Getting a solid focus on grain with DSLR scanning?

[f/Alex]

I've been experimenting with DSLR scanning my 35, and recently my 4x5 stuff as well, I'd really prefer to make analog prints and flatbed scan those for a digital copy, as i've done in the past, but I don't have access to a darkroom right now. I purchased an Essential Film Holder on recommendation from someone on here, and overall it does its job fairly well. My problem comes with trying to get a solid focus on the grain of my images.

I've tried a number of equipment combinations in search of a lens/camera setup that can get a solid focus on grain. So far, I've gotten a grand total of nothing.
My best attempts, working on 4x5 film, have been:
Canon 5D Mk III with an EF85 f/1.8 (shot at 100 ISO at f/8, tried to focus at f/1.8 and then stop down from there)
Canon 5D Mk III with a crap old 70-300 Sigma macro, at all sorts of settings, but there's a ton of noise and color crap (chromatic aberrations? I ain't sure)
Canon 5D Mk III with Nikkor F/1.8 50mm (one of the older ones with manual aperture)
Nikon Z50 With Nikkor Z DX 16-50 (A lens that don't deserve the title of Nikkor, it's a crappy kit lens, and it ain't a prime or a macro, but I was getting desperate, it's my partner's camera anyways)
Nikon Z50 With Nikkor Z DX 50-250 (again, not a prime, but I've been told APS sensors are easier to focus with?)

my only conclusion is that I must be doing something wrong? I guess my use of low grain film isn't helping here but?

Attached is an example of a scan (downsized a lot, apparently the 2mb upload limit is a lie?), alongside a zoomed in screencap of the same image.

 

[koraks]

I guess my use of low grain film isn't helping here but?

That's one part of it, likely. There are other things going on as well, perhaps, but I'd start by focusing on something that is 100% guaranteed to be a sharply defined feature. Something like the edge of the film, or even the edge print on this sheet.

Keep in mind that in what you're doing, pretty much anything can become a problem. Focus shift between wide open and stopped down aperture, field curvature - you name it.

 

[f/Alex]

add on: anything I do in color ends up with this sort of rainbowy effect on the edge of things? I've noticed my sensor does seem to have very high amounts of noise, more than other folks have reported with a 5D, maybe it has something wrong with it? or is this the fault of using an oled tablet as a light panel? (I have a diffuser between the film and panel)

Something like the edge of the film, or even the edge print on this sheet.

Even when attempting to focus on the lettering on the edge of the film, I still encounter the same sort of jumbled up mess

looking closely, it's almost making me consider the possibility that the camera might be unable to capture at a high enough resolution? If this might be the case, my next move will be attempting to find a nearby library with a half decent flatbed scanner.

 

[koraks]

rainbowy effect

Diffraction around small features; is this the corner of the sheet you're showing? Diffraction is wavelength-dependent, and thus, it'll be colored. Lens aberrations can play a role, too. They tend to be colored for similar reasons; the angle at which light rays 'break' is dependent on their wavelength = color.

the camera might be unable to capture at a high enough resolution

Well, yeah, but it's not really the camera's fault in terms of something to do with the sensor etc. You're running into a combination of factors: very shallow depth of field making it very difficult to accurately focus, and myriad optical effects (lens imperfections, fundamental physics/behavior of light around/through film etc., flare) are affecting the effective resolution of the entire imaging chain.

I'm sure your 5D can do better especially paired with the 85/1.8.

Are you using live view to focus the 5D?

 

[cerber0s]

Like Koraks said, use live view to focus, unless you already do. That’ll take any misalignment out of the lens-camera combo.

This is how I do it: I use an old Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mk II for digitizing my negatives. I pair it with my Canon FD 50mm f1.4 on an extension tube, that particular lens is amazingly sharp. I put the negatives in holders on a small light table, and manually focus using focus peaking. I shoot at f8.

That olympus camera was bought for the soul purpose of digitizing negatives and has one redeeming feature, it does picelshift, or whatever Olympis calls it. When on a tripod it moves the sensor around, taking several pictures to combine into an 80 megapixel image! I can scan even 135-negatives at 80 megapixels, providing I can fill the entire frame with it. And they come out sharp!

But again, make sure you use live view.

