New to DLSR Scanning

[Richas]

Hi,
I am shooting with a Nikon F2 and developing (C-41) myself.
My setup for scanning is a D7000 with a Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS lens with ~1cm of extension tube. This is a close focusing lens to start with.
I am shooting at 1/4s, f8, ISO set as low as it will go. I have been optimizing the setup and I think I have it working ok but I have no idea if what I am seeing is good quality or not. I haven't had any images printed yet.

Here is my setup:



Here is a raw image and a processed one, with some basic changes in NX Studio. I would appreciate it if some more experienced eyes could take a look and give their opinion. The film is Portra 400.

Original Raw

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Some post processing

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Hopefully these links work, I haven't tried publicly sharing with Dropbox before.

Rich

 

[Steven Lee]

Richas,

There are two variables: the digitization itself, i.e. the digital capture, followed by the color inversion and balancing. From the digitization perspective, I see the following issues: the lens is pretty soft, there's barrel distortion, and there's stray light leaking onto the edges of the frame. I would suggest using a dedicated macro lens and a better film holder.

From the color inversion perspective, I see a bit more cyan than I'd like, especially in the highlights, and too much green in the shadows. The colors are subjective, but since you asked...

 

[henryyjjames]

I'm new to DSLR scanning as well, but what I've learned so far might be helpful to you. I highly recommend a 1:1 macro lens, something around 100mm (see Nikon 105mm f/2.8). This will get you a really sharp image, and when it comes to achieving utmost clarity and precision without any distortion or vignetting, there is nothing that can beat the simplicity and accuracy offered by a proper macro lens.
Regarding the post-production, as @Steven Lee said, the colours are subjective. Everyone will edit differently and want different looks to their images. Here's what I might do to this image: (although the more I look at my edit, the more I think it's too blue—but this also could be due to my screen brightness being all the way down and it's 3:25 am...)

If you want to have these scans printed, it might be worth looking into a better set-up, but if you are just scanning to share on the internet it might be fine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi,
I am shooting with a Nikon F2 and developing (C-41) myself.
My setup for scanning is a D7000 with a Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS lens with ~1cm of extension tube. This is a close focusing lens to start with.
I am shooting at 1/4s, f8, ISO set as low as it will go. I have been optimizing the setup and I think I have it working ok but I have no idea if what I am seeing is good quality or not. I haven't had any images printed yet.

Here is my setup:



Here is a raw image and a processed one, with some basic changes in NX Studio. I would appreciate it if some more experienced eyes could take a look and give their opinion. The film is Portra 400.

Original Raw

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Some post processing

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Hopefully these links work, I haven't tried publicly sharing with Dropbox before.

Rich

I tried and had less success than you did. That one should use film when the final product is a print and a digital camera in the phone product is a digital file

 

[Alan9940]

As already said above, color interpretation is a personal thing. How you see and want to present color is different than what I'd do or anyone else would do. Therefore, it makes it tough to provide any real advice on the finished image posted. I will say that on my color-calibrated monitor it looks a tad magenta/green.

I agree with the recommendation above regarding a good macro lens. Any other recommendations should be based on your final use for the digital files generated. For example, if you intend to print, a higher megapixel sensor will provide better quality, especially at larger sizes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, DSLR scanning can be a deep rabbit hole.

 

[Richas]

Thank you all for the help. So now I am torn. I can get a proper macro lens, I understand that that is the proper way to go. Then I need to figure out a new negative holder and backlight where there is proper illumination and no light leaks.
But I do intend to print, and is the D7000 sensor not up to this task?

If it is not enough sensor resolution then that is probably a deal breaker for me, I am not going to buy a new DSLR...

I really enjoy developing my own film but does it make sense to develop my own and take somewhere to get scanned? We have a couple places here in Portland.

Rich

 

[xkaes]

You are correct. You need a macro lens. It does not have to be expensive -- let alone a Nikkor. A 50mm/55mm Vivitar, Sigma, etc. MACRO is perfect -- $40 TOPS!!!

There are lots of inexpensive options for light sources. A color head from an enlarger -- $40 TOPS -- is perfect.

I'm not familiar with the D7000, but my guess is it FINE!!!

 

[4season]

is the D7000 sensor not up to this task?

16.2 megapixels ought to be fine. That's about what I'm getting when I scan using Epson V700 flatbed scanner. I tried 80 mp camera scans but thought the extra pixels were not adding real value. If you are using very resolving films as Kodak Technical Pan or Fujifilm Velvia, maybe a case could be made for higher-res scans, but I personally did not shoot a ton of Velvia back in the day, and at current prices, I probably won't be doing much in the future either.

