Topic: Scanning negatives with a digital camera

[Pete_R]

Since starting to scan my negatives using a digicam I've learnt a few things and have changed my setup quite a bit so though an update might be in order. I also thought having a dedicated thread on the subject might be useful so anyone else can add to it.

There's been a few posts previously in the 'I just made/fixed ...' thread:

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg121179#msg121179
http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg123458#msg123458
http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg127540#msg127540

The last one is my original setup.

The main issue I had was with the lens I was using (Tamron 90mm). One known problem with using that lens on digital is the reflection you can get from the back element causing a light spot in the middle of the image. Sometimes it seemed to work, others not. I also had a problem with flatness of field. So I experimented with various other lenses I have. The results ranged from pretty good to terrible. All good lenses if used normally but reproducing at 1:1 was a different matter. The best I had was the Zeiss/Contax 85mm f/2.8 but, again, flatness of field wasn't quite good enough. I thought an enlarger lens might do better so I bought a Schneider Componon-S 80mm to try. It's the best of what I've tried so far. The maximum aperture is f/5.6 and, at that, it's very sharp but the corners are showing softness. Again, it's a flatness of field issue. At any aperture below maximum, sharpness starts to fall off, presumably due to refraction. At f/22 it's not acceptable. At f/11 the sharpness degradation is barely noticeable but the corners are now a lot better so that's what I'm using it at.

The problem with using the enlarger lens is the range of extension needed and this necessitated a change from extension tubes to a bellows. So the setup is now like this.



The extra weight and the fact the weight was now further away from the support meant the carriage I was using to move the rig up and down the rack was allowing the whole lot to sag causing problems keeping the lens axis perpendicular to the negative. So I bolted another carriage to the first to make the whole thing more stable.



This now works fine and I can copy 35mm up to 6x9 without any problem. 6x12 or 5x4 would mean a bit of a change of setup but I rarely need that.

I also changed my light source to a small MedaLight I've had knocking around for years. It has an illuminated area which will cover up to 5x4 and it's very even. It's not too bright and exposures are usually around 2 seconds. But that's not a problem if I use a delayed release or tether the camera to the PC and fire it from the PC to prevent any movement. Tethering to the PC has the added advantage of not having to remove the flash card from the camera to transfer the images and you can do an immediate check on the scan to see if it's OK.



Here's the full setup along with the masks I found necessary to prevent stray light causing a problem.



Feel free to add your experiences if you scan using a digicam and maybe this will be a useful resource for anyone thinking of doing the same.

[Francois]

I too had a reflection problem in the center when I tried it.
At one point I was thinking of putting a black card covered in felt with just a hole in the center around the lens to minimize the problem.

[Bryan]

Very nice setup Peter!  Do you do anything to keep the negatives flat.  The cardboard masks don't look heavy enough if you have a lot of curl to deal with.  My setup is flipped upside down compared to what you have done, that allows me to put a fairly heavy light source on top of the negative carrier to keep it flat.  I also use metal negative carriers that are fairly heavy.  I found using glass to keep the negative flat caused more reflections and newton rings. 

I can scan negatives up to 6x9 with my setup, I still need to figure out an extension to do 4x5.  I have a few ideas in my head, I just need some time to build it. 

I use a two second timer on my camera to avoid the setup shaking but then my dogs come bounding into the room. 

[Pete_R]

Yes, good point. I normally put a couple of weights either side to keep things flat and stop them from moving. Basically whatever is around at the time. Spare camera batteries usually.

I was looking at getting some sort of negative holder taken from an enlarger but haven't found anything suitable yet. I was looking for something with built in adjustable masks.

[Francois]

While metal carriers are really nice, you could just make a wooden "frame" for your cardboard negative carrier. It would weigh it down. Plywood doesn't warp much so it could be the ideal thing to do until you get a metal one. And maybe you'll like it enough that you won't see the need for a commercial one.

[geoffgeoffp]

To copy (not scan) by using a digital camera if you have a DSLR. Place the negative on a tracing light box, A4 sizes cost about £10 from Amazon UK.You need to acquire a set of suitable extension tubes from e Bay that fit your particular camera lens mount, this will enable you to make a 1 to 1 copy of high quality. You will need a tripod that will allow you to extend across the light box, and a camera spirit level to ensure the whole thing is square on.Work only in dim light so as not to degrade the illumination of the neg.As an example: a copy made using a 24 mp camera will give you an image some 20” long.I’m not trying to be a smart ass, I’m old and have used film (and digital) for over 60 years.

[geoffgeoffp]

I forgot to mention in my previous post that to keep the negatives flat on the light box surface - use small tabs of masking tape on the negatives rebate.If any marks are left they are simply removed by a gentle rub with a tissue damp with white spirit

[Pete_R]

To copy (not scan) by using a digital camera if you have a DSLR. Place the negative on a tracing light box, A4 sizes cost about £10 from Amazon UK.You need to acquire a set of suitable extension tubes from e Bay that fit your particular camera lens mount, this will enable you to make a 1 to 1 copy of high quality. You will need a tripod that will allow you to extend across the light box, and a camera spirit level to ensure the whole thing is square on.Work only in dim light so as not to degrade the illumination of the neg.As an example: a copy made using a 24 mp camera will give you an image some 20” long.I’m not trying to be a smart ass, I’m old and have used film (and digital) for over 60 years.

Wouldn't disagree that it's possible to get results using a simple setup. Probably down to how much effort you want to put in to scanning a single neg versus how much effort your willing to put in creating a setup. I have a large number of negs I would like to scan (I've been using film for 50 years myself) so putting in some effort to create a setup that I can use quickly with zero setup time and guaranteed results is, for me, worth while. YMMV.

