From Youtube: Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson (Via Nick Carver)

[NortheastPhotographic]

I think you'll see some pretty surprising conclusions here, but they track with my experience.

Personally I would quibble with his DSLR scan technique. 1. He appears to be doing no masking at all. 2. He should be using a copy stand and macro rails with the film in a proper film holder elevated off the light source. 3. The 6D has the worst in class sensor of all semi-modern DSLRs. 3a. The 6D cannot pixel shift so he's fighting bayer interpolation and he has to do an extremely large amount of captures and stitching to achieve his resolution target. And 4. Though he seems to have an understanding of Negative Lab Pro, he doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of how to use it.

All that being said, I'm just not surprised to hear that a DSLR is so close to the drum scan in IQ. You really do have to try it to see for yourself. I'm also not surprised to see that he prefers the Epson scan. Epsons do well with larger formats, and he's both wet scanning it, and taking advantage of iSRD. Dust is a huge problem with ultra high res scanning, and one I'm still trying to deal with.

Enjoy the video!

 

[GLS]

Yes, I saw this earlier. I agree his DSLR setup is far from ideal, especially for multi-shot stitching, and somebody needs to tell him about ColorPerfect for doing the inversions.

I do DSLR scanning myself, and am very pleased with my setup & results as far as single shot digitisation goes. Multi-shot stitching at 1:1 does introduce a lot more headaches (mainly to do with maintaining perfect film flatness and parallelism to the sensor across all shots), and my setup isn't optimised for that yet. As far as dust goes, I haven't found it to be a big issue. I handle the film with cotton gloves, and just before scanning I run two gloved fingers down the film several times to sweep off most of it, then I give it a blast on both sides with a rocket blower before placing it in the holder for scanning. I then blast it again with the rocket blower immediately before digital capture. With this procedure it's rare that I get more dust spots than require a few minutes of clone tool use to remove.

 

[Smaug01]

Thanks! (marked to Watch Later)

I researched it about a year ago. There was a useful thread in DPReview forums. (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63091499) I decided to buy the Nikon ES-2 Film Digitizer Set. I got a stepping ring to try it with my 12-60 lens for my Olympus E-M10 III. Worked great; sharper results than I expected from a "street sweeper" zoom lens. Then, I knew it would be worth the investment to buy a macro lens, so I did. The 30/3.5 (60 mm eq.) Even though this sensor is a lot smaller than full frame and it's only 16 MP, I'm quite happy with my results.

• IIRC, the ES-2 was $125. It hurt to pay that much, but it was worth it.
• The macro lens I bought nice used on ebay for less than $100. Around $60, I think
• Stepping ring, maybe $5
• Then, a cheap LED light table from ebay for $12 or so (diffuser is built into the ES-2)

so, for the price of a really cheap scanner, I got a digitizing rig that beats the quality from the highest quality flatbed scanners. It easily resolves film grain. Full disclosure, here are the cons.

- color-correcting inverted color negatives is a royal pain. I don't use Lightroom, so Negative Lab Pro is not an option for me.
- The ES-2 is limited to 35 mm negs or slides. I'd have to come up with something else if I wanted to do a different format.

I read posts from the flatbed scanner guys (Epson V series) and am sometimes jealous that they can easily scan 120 film and easily handle inversion and correction of color negatives. But there's also the scanning time and a lot more dust issues.

 

[jtk]

The biggest shortcoming of so-called camera scanning is contrast change, similar to duplicating slides with standard film rather than duplicating film. My experience with 28mp and excellent macro lens is that detail resolution and sharpness is however excellent...maybe approaching Nikonscan...which however does a great job with color neg and b+w as well as Ektachromes.

 

[Cholentpot]

DSLR scanning is excellent for B&W. For color it's complicated.

 

[GLS]

The biggest shortcoming of so-called camera scanning is contrast change

This is only an issue with slides, and even then it's not hard to resolve if your digital camera has a sensor which can capture 13+ stops.

 

[etn]

DSLR scanning is excellent for B&W. For color it's complicated.