 

[4season]

(although the more I look at my edit, the more I think it's too blue—but this also could be due to my screen brightness being all the way down and it's 3:25 am...)

Remember that Windows 10, 11 and MacOS all have optional automatic settings to reduce blue light from the screen after a certain hour: I don't attempt to make critical color adjustments when the screen is in that state.

 

[Alan9940]

But I do intend to print, and is the D7000 sensor not up to this task?

It's probably fine, if all you want/need is small(ish) prints. That sensor will give you about a 11x16.5" print at 300 ppi. If you want to print, say, a 24x30" print, then you're looking at up-scaling software. Everything is a trade-off, generally.

 

[plummerl]

Importing your NEF into Lightroom, I used Negative Lab Pro (NLP) to do a quick conversion. Before NLP, I did a WB from one of the trees that looked like a border value, then cropped out the borders. After converting, I simply set WB to warm and Brightness to -15. Definitely more could be done here.

 

[Richas]

So much great help here, thank you all so much. OK, I won't abandon DSLR scanning just yet. I am looking for a cheapish 55mm'ish macro lens.
Steven, now that you mention the light leak I sure see it! Where do you see the barrel distortion?
Plummerl - thank you for the image correction, it looks great! I will look into NLP and Lightroom.
Xkaes - I looked at enlarger color heads but I am not sure what you mean...

Rich

 

[koraks]

Xkaes - I looked at enlarger color heads but I am not sure what you mean...

Most color enlarger heads have a diffusor, which from the outside (looking from the enlarger baseboard upwards to the head) looks like a white square where the filtered light comes out. It's engineered to give near-perfect even illumination. Taking the color head from something like a 35mm Durst enlarger (M305 or similar), you have a ready-to-go light source usable for DSLR scanning.

However, I wouldn't bother and just get a decent white LED panel, slap a diffusor (i.e. piece of milky plexiglas from the hardware store) on top of it and call it a day. If you ever figure out how that is any less in quality of the digital files generated than a more continuous spectrum tungsten light source, you could always upgrade. Odds are you never get to that point, though.

The reason I'd go for the LED option is because it'll cost something like $20 if you shop around and most importantly, it's available new, from a vast number of outlets, and in a huge range of sizes, shapes etc. For a color head, you'll have to be lucky and find one near you on Craigslist etc. and luck out on the shape it's in, and you'll end up having to jerry-rig your camera on top of it just like with the LED panel (so it doesn't save any time). Oh, and the dichroic head will get pretty hot, and if the bulb fails it'll cost the same as a new LED panel.

 

[xkaes]

Taking the color head from something like a 35mm Durst enlarger (M305 or similar), you have a ready-to-go light source usable for DSLR scanning.

Since you do your own developing, you might consider getting an entire enlarger with a colorhead. Nowadays, the main cost is shipping.

The benefit of a colorhead is that you can adjust the color of the light in any way you want -- in specific amounts.

Do a FORUM SEARCH (top right-hand corner of this page) for DSLR LIGHT SOURCE (or something like that) and you'll get all sorts of ideas on creating a light source -- colorheads included. I have a colorhead on my enlarger, but for DSLR transfers, I use a Beseler slide duplicator which is basically an enlarger colorhead -- upside-down.

 

[koraks]

The benefit of a colorhead is that you can adjust the color of the light in any way you want -- in specific amounts.

That sounds nice, at least in theory. But in practice, what good does it really do?

 

[Richas]

If I get an enlarger then that is a slippery slope to a darkroom. ;-)

I think I will keep my eye out for the enlarger head but do a cheaper led option in the meantime. First I need a macro lens.

Rich

 

[L Gebhardt]

You can get very far with a flash as your backlight source. It's full spectrum, unlike cheap LED panels. If you're only doing 35mm scans you can use a Nikon bellows with your D7000, which is the setup I started with. I started with enlarger lenses on the bellows and finally moved onto a more specialized copy lens. I do like a color head for scanning color negatives because it lets you dial out the orange mask at the scan stage and get a balance between all three channels. Inversions are easy that way. But it's not needed for decent results.

The bellows is also fun for macro work outside, especially if you get one with tilt and shift.

 

[koraks]

If I get an enlarger then that is a slippery slope to a darkroom. ;-)

Oh, then I take back everything I said and instead I will insist you get a color head, as part of a working enlarger!