 

[Alan9940]

I use a Canon 5D Mark II to scan all my film from 35mm to 4x5 and I've always been pleased with the results. Camera scanning of film is actually more demanding of technique than other scanning methods, IMO. I'm guessing the color mottling you're seeing is from the OLED panel, though that's a bit confusing since you say you're using a diffuser between the light panel and your film holder. Just a couple of general suggestions: make sure you scanning setup is rock solid and perfectly aligned from the sensor plane to the film plane, and use live view as others have suggested. I always use manual focus on my lens and zoom the live view to 10x when focusing. Oh, and do not touch the camera to make an exposure; use the self-timer, a remote release, or tether to your computer.

 

[brbo]

@f/Alex , are you scanning 4x5 on a 20MP cameras without stitching?

If so, forget about resolving grain. You are getting about 1000dpi (at best!, it's probably half that in reality), there is no way you will see grain in such scans.

You will need to scan at 1:1 or even past that and then stitch to see grain. And at that point you will probably hit the limitations of your non-macro lenses.

 

[f/Alex]

I'm sure your 5D can do better especially paired with the 85/1.8.

Are you using live view to focus the 5D?

yes, i am using live view to focus, tetherd to a computer to do the shooting. focusing on the gain isnt possible really because of amplification noise. The image displayed in live view, like that of an EVF mirrorless, isnt at the ISO you're taking it at, and the canon has god awful high iso noise.

@f/Alex , are you scanning 4x5 on a 20MP cameras without stitching

i may seem stupid here but what is stitching and how is that acomplished? (24mp, not 20, but the same issue seems to occur with 35mm)

This is how I do it: I use an old Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mk II for digitizing my negatives. I pair it with my Canon FD 50mm f1.4 on an extension tube, that particular lens is amazingly sharp. I put the negatives in holders on a small light table, and manually focus using focus peaking. I shoot at f8.

doesnt the lens tube introduce some manner of distortion into the image? my expierience with lens tubes is that they make it near impossible to get the edges in focus.

 

[brbo]

i may seem stupid here but what is stitching and how is that acomplished? (24mp, not 20, but the same issue seems to occur with 35mm)

24MP vs 20MP doesn't really make a difference in 4x5", but if you don't start to see image "texture" (there is still some way to resolving grain) on 35mm at 1:1 then there might be some other issue at play. Btw, if you are not using macro rings, how do you get to 1:1 macro with the lenses you specified in you opening post?

 

[f/Alex]

Btw, if you are not using macro rings, how do you get to 1:1 macro with the lenses you specified in you opening post?

macro rings... as in extension tubes? or what? I have a set of extension tubes, but my best, so far, 135 scans have been using a large format studio camera (kind of a piece of junk one) that someone gave me, with my 5D mounted on the back via plywood, a donor lens mount from a broken lens, and a lot of hope. I had a 135mm large format lens, and I did still do a slight crop of the image. again struggled to get fine grain detail. Example attached:

that rainbow "noise" effect is still present, in a way that it I don't think it should be at 100 or 200 iso. This is a fairly high grain film. A roll of harmon pheonix that my partner took to japan with her.

my attempts to use extension tubes have resulted in little improvement and multiple other issues. With the 4x5 stuff I still can't resolve the grain at all, theres too much sensor amplification noise.

 

[MattKing]

my attempts to use extension tubes have resulted in little improvement and multiple other issues. With the 4x5 stuff I still can't resolve the grain at all, theres too much sensor amplification noise.

I'm guessing that is because your setup results in really low light levels actually reaching the film.
An appropriate 1:1 true macro lens, with or without any extension tube or bellows it is designed to be used with, should give you more light!

 

[f/Alex]

I'm guessing that is because your setup results in really low light levels actually reaching the film.
An appropriate 1:1 true macro lens, with or without any extension tube or bellows it is designed to be used with, should give you more light!

I mean, yes, using a tablet as a light box, especially after a diffuser, isn't going to give the best of results in terms of lighting. I'm working on a budget here. a very tight one. Purchasing a macro lens is a little bit *out* of that. unless I can find a cheap old F mount or such.

