Depending on your volume of negatives, you might consider a Nikon scanner. There is a private Facebook group devoted to these scanners. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146/ The people there are very knowledgeable and there is always someone who wants to sell their scanner.I'm thinking about getting a dedicated camera just for negatives. I have Fuji X100S with 23mm lens which is too wide. 35mm frame covers just a bit more than a half of a camera's frame in one dimension. I'm thinking about buying used Fuji X-E2 plus some old Nikon macro lens with an adapter. Do you have any other suggestions? Does it sound reasonable? Or maybe just some cheapest used DSLR?
Yep, usually that someone is switching to camera scanning
Get a mirrorless camera with a pixel shift function. You'll get great true RGB files with a very low noise floor
I'm thinking about getting a dedicated camera just for negatives. I have Fuji X100S with 23mm lens which is too wide. 35mm frame covers just a bit more than a half of a camera's frame in one dimension. I'm thinking about buying used Fuji X-E2 plus some old Nikon macro lens with an adapter. Do you have any other suggestions? Does it sound reasonable? Or maybe just some cheapest used DSLR?
and getting inferior results, but getting to play with loads of new kit!
You just bought a scanner, didn't you?
Or that someone is realizing that it's just better to do one of the other right film or digital and I try to do both.Yep, usually that someone is switching to camera scanning
Thank you, sir !macfred - Absolutely lovely picture. Best I have seen today!
Before I bought a V600 flatbed scanner from Epson (2'nd hand) I scanned with a digital dinosaur - Nikon D2x. For use on the internet and also for prints I was quite satisfied
I'm thinking about getting a dedicated camera just for negatives. I have Fuji X100S with 23mm lens which is too wide. 35mm frame covers just a bit more than a half of a camera's frame in one dimension. I'm thinking about buying used Fuji X-E2 plus some old Nikon macro lens with an adapter. Do you have any other suggestions? Does it sound reasonable? Or maybe just some cheapest used DSLR?
I'm thinking about getting a dedicated camera just for negatives
@Les Sarile Sad but true. And it's even worse with scanners, as SilverFast gives you a far worse starting point than Negative Lab Pro or Negafix, and doesn't handle batch conversions nearly as efficiently. Also, properly developed film doesn't have any scratches or dust. For dust to get onto a negative you need one important dust-injecting ingredient: a scanner.
The colors seem better on the left with the scanner The blue sky is washed out through the memorial arch on the right camera side. Also, the colors overall seem a little washed out with the camera. That could be processing, but I don't know.I was wondering the same last year. First I used the Canon 5D because I had it around but that's not very comfortable. So I got the cheapest 2nd hand Sony A5000 I could find. It's a 20MP with wireless and remote app, I peak focus and shot from the mobile phone app. I picked an old Durst-C35 and an old Gitzo tripod head that were going to junk, removed the head, trimmed the holder, dremmeled a bit, expoxyglued the Gitzo head, the light is a cheap LED square wall/ceiling lamp from the DIY store, and camera is WB calibrated to it. I grabbed a Novaflex Novatar 4/105 macro bellows that was sleeping in my M42 miscellania box, but I have used different M42 lenses.
View attachment 266328
for 35mm I use a Reflecta Proscan-10T. which is in the Americas a PrimeFilm XE, with ~4100dpi effective. It's single frame scan, so it's slow. I use Vuescan Pro with the Proscan.
Negatives inverted with ColorPerfect.
Resolution is similar I guess with the Sony A5000, a bit better with the ProScan.
for instance, left the Proscan, right the Sony A5000:
View attachment 266329
View attachment 266330
then, there's the issue of scratches removal, where a scanner has an advantage.
A 32 years old negative that had been somewhat mistreated, ProScan on the left, Sony A5000 on the right:
View attachment 266331
for better scratch removals, I do wet scanning, by sandwiching the negative between two plates of glass with some Primus burner fluid (naphta, almost pure heptan)
otherwise for even better control over heavy scratch correction, and for BW negatives, there are softwares. I bought Silverfast SRDx and it works really well, did surprise me.
My V850 seems to capture more dust than my old V600. Fortunately, I don't shoot that many "keepers". So I spend the time spot removing them in post-processing. I usually don't bother with ICE.@Les Sarile Sad but true. And it's even worse with scanners, as SilverFast gives you a far worse starting point than Negative Lab Pro or Negafix, and doesn't handle batch conversions nearly as efficiently. Also, properly developed film doesn't have any scratches or dust. For dust to get onto a negative you need one important dust-injecting ingredient: a scanner.
My V850 seems to capture more dust than my old V600. Fortunately, I don't shoot that many "keepers". So I spend the time spot removing them in post-processing. I usually don't bother with ICE.
Same. Also ICE doesn't;t get all the dust anyway. So I figure it's just as easy to not use ICE and just remove the dust myself. It's just that the V850 is worse than the V600. That could be because there's glass holding the film flat with the V850. I use an anti-static brush and Rocket blower. But it's still pretty bad.On the V7XX running ICE just about doubles the scan time. What is it on the V8XX?
@Les Sarile I am not sure what your images are supposed to demonstrate. None of them look good and overall serve pretty well as an ad for camera scanning.
In addition you need high quality, flat field optics that cover the field of the negative/slide and resolve it accurately right out to the corners - a more demanding implementation than the one used in scanners.How hard would it to make a really good 35mm scanner that uses a 24mb or 36mb sensor built into a little scan device?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?