6 ms·

If you have a digital camera (SLR or mirrorless), which most people who shoot film do, you also have an excellent scanner. I scan 35mm, 120, and 4x5 with a DSLR

If you have a digital camera (SLR or mirrorless), which most people who shoot film do, you also have an excellent scanner. I scan 35mm, 120, and 4x5 with a DSLR, inverted tripod, and macro lens. The results are better than any flatbed scanner. Use a rocket or canned air to keep the dust off, and a sheet of anti-newton glass to keep the film flat and focused while scanning. Developing B&W at home is economical if you use a shelf-stable developer (I like Kodak HC-110, a half-open bottle keeps for years) and fixer (Ilford Rapid). Per-roll developing cost is between 50¢ and $1. I shoot a few rolls and throw them in a big Paterson tank. Two rolls of film take 30 min to develop and 15 min to scan. Not much longer than the time to drive round trip to the photo lab. No darkroom necessary- I load film in a dark bag. Post-process the scans in Lightroom or Darktable. Batch-processing means it's pretty fast. If I want to make prints, either I send out the digital positive to ProDPI or I rent time at the community darkroom.

gsich 7y ago
I use Negative Lab Pro and a Nikon ES-2. The time saving is immense.
wl 7y ago
I recently made a 60"x48" print from a 4x5 negative scanned with a Epson V700 scanner. You're simply not going to get that kind of resolution with a DSLR. I don't doubt you get good results with your setup, but your statement that "the results are better than any flatbed scanner" is nonsense.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  I will counter that my statement is non-nonsense: I stitch multiple "full frame" shots for formats larger than 35mm.
- gsich 7y ago
  For film negatives this scanner will get about 2300 dpi according to [0]. A DSLR with 24 megapixel will get the ~4000 dpi form a 35mm negative in a fraction of the time. A 4x5" negative takes 33 minutes to scan with 2400 dpi. In this time I can make several photos and stitch them together do some spot removal and will get a better quality. [0] https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    The DSLR+adapter solution does sound more convincing to me, with the right lens, right sensor and settings. Correcting distortions should be a tractable. One problem with many flatbed scanners (not all of them and not the film scanners) is that they illuminate the film/object from the same side as the sensor, so the light has to travel and bounce more, creating more chances of stray light.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ska 7y ago
Glad it’s working for you, but part of this doesn’t make any sense to me. One of the big selling point of medium format is how much more resolution and detail you can capture than if you used 35mm. You are suggesting applying a 35mm system resolution at best being applied in a lossy manner. I’m sure you can get well focused results in this way, it it sounds like you are throwing away most of your resolution. Am I missing something? Are you stitching I ages together? If so how are you managing positioning? If I haven’t missed something: if you compared this to a digital back on a ’blad with otherwise the same image and blew them up I expect the difference would be blindingly obvious.
- namibj 7y ago
  For stitching I recommend Hugin. If you resolve grain, it should have no trouble aligning, and you can easily script it.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  I stitch multiple shots for formats larger than 35mm.
  - ska 7y ago
    Ok, that makes sense then. Thanks!
- iguy 7y ago
  6x6 film captured much more detail than 35mm film. But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. So it's not crazy to hope that using one as a scanner (which is ideal conditions) might not leave much detail behind, from negatives shot on an old Hasselblad.
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    > But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. I would be really interested in hearing more about this (noob in this area). Are you saying the old Nikon / Canon lenses from 90s are a bad choice for modern DSLRs from these companies, or did I completely misunderstand you? If so, why is that?

gsich 7y ago

I use Negative Lab Pro and a Nikon ES-2. The time saving is immense.

wl 7y ago

I recently made a 60"x48" print from a 4x5 negative scanned with a Epson V700 scanner. You're simply not going to get that kind of resolution with a DSLR. I don't doubt you get good results with your setup, but your statement that "the results are better than any flatbed scanner" is nonsense.

i_am_proteus 7y ago
I will counter that my statement is non-nonsense: I stitch multiple "full frame" shots for formats larger than 35mm.
gsich 7y ago
For film negatives this scanner will get about 2300 dpi according to [0]. A DSLR with 24 megapixel will get the ~4000 dpi form a 35mm negative in a fraction of the time. A 4x5" negative takes 33 minutes to scan with 2400 dpi. In this time I can make several photos and stitch them together do some spot removal and will get a better quality. [0] https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html https://www.filmscanner.info/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  The DSLR+adapter solution does sound more convincing to me, with the right lens, right sensor and settings. Correcting distortions should be a tractable. One problem with many flatbed scanners (not all of them and not the film scanners) is that they illuminate the film/object from the same side as the sensor, so the light has to travel and bounce more, creating more chances of stray light.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ska 7y ago

Glad it’s working for you, but part of this doesn’t make any sense to me. One of the big selling point of medium format is how much more resolution and detail you can capture than if you used 35mm. You are suggesting applying a 35mm system resolution at best being applied in a lossy manner. I’m sure you can get well focused results in this way, it it sounds like you are throwing away most of your resolution. Am I missing something? Are you stitching I ages together? If so how are you managing positioning? If I haven’t missed something: if you compared this to a digital back on a ’blad with otherwise the same image and blew them up I expect the difference would be blindingly obvious.

namibj 7y ago
For stitching I recommend Hugin. If you resolve grain, it should have no trouble aligning, and you can easily script it.
i_am_proteus 7y ago
I stitch multiple shots for formats larger than 35mm.
- ska 7y ago
  Ok, that makes sense then. Thanks!
iguy 7y ago
6x6 film captured much more detail than 35mm film. But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. So it's not crazy to hope that using one as a scanner (which is ideal conditions) might not leave much detail behind, from negatives shot on an old Hasselblad.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  > But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. I would be really interested in hearing more about this (noob in this area). Are you saying the old Nikon / Canon lenses from 90s are a bad choice for modern DSLRs from these companies, or did I completely misunderstand you? If so, why is that?