Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[MattKing]

The solution is out there. And IS super easy. Camera + lens + ES-2. 3 things.

For me, at least several hundred CDN$, and more likely more than $1,000.00 CDN.
Plus another camera. Or another lens for my existing camera.
And that isn't even taking into account my relatively unusual needs to scan other formats like 110, 126, 828 and medium format.
It is what I have said from the beginning - we don't have the same definition of "super easy".

 

[removed account4]

This thread may be missing some content, we've had to re-ban a disruptive account coming in under a new alias. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

YOU ROCK !

T*H*A*N*K Y*O*U!!!​

+1

 

[Donald Qualls]

Then again, I just bought (as in, yesterday) a used flatbed scanner that, mathematically, can pull 30+ MP out of a 35mm frame. For half the price of that used Sony A7 (that I'd also have to buy a macro lens or a normal lens and extension tube for). And I can switch from 4x5 to (after I get the adapters) 16mm in a couple minutes. And it won't require setting up when I've got negatives to digitize -- it'll be right there on my desk.

If you know what you're looking for, you can go either way at a reasonable price. If you don't, you'll see it as difficult and complicated, just like developing film is difficult and complicated if you haven't been doing it for decades like many of us.

So difficult and complicated that, in the summer of 1969, I and a group of 8 or 9 other fairly average kids learned to operate adjustable cameras, develop our own film, and make prints -- in the course of a week of half days. Total time spent learning, shooting, processing, and printing, about 15 hours. Probably easier for kids, though.

 

[ts1000]

I think digital changed the 'workflow' of photography.
Today's dark room is gimp/photoshop.
And just like in 1969, it will take about 3-4 days to teach a mid/high school kids
to process digital files, and share them with their crowd...

But back to lack of affordable film cameras, lack of affordable and easy to use digitizing equipment, and lack of quick/low effort/low investment film processing.
The bar is set high by the digital-only workflow.

I think @Helge is right about lack of good scanning options.
There is definitely a lack of innovation there too. It would be nice to ideate what should be done there..
I would like, for example, like to see a scanner integrated better with film workflow.

Let me describe these steps of how I would like to see the film workflow:

1) Load film into camera(s)
2) take pictures, replace film cartridge through the session/travel
3) When back into 'home', load film cartridges into something that can start developing them, and notify me in the morning that it is done
4) For the 'done' cartridges load them into another thing, that scans them into my personal hard drive/card (without sending anywhere online for privacy and cost reasons). If I want 100Gb scans per image, I would have to send it somewhere (and loose privacy, time and a bit of money). But many would use the in-home option if is reasonably priced (and may be will come in a 'kit' together with other parts of the film photography package!).

Basically, I think, many people will be ok with foregoing the 'immediate' gratification aspect for today's digital workflow, in exchange
for unique characteristics (not only in reproduction, but also archival storage, and 'trueness') of the film, and robustness/flexibility/environment tolerance of film cameras.

I realize that to implement the above workflow, film chemistry itself need to change to allow for more modern development process in (in step 3). That's also where innovation needs to happen.

..
So difficult and complicated that, in the summer of 1969, I and a group of 8 or 9 other fairly average kids learned to operate adjustable cameras, develop our own film, and make prints -- in the course of a week of half days. Total time spent learning, shooting, processing, and printing, about 15 hours. Probably easier for kids, though.

 

[Huss]

For me, at least several hundred CDN$, and more likely more than $1,000.00 CDN.
Plus another camera. Or another lens for my existing camera.
And that isn't even taking into account my relatively unusual needs to scan other formats like 110, 126, 828 and medium format.
It is what I have said from the beginning - we don't have the same definition of "super easy".

I scan other formats too using Lomo Digitliza holders for 120 and 110. I also have negative carriers that you can pick up for next to nothing that does the same thing, but less conveniently.
For those you need a copy stand - $150 off ebay.

As you can see from the samples I posted (especially the 1:1 closeup) the resolution is killer. Much higher than any pro scanning service I have used outside drum scans, but seeing those peeps charge $30+ for one scan, that is out!

This idea all started with someone saying they want a one piece of hardware option. That is already being made. It is called a film scanner. But the current ones are lousy, and the good ones (Nikon Coolscan) are no longer made nor supported.

I'm curious, what is your definition of super easy? It doesn't get easier than camera/lens/holder. If you don't want to pay for those three pieces, that's a different matter.

 

[Huss]

.. And it won't require setting up when I've got negatives to digitize -- it'll be right there on my desk....

It does take an inordinate amount of time to attach a lens to a camera, then the film holder to the end of the lens.

 

[markjwyatt]

...

1) Load film into camera(s)
2) take pictures, replace film cartridge through the session/travel
3) When back into 'home', load film cartridges into something that can start developing them, and notify me in the morning that it is done
4) For the 'done' cartridges load them into another thing, that scans them into my personal hard drive/card (without sending anywhere online for privacy and cost reasons). If I want 100Gb scans per image, I would have to send it somewhere (and loose privacy, time and a bit of money). But many would use the in-home option if is reasonably priced (and may be will come in a 'kit' together with other parts of the film photography package!).

...

How about a photo lab? Privacy is an issue, but meets a lot of those concerns.

 

[Huss]

..
I realize that to implement the above workflow, film chemistry itself need to change to allow for more modern development process in (in step 3). That's also where innovation needs to happen.

There are monobath developers which are very quick and easy to use. Some may say super easy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It does take an inordinate amount of time to attach a lens to a camera, then the film holder to the end of the lens.

No, it doesn't -- but when you have limited space, you can't leave the copy stand, backlight source, etc. set up while not in use, else (for instance, in my house) cats will either deposit $800 worth of equipment on the floor with a crash you won't even hear if you're at work, or if they can't manage to move it, cover it with cat hair.

 

[Helge]

It is super easy not because I had the gear - but because I wanted to scan film and so did the research on how to do it. End result is the best result outside a drum scanner is a digicam with lens + film holder. All three things available at the click of a button.

You could step up to a FF camera if you want. A used Sony A7 is $400? New Nikon D610 is $800. Remember we are talking about a scanning solution for people who are looking to get into it. Just because your equipment as is does not work ideally can be fixed by getting the correct gear.

The solution is out there. And IS super easy. Camera + lens + ES-2. 3 things.

Scanned with those things, and the $20 light source:

You need a full frame camera for your setup to work.
Those are still a fairly expensive item even on the used market, if they are to have a adequate resolution.

Speaking of which, 24 or even 50MP while certainly better than flatbeds, is really not enough.

36x24mm frames shot on a tripod with a very good lens can actually yield meaningful detail up to around 80MP.
Some film types even up to double that.

Absolute resolved detail aside. Vis a vis Claude Shannon, Ken Perlin et al, you need far more resolving power than the detail you are trying to resolve, to not introduce your own artifacts.

Failure to meet this requirement in the case of film, manifests itself as grain clumping where there is none in the source, a form of interference artifact (making naive users think they reached the limit of the medium. “Since grain is the end of detail” (not true)) , and general loss of detail and colour detail.

For posting on Instagram, Flickr and here, and for contact print like use, to see “what is there”, sure a slide holder would suffice.
But the real end product of all your money and work would always be a print (or projection, but that is somewhat besides the point here).
For that, a single shot with a slide holder is not going to give you the best results. Even for smaller prints.

PS. very nice shots in the above!

 

[MattKing]

I'm curious, what is your definition of super easy? It doesn't get easier than camera/lens/holder. If you don't want to pay for those three pieces, that's a different matter.

It would be super easy for me to do what you do if I had the equipment you do, because I have the skill and knowledge to use it.
But if someone doesn't have that equipment, or doesn't have the knowledge and experience with flat field copy work at macro ranges, it isn't super easy.
It is accomplish-able for those without the equipment, experience and knowledge, but it isn't easy because it will cost substantial amounts of money and there will be a learning curve.
My initial caution was directed at those who don't have all the equipment and flat field macro copy experience.
Let me try to give you a sense of where I am coming from.
A long time ago I used to work in camera retail. When I dealt with inexperienced customers, it was really important not to over-sell how easy something would be to do, because customers who bought from me and then quickly got frustrated with the learning process were much more likely to take advantage of the store's generous return policy!

 

[Huss]

No, it doesn't -- but when you have limited space, you can't leave the copy stand, backlight source, etc. set up while not in use, else (for instance, in my house) cats will either deposit $800 worth of equipment on the floor with a crash you won't even hear if you're at work, or if they can't manage to move it, cover it with cat hair.

You don't have to leave it out/up. You put the camera/lens away as you would with any camera, and the light pad slides into any drawer. You only have to use a copy stand if you scan MF film.
Do you put your film scanner away? Or do you leave it sitting out?

 

[Huss]

It would be super easy for me to do what you do if I had the equipment you do, because I have the skill and knowledge to use it.
But if someone doesn't have that equipment, or doesn't have the knowledge and experience with flat field copy work at macro ranges, it isn't super easy.
It is accomplish-able for those without the equipment, experience and knowledge, but it isn't easy because it will cost substantial amounts of money and there will be a learning curve.
My initial caution was directed at those who don't have all the equipment and flat field macro copy experience.
Let me try to give you a sense of where I am coming from.
A long time ago I used to work in camera retail. When I dealt with inexperienced customers, it was really important not to over-sell how easy something would be to do, because customers who bought from me and then quickly got frustrated with the learning process were much more likely to take advantage of the store's generous return policy!

Well, no matter what the user will have to acquire equipment, no? How else will they scan film no matter what process they intend to use?
The flat field copy work requires very little experience as the film holder in the ES-2 takes care of that. All you do is attach the ES-2 to the end of your lens, put the film in the film holder and slide it into the ES-2. Flat field parallel to the image plane sorted. It's designed for that.
I think most people will be able to follow the four simple steps. Take camera. Attach lens. Attach ES-2 film holder. Slide in film strip.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. The solution is available. It works. It is simple. Don't like it? Ok.

 

[Huss]

You need a full frame camera for your setup to work.

Nope. It also works with crop/DX sensors. Nikon recommends the 40mm DX macro lens if you go that route. (Of course they would recommend their lens!)

 

[Donald Qualls]

You only have to use a copy stand if you scan MF film.
Do you put your film scanner away? Or do you leave it sitting out?

I shoot formats from 16mm to 4x5. My scanner sits on the desktop. A copy stand would not.

 

[Helge]

Nope. It also works with crop/DX sensors. Nikon recommends the 40mm DX macro lens if you go that route. (Of course they would recommend their lens!)

Sorry forgot a few details from when I did the initial research some years ago.
You need the 40mm macro or any (with adaptor ?) DX macro.

If you start from scratch, you are starting to run up a significant bill, even if you somehow manage to locate it all on the used market.
If you have the camera and the ES-2 and macro lens is not inexpensive, for what they offer.
The DX macro is of course useless for anything else if you only shoot film.

And you are still stuck with subpar quality compared to what stitching would afford you.

Getting the vast increase in flexibility and quality with a macro/copystand setup begins to look mightily tempting.
Why should you have to choose?

 

[Donald Qualls]

For multi-format shooters, there's pretty much only the copy stand/macro, or a flatbed scanner. My "new" obsolete model scanner will pull 30+ megapixels out of a 35mm frame; an $800+ current model Epson will get above 45 MP at optical resolution (6400 ppi). A camera that will beat that will cost about as much, exclusive of lens and copy stand and light panel, and it's harder to get good results with a camera vs. a scanner, IMO.

 

[Helge]

For multi-format shooters, there's pretty much only the copy stand/macro, or a flatbed scanner. My "new" obsolete model scanner will pull 30+ megapixels out of a 35mm frame; an $800+ current model Epson will get above 45 MP at optical resolution (6400 ppi). A camera that will beat that will cost about as much, exclusive of lens and copy stand and light panel, and it's harder to get good results with a camera vs. a scanner, IMO.

Ahem, no.

 

[ts1000]

with regards to flatbed film scanning vs camera-based copy, are there online accessible test compares?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ahem, no.

A completely unsupported contradiction? Seriously? The arithmetic is simple and basic. Are you saying the actual resolution of the scanner isn't what's claimed, or that 50 MP cameras (with macro lens, light panel, and copy stand) cost less than an $800 flatbed scanner?

 

[Addled]

A completely unsupported contradiction? Seriously? The arithmetic is simple and basic. Are you saying the actual resolution of the scanner isn't what's claimed, or that 50 MP cameras (with macro lens, light panel, and copy stand) cost less than an $800 flatbed scanner?

The resolution of flatbed scanners, the Epson ones at least, is way overstated. See https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html for tests. In this case less than half of the quoted resolution for the Epson V800 and similar results elsewhere. There's also the issue of focus as the holders are very rarely properly calibrated. There are even aftermarket holders available that allow adjustment.

Years ago my 16MP m4/3 camera + macro lens gave way better results than my Epson.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, so my 30+ megapixel from a 35mm negative has real information equivalent to about 7.5-8 megapixel. That's still better than my old scanner, even if it were still working correctly, and it's still a lot easier to use than a camera/macro/copy stand setup. The one I have (Perfection 4870) seems to have software control over focus -- at least, Vuescan is offering to let me adjust focus (defaults to "Automatic"), and a negative page just laid on the glass seems to be in focus, even though the holders will support the negatives off the glass.

I can't give an actual resolution test, but I can dig up the negatives from the couple rolls I scanned on the old machine a few weeks ago and rescan to compare detail levels. claimed resolution is double that of the old scanner (Agfa Arcus 1200), = 4x pixel count. Shouldn't be too hard to compare, I have a couple negatives in mind that have considerable sharp detail.

 

[Helge]

with regards to flatbed film scanning vs camera-based copy, are there online accessible test compares?

This is still one of the best comparisons, though far from perfect and contains some negating his own research and results at the end (just goes to show that intelligence is something that comes and goes in spurts .
https://emulsive.org/articles/scann...rum-scanner-vs-epson-v700-with-bonus-sony-a7r
This really exposes the Epson scanners for the overrated, overpriced PoS they are.
(V700 is exactly the same scanner as V850, other than the light source and apocryphally the coating of the optics).

Especially interesting is the 6 vs. 28 shot difference comparison.

 

[cooltouch]

For digital camera copying to be efficient, it requires new hardware as well as software. Automated negative or slide advance, an adjustable light source, and a digital medium whose own artefacts are indistinguishable from the characteristics of film.

This isn't necessarily true. I set up my duping "platform" from existing stuff I had laying around. Version 1 of my dupe setup was my old 10.1mp Canon XS with a 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor and enough extensions to get the image on the sensor right at 1:1. To hold the slide, I used a slide stage that I'd stripped from a "digital slide copier" that I'd bought on eBay and used for a while. To illuminate the image, at first I was using a piece of posterboard and confining my duping to mid-day plus or minus 2 hours to make sure the sunlight was as white as possible. Then for producing the images, I just used the same image processing software I've been using for years, in my case Paint Shop Pro, which can be bought for very cheap. Version 2 of this setup came about when I bought a Sony NEX 7. Its 24.3 mp sensor gave me much better resolution images -- 4000 x 6000 pixels. The dupe tube changed a bit because of the different crop factors between the Canon and Sony (1.6x vs 1.5x), but I was still able to rearrange things based on the various adapters I already had in my collection of stuff. Actually prior to V2, I introduced an artificial light source, and began using a flash with variable output. I use both Canon and Nikon flashes, both work great. Typically I'll set the flash to 1/16 power and then locate the slide in its holder about a foot away from the flash. Varying this distance changes the exposure, so it's easy enough to add and subtract exposure of the slide or negative as needed. I found a roll film stage on eBay and picked it up, added it to my kit, which enabled me to dupe negatives, both color and black and white. Most recently, I bought a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIs, mostly because I came across a really good deal on it. I already owned two 55/3.5s and didn't need another, obviously, but I couldn't pass it up for the price it was being offered at. So, it got added to the kit as well.

So, bottom line, I bought only a couple of cheap accessories to add to my existing dupe kit -- accessories that are unique to the kit. Everything else I already owned or they were recent purchases for other reasons, all of which I was able to repurpose for duping.

It's been worth it, especially since buying the NEX. There's no comparison between a 4000 x 6000 pixel image and whatever a flatbed manages to come up with.

 

[Arthurwg]

I don’t believe I’ve met anyone in a very long time that has even a remote interest in buying a new, not previously owned, film camera. I think I’m the last person on the face of this Earth who did so... about a decade ago.

I'm thinking about buying a new Nikon F6, after selling my Leica M6. Surprise!