Is DSLR scanning "better" than flatbed scanning?

[NortheastPhotographic]

Yes, it is much much better than Flatbed scanning. In fact it's better than using an Imacon if you use the right techniques. Drum scans probably have an edge with certain films but it's going to be close. You won't create those massive 4k ppi scans from an 8x10 sheet, but the need for such resolution is incredibly rare. You would have to be using a 60" wide printer regularly.

My S1R can produce a 150mp scan of 8x10 or 4x5 without stitching in Pixel Shift mode. PS also gives you a true RGB capture for better colors and detail, less noise. It can make a 186mp capture of 35mm and somewhere in the range of 125mp for 6x6 film, My largest printer is a 24" P6000, and without having to stitch I can get a 360dpi print that is as large as I can physically print. It's a fantastic development for all hybrid film shooters.

 

[markbau]

You have a DSLR with Pentax K mount? If so get a bellow for Pentax K mount. Like this one http://kmp.pentaxians.eu/wp-content/uploads/bojidar/misc/macro/auto_bellows_slide_copier.jpg.
You would also need a 39mm screw mount to Pentax K adapter like this one.
https://www.roxsen.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=1320
I looked at the fotodiox website but they don't have one.

Many thanks for that info.
I did a search on B&H and am surprised they don't sell 39mm-K mount adaptor.
Now to find a bellows unit!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding comparison to drum scans—a well done drum scan is really good. There’s technique involved with both approaches, and there’s a range of equipment available. One thing is that drum scans are wet mounted, and I suspect that wet mounting the film in a glass neg carrier may improve results with DSLR scanning. I haven’t tried that yet.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Keep in mind that drum scanners use photo multiplier tubes which may have better dynamic range than flat bed scanners. Wet mounting on a drum is a real pain using Gamsol which is pretty nasty. Here’s a system that allows you to wet mount for a flatbed scanner or a DSLR.

http://www.betterscanning.com/

 

[Les Sarile]

What do you all thing? Do you prefer it and is the effort worth a vastly increased IQ with DSLR scanning (I've got a full frame camera but no macro lens at the moment) or is this a myth?

What full frame dslr do you have? If it's the Nikon D850, it has a built-in color negative conversion that can simplify post work. Of course no IR dust and scratch removal.

 

[markjwyatt]

Just curious if a high quality enlarging lens could be used with a DSLR, assuming you could somehow fit an enlarging lens onto a DSLR?

I have been copying slides with my Fujifilm XT-2 using a Durst slide copier and a 75mm enlarging lens. Works fine. Will try the same for negatives (at least 127 down to half-frame).

 

[GLS]

What full frame dslr do you have? If it's the Nikon D850, it has a built-in color negative conversion that can simplify post work. Of course no IR dust and scratch removal.

However that process is limited to creating jpegs, which in my view is unacceptable.

 

[John51]

How do you attach it to a digital camera? I'd like to try this with a Pentax K mount. I have a spare LPL 6700 enlarger head which I'm assuming would be a perfectly even backlit light source.

I'd go for dslr > 42mm adapter > 42mm extension tubes > 42mm - 39mm step down filter ring > enlarger lens.

 

[Les Sarile]

However that process is limited to creating jpegs, which in my view is unacceptable.

I haven't tried it myself - nor have have I seen a review, to give an opinion.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you scan a few and like to deal with manual dust and scratch removal, then DSLR. Are you mastered your ps skills?
With my v550 I’m finding it no reason for all of the extra time and space DSLR needs.

 

[jtk]

RE: Copex Rapid (GLS post of tree, above)

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2015/04/adox-cms-20-ii-adventures-in-development.htmlhi

In my local world a technically-accomplished and money-making-oriented photographer has used a full frame Nikon DSLR to stitch 6' Epson pigment inkjet print color panoramas of our dominant Sandia Mountain range (starting at our mile-high city it rises another mile). Perhaps he horizontally stitched a dozen frames. For all practical purposes this would be impossible to any film format. I have no doubt that the resulting file would easily and attractively print billboard-sized murals from big Canon printers (giant Epson printers might be troublesome).

Spectacular, they sell like hotcakes, especially to real estate offices and similar.

The stitching software would allow him to shoot and repair perspectives from multiple positions...otherwise I'd guess that any of the new full frame DSLRs could accomplish the image in one shot, cropping sky and foreground to distill the image to the essential panorama. Alternatively, a lunatic who cared-to, and had the time, could stitch the image from a zillion little digicam files.

 

[jtk]

If you scan a few and like to deal with manual dust and scratch removal, then DSLR. Are you mastered your ps skills?
With my v550 I’m finding it no reason for all of the extra time and space DSLR needs.

My sadly-discontinued Nikon V scanner uses the version of Digital Ice that deals beautifully with any dust issues. I suspect the most expensive version of Epson does as well, tho the lesser Epsons (e.g. v550)reportedly do not...and of course they cannot resolve as much detail as the Nikon.

 

[villagephotog]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I'll echo the general consensus from jim10219 and others here that scanning with a digital camera can indeed produce a clearly superior result to any consumer flatbed scanner and probably at least as good as most dedicated professional scanners. My camera scans easily rival Imacon scans I've done. With all that said, I still use my Epson V700 as my normal digitizing device and reserve camera scans for the relatively rare times when I need their advantages (which, for me, have more to do with shadow detail and how grain is depicted, rather than pure resolution). The reasons why I rarely camera scan have already been mentioned by others:

1) The need for a proper light source (full-spectrum, high CRI etc.) when digitizing color film (not important with black-and-white).
2) The need for film flatness and subject-to-sensor plane parallelism.
3) The requirement for a good copying lens.
4) The difficulty of getting good inversions from color negatives (not an issue with B&W or color slides).
5) The significant amount of work required to do multi-shot capture and stitching, if you're looking for really highly detailed scans of medium and large format film. (Nowhere near as big a concern if you're digitizing 35mm, or don't need maximum detail from your larger format scans.)

Epson took care of many of these issues when they built my V700; it comes with some of them already solved, or partially solved. And all I have to do is press the "on" button to get going (no setup or tear down etc.)

The last thing I'll say is that many of the people out on the intertubes (not typically here) who deride flatbed scans aren't doing them very well. Out of the box, my V700 makes completely mediocre scans. But buying a BetterScanning adjustable film holder (with AN glass to flatten the film) and spending a day calibrating the setup dramatically improved my results. I could probably take another modest step up by using BetterScanning's wet scanning system.

Finally, you have to learn how to sharpen scanner scans properly (flatbed or otherwise) to get the most out of them; camera scans look good without much sharpening. This leads some people to think there's a bigger difference than there really is, once both types of files have been optimized.

 

[etn]

I think DSLRs are a good alternative for scanning film. I think it's important to get the right lens. Flat field lenses, which some are enlarger lenses are a good choice.

I would be interested in hearing your (as well as others') opinions on the need for autofocus when scanning. In particular, when using a manual focus lens (such as enlarging lens) do you adjust focus for every new frame, or do you set it once for the entire scanning session?

I currently scan with a Nikon DSLR + 60mm AF-D lens (which is flat field.) I have the camera re-(auto)focus on every frame and so far I never needed to discard (or re-scan) any due to wrong focus. Looking forward I might replace the Nikon by something else and a manual focus lens, let's see.

 

[jtk]

FYI Nikon V allows focus from any point the operator chooses...important given the curvature of some film.

I agree with the recommendation of Betterscanning.com with flatbeds...
. Very useful with MF originals.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've done slide duping in the old days with an enlarger lens. The duplicated slide is ever as sharp is the original. It could be the film, because it was a dupe film that's low contrast and tungsten balanced. I also "Scanned" photos with my Sony mirrorless with a Canon 50mm FD macro lens and scanned on my Epson V700 with Better Scanning holders. Of the 2, the flatbed scanner is sharper with the Better Scanning film carriers. The carriers are not as easy as the Epson. You'll have to tape and mask your film. You can also wet mount your film for marginally better scans but it's a lot of work.

I tried scanning with the film holders that came with my Epson, but they were awful.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I would be interested in hearing your (as well as others') opinions on the need for autofocus when scanning. In particular, when using a manual focus lens (such as enlarging lens) do you adjust focus for every new frame, or do you set it once for the entire scanning session?

I currently scan with a Nikon DSLR + 60mm AF-D lens (which is flat field.) I have the camera re-(auto)focus on every frame and so far I never needed to discard (or re-scan) any due to wrong focus. Looking forward I might replace the Nikon by something else and a manual focus lens, let's see.

A lot depends on your viewfinder; if you can rely on your viewfinder for accurate manual focusing, then Auto Focus is hardly necessary.

My mirrorless camera has an electronic viewfinder with "focus peaking" to tell me when my manual focus is good, and it works well for copying slides and negatives. After focusing the first time, I usually re-check my focus every 3rd or 4th image, but it's aways still in focus unless I've bumped something. I usually open up to the maximum aperture to focus, then stop down to shoot.

 

[jim10219]

Curious how your stitching method compares with a drum scan?

I can't speak for his specifically, but I can tell you from my own personal experience, that it can surpass a drum scan. You can easily zoom in to achieve a level of resolution so that you can measure the size and shape of every grain in the film.

The one down side to stitching, beside the time and file size, is that sometimes the software has issues lining the various scans to create the full image. For me, sometimes if the negative has large patches of blue sky, or large areas of repeating patterns, like windows on a skyscraper, the software can have issues lining up the images and you can either get small areas cropped out or doubled up. It helps to have unique reference points that overlap in each scan so that the software can align them better. And it helps to have a lens that doesn't distort the image out at the edges. Also, the higher resolution images you stitch and the more scans you try to stitch together, the slower the computer gets, and you can eventually crash it. So sometimes it's best to stitch them in quadrants and then stitch those quadrants together for the final image.

Some images work fine without any issues. Some have to be planned a bit to get them to work properly. And some have to be manually aligned, which is difficult and time consuming. So while a DSLR scan of a negative can be as good or better than a drum scan, it isn't always.

I prefer DSLR for 35mm film. Those negatives are small enough for me to get a decent scan in one shot, and a scan capable of resolving the grain in a 4-9 scan stitch. For medium format, dedicated film scanners are probably best. I really don't have a preferred method for them, as they're kind of in the no-man's land. The easy methods don't have the detail you'd expect from medium format, and the hard methods are really hard and time consuming. For 4x5 and larger, I prefer flatbed scanning, as it's just easier and gets you enough detail to be useful for most situations. DSLR scanning isn't worth the effort for negatives that large, in my opinion, though it certainly can be done. If I need resolutions beyond a flatbed, that's where drum scanning comes in and makes most sense to me.

 

[GLS]

I have the camera re-(auto)focus on every frame and so far I never needed to discard (or re-scan) any due to wrong focus

This is what I do too. 100% magnification in live view at the taking aperture, then autofocus on the grain/fine detail with a cable release before taking the shot with MLU and EFC shutter. There's no downside really, as the re-autofocus takes about 1 second per shot.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I manually focus every frame and check it on the screen at 10x. I don’t change the focus on the lens, which could change the scale or introduce distortion, but I use a Linhof macro rail on my copy stand for fine focus by moving the camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With my V600, I didn;t notice any difference with my

I'll echo the general consensus from jim10219 and others here that scanning with a digital camera can indeed produce a clearly superior result to any consumer flatbed scanner and probably at least as good as most dedicated professional scanners. My camera scans easily rival Imacon scans I've done. With all that said, I still use my Epson V700 as my normal digitizing device and reserve camera scans for the relatively rare times when I need their advantages (which, for me, have more to do with shadow detail and how grain is depicted, rather than pure resolution). The reasons why I rarely camera scan have already been mentioned by others:

1) The need for a proper light source (full-spectrum, high CRI etc.) when digitizing color film (not important with black-and-white).
2) The need for film flatness and subject-to-sensor plane parallelism.
3) The requirement for a good copying lens.
4) The difficulty of getting good inversions from color negatives (not an issue with B&W or color slides).
5) The significant amount of work required to do multi-shot capture and stitching, if you're looking for really highly detailed scans of medium and large format film. (Nowhere near as big a concern if you're digitizing 35mm, or don't need maximum detail from your larger format scans.)

Epson took care of many of these issues when they built my V700; it comes with some of them already solved, or partially solved. And all I have to do is press the "on" button to get going (no setup or tear down etc.)

The last thing I'll say is that many of the people out on the intertubes (not typically here) who deride flatbed scans aren't doing them very well. Out of the box, my V700 makes completely mediocre scans. But buying a BetterScanning adjustable film holder (with AN glass to flatten the film) and spending a day calibrating the setup dramatically improved my results. I could probably take another modest step up by using BetterScanning's wet scanning system.

Finally, you have to learn how to sharpen scanner scans properly (flatbed or otherwise) to get the most out of them; camera scans look good without much sharpening. This leads some people to think there's a bigger difference than there really is, once both types of files have been optimized.

I tried the Betterscanning holder with AN glass with my V600 but didn't notice a difference. Maybe I'm doing something wrong with it. DIdn't try wet scanning. Funny thing, the other day I scanned a couple of old Ektachrome 35mm slides I found from 35 years ago. One still in its plastic slide mount. The other I removed from the mount and threw it right on the flat bed glass to scan it. They both came out about the same. I do move the sharpening up to around 100+ with some masking.
Here are the two:

French Angelfish by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Blue Fish by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

With my V600, I didn;t notice any difference with my

I tried the Betterscanning holder with AN glass with my V600 but didn't notice a difference.

I had the same problem until I corrected the height of the carrier. It took a while but worth it.

 

[jtk]

I have not found glass useful for 35mm film, but it's been critical for medium format originals.

In my experience the best of the Betterscanning film holders (I tried all except liquid) was the adjustable version. Fussy process using many tiny screws to get finest focus (once-and-done).

I usually avoid significant sharpening in post due to artifacts. Some subjects don't exhibit artifacts...horizons, twigs etc can be problems. For me, when sharpening is tempting, an focus or movement problem in the original (hand holding long lens in low light, for example).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have not found glass useful for 35mm film, but it's been critical for medium format originals.

In my experience the best of the Betterscanning film holders (I tried all except liquid) was the adjustable version. Fussy process using many tiny screws to get finest focus (once-and-done).

I usually avoid significant sharpening in post due to artifacts. Some subjects don't exhibit artifacts...horizons, twigs etc can be problems. For me, when sharpening is tempting, an focus or movement problem in the original (hand holding long lens in low light, for example).

What difference did you find between MF and 35mm?

 

[Ces1um]

I'm curious as to how the backlight chosen to illuminate your film (prior to photographing with the dslr) affects your picture? Obviously it could colour your image. Sometimes I've also noted that fluorescent bulbs and digital cameras don't play well together resulting in a dark banding. Do people run into this with dslr scanning? I used to have this issue with my xray viewer and phone camera not playing well together.