With negatives. With slides it’s as straightforward as it gets.

 

[GLS]

With negatives. With slides it’s as straightforward as it gets.

And inverting C41 is a doddle too when using the ColorPerfect plugin for Photoshop.

 

[Helge]

Basically your standard pseudo stealthy “humble” YouTube blowhard, à la Matt Day or Negative Feedback.
He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.
He knows how to spend money and make his process and life in general look casually smooth in videos, but while he is using an enormous amount of resources and thought on that, his actual output and technique is just aping, or a simulacrum of something he’s seen.
As pointed out by others here, there are too many problems with his DSLR method to even start a meaningful critique.
The real problem is that his video might induce FUD in his followers, who might just end up in paralysis.

 

[ITD]

Basically your standard pseudo stealthy “humble” YouTube blowhard, à la Matt Day or Negative Feedback.
He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.
He knows how to spend money and make his process and life in general look casually smooth in videos, but while he is using an enormous amount of resources and thought on that, his actual output and technique is just aping, or a simulacrum of something he’s seen.
As pointed out by others here, there are too many problems with his DSLR method to even start a meaningful critique.
The real problem is that his video might induce FUD in his followers, who might just end up in paralysis.

Got any insights to add to the subject of DSLR scanning or is this just a general dislike of YouTube? Whilst I don’t particularly rate Negative Feedback, that channel, along with that of Matt Day and Nick Carver have a lot of followers, and are helping to keep the excitement of film photography going in a demographic that doesn’t use web forums. They don’t profess to be self appointed experts and are just showing how they got on with things they try out. Other people build on that and communicate their own experiences. Much like here really.

 

[GLS]

He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.

This is unfair to say the least.

There are many untalented hack photographers on Youtube I could name, but Nick Carver isn't one of them. He actually demonstrates a fairly high degree of knowledge and skill when it comes to film photography, and generally gives good advice. This is just unfortunately one of the rare cases where that isn't true, and it seems like he hadn't researched the whole process of DSLR scanning very well, or simply wasn't prepared to commit the necessary time and resources to give it a fair shake.

 

[jtk]

Dust is NOT a "huge problem" assuming fastidious processing and storage.

If dust does land on film after processing it's easy simply to blow it off.

Color isn't "complicated" except for color neg. I've found that non-pro color neg processing means occasional scratching and dust. \

As well, soft plastic sleeves are worse for dust than good quality glassine .. and to avoid scratches it's best to use fold-lock type sleeves rather than slide-in sleeves, best source for me has been archivalmethods.com.

 

[warden]

Basically your standard pseudo stealthy “humble” YouTube blowhard, à la Matt Day or Negative Feedback.
He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.

I'm not seeing that at all in his videos.

 

[Cholentpot]

With negatives. With slides it’s as straightforward as it gets.

Ah, well. I don't shoot slides...yet.

Also Nick Carver seems to know what he is doing. I enjoy watching his stuff.

 

[foveon_m]

I just wonder why he didn´t make a darkroom print as reference.

 

[jtk]

I just wonder why he didn´t make a darkroom print as reference.

He is (apparently) a professional photographer of some sort, therefore doesn't do darkroom color printing. QED

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Too bad the art of making C prints from negs is a dying art. It's really a false problem of trying to find the "best" scan. For dynamic range freaks, maybe doing multiple scans and using HDR will increase shadow detail for chromes.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Too bad the art of making C prints from negs is a dying art. It's really a false problem of trying to find the "best" scan. For dynamic range freaks, maybe doing multiple scans and using HDR will increase shadow detail for chromes.

I am just about to re immerse myself in optical color printing. It's definitely not for everyone. Some are lucky to have access to a processor but others like me have a Nova in my case or Jobo. The results when you get them right have a wonderful quality to them but they're also not archival to a very great extent. I've made mostly better pigment prints than I have RA4, and with the right paper they're incredibly detailed and very close to what you might expect from the enlarger. Combine that with the archival quality of pigment, and it's a winner medium to be sure.

