, assuming the scanner knows what they are doing, is a good price.

[Alan Klein]

This is a really interesting topic for me for a couple reasons. The scanner I have, (Epson 4490) will not scan a 4x5. Even if it did, the scans I've done with medium format have only been mediocre at best. Coming from a prepress background probably raises the standard that I'm looking for beyond the realm of a consumer level device. Notwithstanding, the photos that I've seen on this forum from the higher end Epsons have left me salivating and jealous of the photos I see here on a regular basis.

Having read on the forum and elsewhere about digitizing large format with a digital camera really sparked my interest previously, to where I made a what I would consider a remedial effort back during the holidays with a still life I had been experimenting with. For the camera, I have a Mamiya 645 with a Kodak DCS digital back (14.7 mp). From a quality standpoint, I have gone as far up as 40 x 40 prints with detail and sharpness levels extremely high. With that in mind, I experimented with the attached neg on a small lightbox, shooting vertically from a tripod. I shot with the 80mm f/2.8 lens and an extension tube 1/10 sec at f/13.

What I was looking for primarily at first was sharpness down to the grain from the neg. Second, I was looking for tonality (I didn't modify the image). So the only edit I made to the scan was unsharp mask filter to hopefully bring out the sharpness.

So the initial hurdles were: flatness (taped neg emulsion down to the glass) squareness (used the edge marking of the sensor as a guideline and cropped the square image to the film edge), and importantly... cleanliness and elimination of dirt. With that, the IR filter on the back needs to be replaced, and even then the white spots in the scan were too plentiful to make this a useable digital image of the scan (it's a mess, but illustrates the problem).

So the larger issue and take away from the article and the discussion here are this... How much cost, and, more importantly: effort are justifiable with this method for digitizing LF?

I could throw money (that I don't have) at a system to digitize film with a camera. Or, I could spend a fair amount on an Epson 850--and that makes me nervous with two Epson scanners in the closet that are mediocre. It seems for every two good reviews online there is one negative review. My karma isn't good, so throwing money in that direction seems overly risky.

For now, with my 4x5 negs the solution seems best to send any winners off for a professional drum scan. At $25.00 - $40.00 a scan I can get a lot done before hitting $1,000 dollar mark that it would seem necessary to invest in either camera and shooting platform, or scanning device. With the Durst I already have a way to make traditional silver prints. That $1,000 it would seem would go a long way for other LF gear that that I'd like to have so that I can shoot more (scan and digitize less). I might dabble a little more digitizing with the Mamiya, but why devote so many resources to digitizing? I think the scale that some members are on with a lot more images than I have to digitize over the next 10 years or so influence my thoughts.

The article is great food for thought though, and is a step toward getting pixels from film depending on intent and need.

I bought a V850 when I started shooting 4x5 two years ago. I had been using a V600 for ten years before scanning 35mm and 6x7s. But it doesn't scan 4x5s. So I made the jump and bought the V850. I still have my V600. Maybe I should sell it?

I don't print anymore at least for now. So I can't comment on that end. But I'm pretty satisfied with the scans I do. You can see a complete variety of them with both of my scanners on my Flickr page below. Feel free to ask any questions.

4x5s on V850 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=...N05&view_all=1
35mm on V850 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...57716777378896
35mm on V600 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...57625526207614
6x7 with V600 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...57625476289859
6x7 V850 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...7626597775701/

[Alan Klein]

Oh, if you're interested, I did a comparison between the V850 and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner. The thread is here.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek