3 ms·

I'm curious, how is the quality of such a setup vs dedicated scanner?

scrdhrt 6y ago
I am using both a dedicated 35mm film scanner (not flatbed) and a DSLR with macro for repro, the latter for medium format film. The outcome quality of both processes is identical and great quality, but the DSLR repro way is a little bit more cumbersome. It takes me longer to get a really good result with a lightbox than with the dedicated film scanner. Not by long, but it adds up if I have a couple of 120 film to repro. I shoot repro with a Nikon D700 in RAW using a 105mm macro lens on a regular stand, with a bubble calibrator. The lightbox is a small cardboard box spray painted in black, with flippable/removable cutouts to fit 6x4,5 up to 6x7. I use an old discarded iPad mini, setup with a white image on max brightness as backlight. Using Capture One (my preference of editing suite), I connect my camera with a USB cable and import directly into the editing suite. No need for importing of a CF/SD card. Smooth process.
tmjwid 6y ago
Pretty much what scrdhrt has said is spot on. Quality is very much the same, and the output is rather good. I don't have anything to show you from my own work as a comparison, but there is plenty of reference material on reddit and photo blogs about the process. Time wise, the speed of snapping a photo is also mostly outweighted by the time needed to post process the image (neg invert, white balance, colour correct) versus the slow scanning speed of a flatbed negative scanner. Never used the cheaper 35mm scanners you can buy, but from what I’ve seen they're just the dslr approach without the quality. I think it comes down to two questions. 1: Do you own a dslr with a macro lens? 2: Do you know how to use raw editors like lightroom or darktable? If yes to both, then dslr scanning is easily the cheaper of the two and is most likely the best route to go to test the process.
gsich 6y ago
Much better. Unless you have a scanner with real 4000 dpi your DSLR with 20+ MP will achieve better and faster results.

I am using both a dedicated 35mm film scanner (not flatbed) and a DSLR with macro for repro, the latter for medium format film. The outcome quality of both processes is identical and great quality, but the DSLR repro way is a little bit more cumbersome. It takes me longer to get a really good result with a lightbox than with the dedicated film scanner. Not by long, but it adds up if I have a couple of 120 film to repro. I shoot repro with a Nikon D700 in RAW using a 105mm macro lens on a regular stand, with a bubble calibrator. The lightbox is a small cardboard box spray painted in black, with flippable/removable cutouts to fit 6x4,5 up to 6x7. I use an old discarded iPad mini, setup with a white image on max brightness as backlight. Using Capture One (my preference of editing suite), I connect my camera with a USB cable and import directly into the editing suite. No need for importing of a CF/SD card. Smooth process.

tmjwid 6y ago

Pretty much what scrdhrt has said is spot on. Quality is very much the same, and the output is rather good. I don't have anything to show you from my own work as a comparison, but there is plenty of reference material on reddit and photo blogs about the process. Time wise, the speed of snapping a photo is also mostly outweighted by the time needed to post process the image (neg invert, white balance, colour correct) versus the slow scanning speed of a flatbed negative scanner. Never used the cheaper 35mm scanners you can buy, but from what I’ve seen they're just the dslr approach without the quality. I think it comes down to two questions. 1: Do you own a dslr with a macro lens? 2: Do you know how to use raw editors like lightroom or darktable? If yes to both, then dslr scanning is easily the cheaper of the two and is most likely the best route to go to test the process.

gsich 6y ago

Much better. Unless you have a scanner with real 4000 dpi your DSLR with 20+ MP will achieve better and faster results.