Plus in Nick's case he's making 24" TALL enlargements from 6x12. There are very few rigs that can project that kind of optical print, and doing so would take a real expert. 16x20 is my absolute limit for optical color. I am not going back to the days where I was burning with handheld dichroic filters.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Optical printing is definitely not for everyone. I spent a year doing color prints for an agency. I'm pretty much stuck in the dark and the smell of the RA machine was not pleasant. I was pretty good judging color balance which helped me in balancing my digital prints. Trying to figure out the filter pack to balance the color is also a brain twister. I do appreciate the craft and the satisfaction of making beautiful prints. I don't miss being stuck in the dark and smelly darkroom. Even with color analyzers, nothing beats a skilled darkroom tech. I've lost all my RA print skills. I haven't done it in 20 years.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Basically your standard pseudo stealthy “humble” YouTube blowhard, à la Matt Day or Negative Feedback.
He’s an untalented idiot, with no real grasp of what he’s doing.
He knows how to spend money and make his process and life in general look casually smooth in videos, but while he is using an enormous amount of resources and thought on that, his actual output and technique is just aping, or a simulacrum of something he’s seen.
As pointed out by others here, there are too many problems with his DSLR method to even start a meaningful critique.
The real problem is that his video might induce FUD in his followers, who might just end up in paralysis.

I'd also add that the single biggest problem with all the 'tests' that apparently show Epson's doorstops to have any serious use as scanners with LF is that they don't subject them to tests with negatives made with suitably high MTF to actually challenge the system. I have material evidence of how wide the gulf between an Epson and a decent high end CCD scanner is at 2000ppi when fed a negative (HP5+, nothing fancy!) exposed in a camera with very good MTF, but sometimes the difference does seem to shrink when a decidedly average 4x5" is scanned. Given that the Epson scan sensor tests out to 50% MTF at around 600ppi and runs out of useful resolution a little over 1200ppi, it suggests that a lot of average LF negatives are not very sharp at all in terms of fine detail (due to a variety of factors - camera/ shutter shake, film flatness etc, etc) - and that the significant designed-in sharpness boost/ edge effects in current Kodak/ Ilford/ Fuji films in the 10-20lp/mm range is rather critical to the results seeming 'sharp' at all. That said, with some care and attention, 4x5 can easily deliver double the results above & make a nice 32x40 or 40x50" & do well when scanned in the 3000ppi range. There's also the problem of the interplay of noise and sharpness in the various CCD/ PMT/ CMOS sensors & attached optical systems and how that relates to the total available transmissible information in the resulting file..

 

[Marameo]

Optical printing is definitely not for everyone. I spent a year doing color prints for an agency. I'm pretty much stuck in the dark and the smell of the RA machine was not pleasant. I was pretty good judging color balance which helped me in balancing my digital prints. Trying to figure out the filter pack to balance the color is also a brain twister.

I wonder if masks with different color balances was involved in the process; warm/cold tones in different areas.

 

[Smaug01]

When someone ponies up and makes a good stand-alone software for inverting and basic correction of color negatives, they're going to make a mint. Rightfully so, too. Lightroom plug-ins are all well and fine, but not everyone wants Adobe fingers in his paychecks. ;-)

 

[Cholentpot]

When someone ponies up and makes a good stand-alone software for inverting and basic correction of color negatives, they're going to make a mint. Rightfully so, too. Lightroom plug-ins are all well and fine, but not everyone wants Adobe fingers in his paychecks. ;-)

Ya got that right!

I'll take care of the scanning. Lets get some 123 invert and color. Otherwise for someone like me it's 5 separate steps with two or three programs to get a decent scan and result.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I wonder if masks with different color balances was involved in the process; warm/cold tones in different areas.

I

I wonder if masks with different color balances was involved in the process; warm/cold tones in different areas.

I'm sure it's possible, but it's probably virtually impossible. One can easily do it in Photoshop with adjustment layers. I'm contradicting myself aren't I?

 

[MattKing]

Corel should add to their software (Paintshop Pro or Aftershot Pro) a facility to deal with DSLR scanned colour negatives - even if it is a paid for add-on.