I've just completed a little experiment entitled "how to scan MF B&W negatives on the cheap". Thought I'd post the results for all to see...
Heres the setup:
1). Take one digital camera, in my case, a Sony Alpha with an 18-250 safari zoom (possibly the worst lens I could pick for this type of work)
2). Go down your local photography shop and buy a lightbox. In my case, this cost 10 from Jessops.
3). Setup your tripod in a dark room.
4). Put the neg on the lightbox and snap each negative in a dark room
5). Use photoshop to invert the pictures
You see where I'm aiming here? The point being is to create a reverse-enlarger.
Surprisingly, the initial results are very good. I've attached a couple of pictures here. The main points are:
1). Photo reproduction is very good with fine detail accurately represented (10mp camera in raw mode)
2). Noise is low - much lower than I've seen on my old Minolta scanner and grain-aliasing problems are not apparent.
The not-so-great points are:
i). Dynamic range sucks.
ii). Pictures are very soft and diffused.
The first point was overcome on the next experiment - using HDR techniques, taking 3 shots at 0.7ev apart and merging them using Photomatrix. This pretty well recovers the dynamic range issues and costs very little in extra processing time (compared to waiting for a scanner).
However, the latter point is more involved. The pictures are showing classic signs of lens diffraction. This isn't too suprising considering the lens I'm using to do this with: a 18-250 safari lens at almost maximum reach. This is far from ideal, but I have little room to play here. Bringing the lens back down to a reasonable focal length (and sweet spot) knocks the focussing out of align, because it's go no macro facility. However, the main point is that 'it can be overcome with a decent lens'.
I've attached three pictures. Firstly, the photographed negative. Secondly, a closeup of that neg. Finally, a closeup of the same neg scanned in using an Epson 4490. Please forgive the dust on the photo - the neg sat on my desk for around 24hours while I was trialing different things - didn't notice it'd got dusty till after I'd finished. Also please note that this negative was not perfect to begin with - it was fairly overcooked (sorry, I'm not experimenting with my good stuff).
In conclusion...
Will I scan my negatives in this way? No, I went out and bought a flatbed scanner.
However, my only reason for doing this was the need for a decent lens, which would cost more than the scanner did. If you already own a decent lens for the job, then my failing hurdle can be overcome.
More importantly, this method will offer something a scanner cannot: an analogue representation of an analogue picture. This may sound strange, but my past experience of scanning negatives has been, well, negative. I don't like the clinical, pixel-perfect, view of the world. It took a while to try and understand my dislike, compared with an enlarger view. I think it's akin to the record vs. CD debate. The point is that an enlarger isn't a perfect being, just like a record player. A little lens diffraction adds substance to the picture and removes the news-print-like grain from the negative. This just isn't done on a scanner. Hence you get a far superior picture (just like a CD), which isn't always pleasing to the eye.
Enjoy!
Mat
Heres the setup:
1). Take one digital camera, in my case, a Sony Alpha with an 18-250 safari zoom (possibly the worst lens I could pick for this type of work)
2). Go down your local photography shop and buy a lightbox. In my case, this cost 10 from Jessops.
3). Setup your tripod in a dark room.
4). Put the neg on the lightbox and snap each negative in a dark room
5). Use photoshop to invert the pictures
You see where I'm aiming here? The point being is to create a reverse-enlarger.
Surprisingly, the initial results are very good. I've attached a couple of pictures here. The main points are:
1). Photo reproduction is very good with fine detail accurately represented (10mp camera in raw mode)
2). Noise is low - much lower than I've seen on my old Minolta scanner and grain-aliasing problems are not apparent.
The not-so-great points are:
i). Dynamic range sucks.
ii). Pictures are very soft and diffused.
The first point was overcome on the next experiment - using HDR techniques, taking 3 shots at 0.7ev apart and merging them using Photomatrix. This pretty well recovers the dynamic range issues and costs very little in extra processing time (compared to waiting for a scanner).
However, the latter point is more involved. The pictures are showing classic signs of lens diffraction. This isn't too suprising considering the lens I'm using to do this with: a 18-250 safari lens at almost maximum reach. This is far from ideal, but I have little room to play here. Bringing the lens back down to a reasonable focal length (and sweet spot) knocks the focussing out of align, because it's go no macro facility. However, the main point is that 'it can be overcome with a decent lens'.
I've attached three pictures. Firstly, the photographed negative. Secondly, a closeup of that neg. Finally, a closeup of the same neg scanned in using an Epson 4490. Please forgive the dust on the photo - the neg sat on my desk for around 24hours while I was trialing different things - didn't notice it'd got dusty till after I'd finished. Also please note that this negative was not perfect to begin with - it was fairly overcooked (sorry, I'm not experimenting with my good stuff).
In conclusion...
Will I scan my negatives in this way? No, I went out and bought a flatbed scanner.
However, my only reason for doing this was the need for a decent lens, which would cost more than the scanner did. If you already own a decent lens for the job, then my failing hurdle can be overcome.
More importantly, this method will offer something a scanner cannot: an analogue representation of an analogue picture. This may sound strange, but my past experience of scanning negatives has been, well, negative. I don't like the clinical, pixel-perfect, view of the world. It took a while to try and understand my dislike, compared with an enlarger view. I think it's akin to the record vs. CD debate. The point is that an enlarger isn't a perfect being, just like a record player. A little lens diffraction adds substance to the picture and removes the news-print-like grain from the negative. This just isn't done on a scanner. Hence you get a far superior picture (just like a CD), which isn't always pleasing to the eye.
Enjoy!
Mat
