DSL scanned film, what are the downsides?

I was using lab scans for quite some time until that got too expensive. Eventually I bought a Plustek scanner and got frustrated with the time it took to get my film scanned. The quality wasn't all that good either.
I then came across this online.
I now have a Nikon D7100 with the 40mm DX macro lens and a Nikon ES-1.

For slide film I created a custom WB using clear part of the film and the light table behind it.
I now scan a 36exp roll of slide film in less than 20 mins. Usually there's no adjustment needed. Not even white balance as I've already taken care of that with the custom WB.

For negatives I use ColorPerfect to get rid of the orange mask.

For monochromes I sometimes still get a slight color cast. Maybe the light table is not pure white?!
This is usually easy corrected in Lightroom by converting to B&W

The D7100 has no AA filter and I get super sharp 24mp scans in a fraction of a second.
Can it really be that this sub-1000 dollar setup beats all these expensive scanners? Both in time and value?
Now I even have the D7100 if I wanna go out and do some macro work digitally.

What are the downsides of DSLR scanning versus a dedicated film scanner?

Hi Eric,

Have you seen this 2-part series by Ctein on why one shouldn't DSLR-scan?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...ographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html
The Online Photographer: How to 'Scan' Film with a CameraWell (Part 2)

Short summary: he doesn't think it's worth it.

On the other hand, I have a couple of prints from Ming Thein who does believe in it, and the prints, printed from DSLR-scanned film, are glorious. He uses a Nikon D800E and a custom rig to scan 35mm and 6x6 film.

Ctein's arguments don't apply.
Nikon's 40mm macro is a really sharp lens.
It's obviously perfectly aligned with the sensor and so is the slide holder adapter from Nikon that perfectly screws into the filter threads of that lens.
The only variable still left is flatness of the film.
First of all when you shoot at f9.5 or f11 you don't have a tiny depth of field. You have a decent depth of field and even a tiny bent is not noticeable.
I simply built a film holder out of stiff cardboard that I slide the film through. I haven't noticed any sharpness issues at all.
The only problem I have is dust.
Most of the problems that he lists are easily solved. I'm certainly getting better scans now than I did with my plustek 8100 or than I would with a dollar a scan service.

I agree completely with ericdan. I've scanned many 100's (maybe 1000's) of slides with a Panasonic GH2 and 60mm macro lens and the quality is excellent for my purposes. I have both a holder/adapter and use a copy stand. An entire 36 exposure roll can be scanned in about 10-15 minutes; which is drastically faster than a film scanner. I have an Epson 750 and a Plustek OpticFilm 120 and use them when highest quality scan is the main goal. But, for quick digitizing a large # of negatives, especially if the aim is to show on a computer monitor/internet, the camera is hard to beat. Also agree with ericdan on using a smaller aperture so that DOF is not an issue. Also built my own slide holder and have no issues with sharpness at all. WB can be set 'custom' for a given roll.

There is a whole series of threads on the large format forum started by Peter J. De Smidt that describe scanning with a DSLR and home-made X-Y table. I'm in the process of building my own. I have purchased some parts but am some months away from completing it due to other projects that compete for my time.

Sounds very promising for 35mm film. Could you post a sample at 100%? To be fair to ctein, he didn't state in the article it won't work, just that it takes care to do well, especially for film flatness. I think using an APSC sized sensor helps in this respect because the macro photo of a 35mm film frame is less than a 1:1 macro, so there is more depth of field. Presumably, there would be still more depth of field for photographing a medium format or larger film frame.

I think the limitation is resolution. A 24MP Bayer sensor like in the Nikon D7100 is really about 12 MP of real resolution when comparing to a film scanner which scans all three colours at each pixel site. So a 35mm frame is really being scanned at about 12 MP resolution, which is like 2800 ppi for a scanner. This is good and does beat any flatbed for 35mm film, but doesn't beat a dedicated film scanner like a Nikon Coolscan.

For medium format and up, the camera solution would have to involve stitching and moving the camera or film between shots, otherwise, it seems like even a cheap flatbed will do at least as well.

I've been doing this for some years now, and I think a DSLR offers more flexibility than a scanner. Ultimately, it's just basic copy work of the sort we've done for years with ordinary film cameras, with the added possibility of stitching for higher resolution than the native resolution of the DSLR you're using.

Depending on your camera and your macro lenses, and your ability to keep the lens, sensor, and film plane aligned, you can get as much resolution as you need with a DSLR setup. It isn't absolutely necessary even to have an X-Y film transport system, because the stitching software can adjust the X-Y orientation of stitched tiles. With micro lenses (Luminar, Photar, Olympus and Canon Macrophoto lenses) you can shoot even 35mm or Super-8 frames at very high resolution. I sold my film scanner when I thought my DSLR could do better.

It's work that requires careful technique to be sure, but it's not rocket science, and once you've got the setup, it's easy to repeat and often faster than scanning, and you have more control over the actual exposure than you would with most scanner interfaces (where exposure and curve adjustments may in fact be post-processing). You also have direct control over the focus and you can use glass neg carriers on a light table just as you would in an enlarger or a dedicated film scanner. I haven't done wet mounting, but this is also an option.

Using a Nikon PB-6 bellows unit with a PS-6 film holder plus a flash might do the trick with my D600, as long as I want to digitize my 35mm slides.

But my obstacle is the larger format - 6x9 (MF cameras, 6x9 roll film back for my Arca Swiss). So I'll keep my LS 9000 as long as I can connect it to a Mac or until I find someone who can mill a slide holder for 6x9 chromes...

jens g.r. benthien said:

Using a Nikon PB-6 bellows unit with a PS-6 film holder plus a flash might do the trick with my D600, as long as I want to digitize my 35mm slides.

But my obstacle is the larger format - 6x9 (MF cameras, 6x9 roll film back for my Arca Swiss). So I'll keep my LS 9000 as long as I can connect it to a Mac or until I find someone who can mill a slide holder for 6x9 chromes...

Click to expand...

If you are happy with only 24MP for the 6x9 negative then you can use the same PB-6 without the slide holder. Put the film on light table and shoot it further away.

Indigo said:

If you are happy with only 24MP for the 6x9 negative then you can use the same PB-6 without the slide holder. Put the film on light table and shoot it further away.

Click to expand...

Or get more than 24MP by shooting as many overlapping tiles as you need for the resolution you want, and stitch.

I've been copying slides and negatives of all sizes up to 4x5 for years with a Bowens Illumitran. Works great and is much faster than any scanner I have ever used. Quality is better than any scanner I have ever used as well. I only scan to use the images on line so they may suck if I tried printing them. All I can say is using a DSLR to scan slides and negatives works. The bridge is a scan of a 6x7 negative, the waterrfall is a scan of a 4 x5 negative. The fish are a scan of a 35mm slide.

If you are happy with only 24MP for the 6x9 negative

Click to expand...

For web sites, small flyers, brochures it would be sufficient. Important ones would be subcontracted to a drum scan service.

I use a Canon 7D and 100mm 1:1 macro lens, with the film secured on a light table. I shoot at 1:1 magnification and stitch. I prefer using a crop sensor camera to my 5D3 because it allows me to put more pixels on the negative (comes out to 5900 PPI rather than 4000 PPI, and this ameliorates some loss of resolution due to the Bayer array and AA filter. On the other hand, I think the AA filter helps prevent grain aliasing. Furthermore, I'm using only the very sharp center of the 100L macro lens. I've been happy with results for both 35mm and 120 film

https://m.flickr.com/photos/126351313@N08/16776019509/sizes/o/