[Francois]

(I've been using film for 50 years myself)

I didn't know Kodak made some Kodachrome baby ratchets 

[Pete_R]

(I've been using film for 50 years myself)

I didn't know Kodak made some Kodachrome baby ratchets 

I had to look that up. Never heard of that term before. I started when I was 10 years old so I think I was probably out of them by then anyway.

[geoffgeoffp]

Everyone is welcome to work in their own fashion of course.However there is some confusion here.If you use a tracing light box and the 6x6 are in strips of 3 and 35mm in strips of 4 as they should be for storage then you can tape down an entire film at a time, not one by one.Once the camera is set up and focussed you simply move the light box about to each neg. The copying can be done in under 2 minutes.

[geoffgeoffp]

Of course the best tool for copying is a macro lens (and more costly) This is what I use.

[jojonas~]

I too had a reflection problem in the center when I tried it.
At one point I was thinking of putting a black card covered in felt with just a hole in the center around the lens to minimize the problem.

that sounds like a good idea! in that way, the old shoe box with film in one end and camera on the other still feels like a good idea.


that aside, anyone feel confident in how they get their color neg stuff looking all right? I'm almost giving up on digicam scanning for those... slide and bw is good though.

[jojonas~]

I thought an enlarger lens might do better so I bought a Schneider Componon-S 80mm to try. It's the best of what I've tried so far.

I've been curious about using an enlarger lens. are adapters easy to get hold of? (I have a pentax screw mount bellows)

[Pete_R]

I thought an enlarger lens might do better so I bought a Schneider Componon-S 80mm to try. It's the best of what I've tried so far.

I've been curious about using an enlarger lens. are adapters easy to get hold of? (I have a pentax screw mount bellows)

I must admit to some confusion over enlarger lens threads but the Componon has a 39mm thread so I tried a LTM adaptor to my Contax bayonet. The lens doesn't screw in fully to the adaptor but it's good enough. Not sure if it should or not. Maybe the pitch is different.

Edit: A bit of research says the enlarger lens 39mm thread is the same as the Leica 39mm thread so an adaptor that adapts LTM to your chosen lens mount should work with 39mm enlarger lenses. Took another look at mine and the only reason it wasn't fitting properly was a bit of a burr - quickly fixed with a small file.

[Pete_R]

that aside, anyone feel confident in how they get their color neg stuff looking all right? I'm almost giving up on digicam scanning for those... slide and bw is good though.

I'm getting Ok results but I haven't done a lot. Generally, I adjust the camera colour balance using some unexposed film so you eliminate the orange cast. I reverse the image to make a positive then use a histo adjustment to stretch the three channels (RGB) to the full width of the histo. The three channels are stretched individually. I don't understand the reasons but this gives a pretty good result and a few minor tweaks is usually enough after that.

[Bryan]

I thought an enlarger lens might do better so I bought a Schneider Componon-S 80mm to try. It's the best of what I've tried so far.

I've been curious about using an enlarger lens. are adapters easy to get hold of? (I have a pentax screw mount bellows)

I must admit to some confusion over enlarger lens threads but the Componon has a 39mm thread so I tried a LTM adaptor to my Contax bayonet. The lens doesn't screw in fully to the adaptor but it's good enough. Not sure if it should or not. Maybe the pitch is different.

Edit: A bit of research says the enlarger lens 39mm thread is the same as the Leica 39mm thread so an adaptor that adapts LTM to your chosen lens mount should work with 39mm enlarger lenses. Took another look at mine and the only reason it wasn't fitting properly was a bit of a burr - quickly fixed with a small file.

I may have to try the enlarger lens and see how that works.  I have an LTM enlarger lens that fits fine on a Leica body.  I also have an LTM to Micro 4/3 adapter but I'm not sure if there would be any advantage over the kit lens on my digital camera.  I like to use the auto focus on the digital camera, it seems to work much better than manually focusing for me. 

[Francois]

The only advantage in favor of enlarger lenses is that they have a flat field of focus. So once you get everything parallel, the focus is even across the negative.

[Skorj]

The only advantage in favor of enlarger lenses is that they have a flat field of focus. So once you get everything parallel, the focus is even across the negative.

Indeed!
Similarly, for an exhibition (in 2006) I had some Type-667 negatives photographed by a guy who printed samurai coffee table books.
He used a 'Blad, digital back, and a long lens, from across a darkened room... The results were 130Mb TIFF files.

[Francois]

Pretty impressive.
Shooting from across a darkened room would eliminate a lot of problems with the front of the lens reflecting on the film.
This could be substituted by a long tunnel covered in black felt.

[jojonas~]

Have you peeps looked into https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hamishgill/pixl-latr-helping-you-digitise-35mm-120-and-4x5-fi/ ?

I backed it at first but now I binged some polaroid originals film instead for the summer

[Francois]

Yeah, I've seen the thing. Strangely, so far I'm both impressed and not.
While I like that it's a nearly all-in-one solution, it does the same thing as something you can cobble together for much less mullah...
And it has all the same problems as a DIY solution.

[Pete_R]

No, hadn't seen that Jonas so thanks for that. Some good ideas there I can pinch. 

[Bryan]

There's a Kickstarter for a similar contraption.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/278491351/35mm-film-digitizer/description#

[Francois]

What I find a bit sad about all those projects is that they all revolve around the classic duplicating bench and don't really bring anything new to the table...
Heck, I passed on a slide duplicator from the 60's the other day at a thrift store and it even had a zoom feature!