With regards to 4x5 at least, 35 produces "Sharp enough" images for social media and the sorts, which is fine for 35, since I don't take anything I am that serious on with a 35 at this point, would looking for a flatbed scanner, either used, or in a nearby library, be a better option? I'd assume that my local library has a flatbed, if not, NYPL definitely does.

 

[MattKing]

Finding a flatbed at a library that has film holders and a transmission source for film scanning might be a challenge.
I'm a big fan of using electronic flash as the exposing light source, but that isn't the most convenient solution for focusing.

 

[cerber0s]

doesnt the lens tube introduce some manner of distortion into the image? my expierience with lens tubes is that they make it near impossible to get the edges in focus.

Nope, not on the Olympus at least. It has a sensor with a 2x crop factor, the edges are far, far away

 

[f/Alex]

Nope, not on the Olympus at least. It has a sensor with a 2x crop factor, the edges are far, far away

love finding this out a week after agreeing to lend my EF-S APS-C rebel out for the rest of the summer to a friend who lives an hour and a half north of me.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've been experimenting with DSLR scanning my 35, and recently my 4x5 stuff as well, I'd really prefer to make analog prints and flatbed scan those for a digital copy, as i've done in the past, but I don't have access to a darkroom right now. I purchased an Essential Film Holder on recommendation from someone on here, and overall it does its job fairly well. My problem comes with trying to get a solid focus on the grain of my images.

I've tried a number of equipment combinations in search of a lens/camera setup that can get a solid focus on grain. So far, I've gotten a grand total of nothing.
My best attempts, working on 4x5 film, have been:
Canon 5D Mk III with an EF85 f/1.8 (shot at 100 ISO at f/8, tried to focus at f/1.8 and then stop down from there)
Canon 5D Mk III with a crap old 70-300 Sigma macro, at all sorts of settings, but there's a ton of noise and color crap (chromatic aberrations? I ain't sure)
Canon 5D Mk III with Nikkor F/1.8 50mm (one of the older ones with manual aperture)
Nikon Z50 With Nikkor Z DX 16-50 (A lens that don't deserve the title of Nikkor, it's a crappy kit lens, and it ain't a prime or a macro, but I was getting desperate, it's my partner's camera anyways)
Nikon Z50 With Nikkor Z DX 50-250 (again, not a prime, but I've been told APS sensors are easier to focus with?)

my only conclusion is that I must be doing something wrong? I guess my use of low grain film isn't helping here but?

Attached is an example of a scan (downsized a lot, apparently the 2mb upload limit is a lie?), alongside a zoomed in screencap of the same image.
View attachment 374963 View attachment 374964

On the 5DIII, use the EF 100MM macro lens if you can. Focus using live view, so that the sensor's phase detect will focus it exactly on the sensor through the lens. Use the vertical lines between two frames to focus. I always make the first frame the space between two frames exactly in the center of the image. That serves two purposes. Focus for the roll, and an easy way to set the black level. If you do that and you stop down to f/5.6 - f/8, you'll have at least 2-3 mm of DOF that should be in sharp focus. If it's not, then you're probably dealing with vibrations.

 

[f/Alex]

On the 5DIII, use the EF 100MM macro lens if you can. Focus using live view, so that the sensor's phase detect will focus it exactly on the sensor through the lens. Use the vertical lines between two frames to focus. I always make the first frame the space between two frames exactly in the center of the image. That serves two purposes. Focus for the roll, and an easy way to set the black level. If you do that and you stop down to f/5.6 - f/8, you'll have at least 2-3 mm of DOF that should be in sharp focus. If it's not, then you're probably dealing with vibrations.

wouldn't a 100mm lens be a bit too tight in for 4x5? For 35mm that'd probs be right. But as much as I appreciated the suggestion, a 1.2 grand lens is a bit out of reach for my little home scanning setup, the priciest lens I own is the EF85, and it was a gift.

What do you mean by "first frame" and vertical lines between frames to focus?

-Alex

 

[cerber0s]

wouldn't a 100mm lens be a bit too tight in for 4x5? For 35mm that'd probs be right. But as much as I appreciated the suggestion, a 1.2 grand lens is a bit out of reach for my little home scanning setup, the priciest lens I own is the EF85, and it was a gift.

What do you mean by "first frame" and vertical lines between frames to focus?

