Why does it make more sense (if it does) to use a DSLR for negative scanning instead of a dedicated scanner? I would guess that most DSLR's do not have the resolution to do the job correctly. Even , if so, any resource in this website on how to do it right? Seems like a fair amount of work.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
tvdpid
New Member
- Location
- Veltem-Beisem (Belgium)
- Name
- Tom Van de Peer
I have an Epson V550 and I was never completely happy with the results (I cannot speak for other types of scanners). Scanning was time consuming. I never understood that it is taken as normal that there would be a big learning curve. IMO the Epson is good enough when you just want small prints like 10cmx15cm... Recently I tried "scanning" with my Nikon D90 on which I mounted an Elmar 5cm f3.5 on a 13 mm extension tube. I use my smartphone as a light source. The result is amazing compared to the Epson scan. You get a higher dynamic range, which is even higher (my experiece) when you only use green light (sorry, forgot to say that this applies to B&W neg scanning). I can scan an entire roll in litterally 10 minutes. The D90 is not a full frame, but I am happy with the size of the scan (good enough for an A4 print). If you need higher resolutions, you can add a longer extension tube and make a panorama stitch ...
If you want to see an example: --> Two brothers
regards
Tom
If you want to see an example: --> Two brothers
regards
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting answer...thanks. I'd have to look around the internet for some opinions regarding a dedicated scanner versus a dslr setup. I don't quite understand how you mounted the negs in order to "scan" with your dslr....or how you used your light source or stabilized the whole thing.
BH Photo has an nice article comparing a kind of DIY dslr setup and D800 compared to Epson and Imacon scanners.
Frankly, while the output of the D800 seemed very good...it required a lot of work and fooling around in PP. For me , I am probably better off paying the freight for commercial scans.
Frankly, while the output of the D800 seemed very good...it required a lot of work and fooling around in PP. For me , I am probably better off paying the freight for commercial scans.
tvdpid
New Member
- Location
- Veltem-Beisem (Belgium)
- Name
- Tom Van de Peer
I will make a pic one of these days of the whole thing and post it here. It is not a professional setup but it works.
Up till now I've been scanning B&W film negatives. I will try color also one of these days. For B&W the PP is quit easy. I normally shoot (RAW) the neg with a green light source. I do no PP in ACR. Open the file in PS and run a recorded action which does this: invert, copy the green channel, paste as new layer, flatten image, create a Levels layer. After that you can adjust the black, white and grey point if you want, crop, resize, sharpen.
In the example of the two bothers. I just shifted the white point a bit to the left, resized and used a basic USM to sharpen the RAW image (which is oversharpened
). It took not a minute.
I've read lots of posts about commercial scans and couldn't find many enthousiasts unless you pay a lot.
Up till now I've been scanning B&W film negatives. I will try color also one of these days. For B&W the PP is quit easy. I normally shoot (RAW) the neg with a green light source. I do no PP in ACR. Open the file in PS and run a recorded action which does this: invert, copy the green channel, paste as new layer, flatten image, create a Levels layer. After that you can adjust the black, white and grey point if you want, crop, resize, sharpen.
In the example of the two bothers. I just shifted the white point a bit to the left, resized and used a basic USM to sharpen the RAW image (which is oversharpened
). It took not a minute.I've read lots of posts about commercial scans and couldn't find many enthousiasts unless you pay a lot.