-Alex

Vertical lines between frames are the edges of the actual image captured on the film, between them are blank film.

First frame means that as long as you don’t move anything around, you only have to focus once.

 

[Steven Lee]

@f/Alex None of the lenses you tried will work for camera scanning. You need a true macro lens with a flat focus field. In fact, you need a pretty good macro lens. Even the Canon's 100mm EF macro recommended by Adrian will deliver soft-ish corners which will affect grain appearance.

Camera scanning is expensive. But the Internet is polluted by "random lens with an extension tube" advice from teenagers whose scanning destination is Instagram.

 

[f/Alex]

@f/Alex None of the lenses you tried will work for camera scanning. You need a true macro lens with a flat focus field. In fact, you need a pretty good macro lens. Even the Canon's 100mm EF macro recommended by Adrian will deliver soft-ish corners which will affect grain appearance.

Camera scanning is expensive. But the Internet is polluted by "random lens with an extension tube" advice from teenagers whose scanning destination is Instagram.

I'm curious whether or not an enlarging lens would work? I don't own one but they ain't particularly expensive compared to a true macro. I also own two large format lenses, so I ain't sure if either of those will go better. With regards to the destinations of my scans, I prefer to make darkroom prints where/when possible, but am a university student who only has darkroom access 2/3 of the year, therefore my scans are likely to end up as lower quality internet media, things I send around to my fellow younger photographer friends from uni, or (god forbid) put on the horrible website known as instagram to try and earn internet clout.

In an ideal world I wouldn't be talking about scanning, I'd have a place with a backyard or a garage and an enlarger in there. I don't. I have a shitty westchester apartment.

TLDR, the scaning setup I've used before at my uni didn't use a macro lens, but instead used a bellows and a fixed focus lens. I have 2 fixed focus large format lenses, should I be pursuing a bellows method? or will a lens meant with a 210mm image circle result in low quality images and chromatic aberrations when paired with a full frame sensor in the same way as if attempting to use for standard photography (in full frame format)?

 

[Steven Lee]

I'm curious whether or not an enlarging lens would work?

Yes! Manual focusing is a pain though, you will never be consistent (believe me I tried) and some scans will be sharper than others, but you will save some money.

 

[250swb]

There is no need to get complicated, camera scanning is simple. You have a digital camera, next you need a macro/micro lens that can magnify 1:1 and a cheap adapter if necessary (lock all your zoom lenses away), on whatever rig you have this mounted use aperture priority and focus peaking to focus and check focus across the frame, square everything up by having a surface level/bubble level app on your phone. But a good macro/micro lens is essential and far simpler than concocting a bellows setup. Look on the bright side, you get a macro lens to do other stuff with.

 

[loccdor]

Cheap flatbed scanners can pull plenty of resolution out of a 4x5. And it's a lot easier and less finicky. I'd use DSLR scanning only for 35mm and (maybe) medium format. Unless you want to make ultra large stitched images from lots of offset exposures, which is something best done on a one-off basis as it takes too much time to do for large groups of pictures.

As others said, I would recommended a dedicated prime macro lens, that has very positive test results.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

wouldn't a 100mm lens be a bit too tight in for 4x5? For 35mm that'd probs be right. But as much as I appreciated the suggestion, a 1.2 grand lens is a bit out of reach for my little home scanning setup, the priciest lens I own is the EF85, and it was a gift.

What do you mean by "first frame" and vertical lines between frames to focus?

-Alex

Depending on your copy stand, maybe. My setup is an R5 with the RF 100 macro. Works fine.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

@f/Alex None of the lenses you tried will work for camera scanning. You need a true macro lens with a flat focus field. In fact, you need a pretty good macro lens. Even the Canon's 100mm EF macro recommended by Adrian will deliver soft-ish corners which will affect grain appearance.

Camera scanning is expensive. But the Internet is polluted by "random lens with an extension tube" advice from teenagers whose scanning destination is Instagram.

Mostly true. The EF 100 macro is better than most random lenses with extension tubes. However, that being said, camera scanning is only expensive if you want the highest quality output possible. The reality of the matter is, most people just want a simple and easy way to get reasonably acceptable results. You can get 80 percent of the way there with literally 20-30 percent of the equipment and pretty good rigor with practices.