 

[skahde]

Here is a raw image and a processed one, with some basic changes in NX Studio. I would appreciate it if some more experienced eyes could take a look and give their opinion. The film is Portra 400.

Dear Rich,

I've been doing this for many years and in many ways. I can assure you: You are right on track here. With respect to the lens in use there ist no reason to get too picky. The same rules apply as in the darkroom: As long as you can see clearly defined grain all over the field and the borders of the negative ar nice and straight you are set and there is little to improve if at all. No need to make any more fuss about it in this regard and the 28mm CRC-lens on APSc represents the field of view of a 42 mm in full-format terms if it checks the above criteria (which I can't judge from the examples above), just go ahead and use it.

But after scanning many thousands of slides and negatives this way I would always prefer a method that is easy and quick to work with if I had the choice. In this respect I would prefer something like the Nikon ES-2, which I upgraded to from the ES-1 which I used with a Nikon D800E and a Micro-Nikkor Ais 2,8/55 for several years. Positioning the film is a breeze, it is held still relative to the camera so shake is no issue and you can most often skip the refocussing after every shot. Stopping down to f8 will ease out most differences e.g. with slides provided the make and model of the frames is the same.

With respect to the post-processing it is easy with slides as your camera will do most of it even auto WB works pretty decent and you can use about any light-source you like, provided its spectrum is continuous and not too far off 3200-5000 K. Flash can be tricky to get the exposure right but you can easily adjust the output and redo the shot, using the histogram as your guide.

But I would like to stress again, that the whole matter is less complicated and difficult than it might seem when starting to dig into the details. There is more than one way to do it and no one correct way because it is EASY to do. Take a decent lens, get it fixed at the right distance to the film and get rid of any stray light and you are mostly done. The rest is up to your convinience and preference.

Best

Stefan

 

[skahde]

I do like a color head for scanning color negatives because it lets you dial out the orange mask at the scan stage and get a balance between all three channels. Inversions are easy that way. But it's not needed for decent results.

As I dont have a colour-head available any more, I like to do that in software, working on a raw-file and taking advantage of the build-in colour-filtering of the sensors colour-filtering which allows to do the same thing at a later, digital stage. Take a piece of clear film and adjust the colours in your software until the channels fall into one nice curve.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The closer you get the channels evenly exposed the more exposure you can give the shot. That carries the same benefits of a cleaner raw file as when shooting digitally. Said another way with evenly exposed channels you can properly expose all channels to the right, resulting in less highlight noise once inverted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you don't have any digital camera equipment , stands, etc to start with, how much investment would one have to plan to get good scans? How does that compare to other methods?

 

[radialMelt]

If you don't have any digital camera equipment , stands, etc to start with, how much investment would one have to plan to get good scans? How does that compare to other methods?

This depends entirely on your definition of "good". An older mirrorless camera, a vintage copy lens, a tripod, and a film carrier shouldn't run you too much, and should provide decent enough output to use for social media/online presentation. My first setup (before I got sick of it) was a Fuji XH1, Nikon Micro-Nikkor 50/3.5 macro lens with an adapter, a Skiier copy box, and a cheap tripod. It gave me "good enough" results. I quickly grew tired of the frustrating process of setting it up and focusing precisely. The scans always showed a little vignetting due to, I assume, the adapter. The working distance was irritating. The tripod wobbled. Getting everything perfectly level was also super annoying, and critical at such narrow depth of focus. But all in it was reasonably cheap and probably performed better (and certainly faster) than a flatbed scanner, for 35mm scans at least.

I moved to a Coolscan 5000 shortly thereafter which gave better results overall, I feel. Obviously slower, but would ingest an entire roll without any manual intervention so I could do other things. I still struggled with film flatness.

Currently I am running a Coolscan 9000 (because I added a medium format body to my collection) and it is even slower than the 5000. But, the results are far superior and aside from loading a film carrier, way less tedious.

My point being, if I wanted to stick with the camera scanning I would have to invest in a better lens, a better carrier, and a better copy stand to get what I consider "good" results.

 

[fiddle]

I made a copy stand out of some extruded aluminum mounted on a wall, I have the space In my darkroom, way cheaper than looking for a sturdy copy stand I think. Probably about 50$ with aluminum bar and slider, with a ball head mounted to it.
40$ for a decent light source in Amazon.
To hold negs flat there are many options o line that range in price from rediculous to very affordable.
All in all besides the camera, I'm in about 180 for the setup for scanning.

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you don't have any digital camera equipment , stands, etc to start with, how much investment would one have to plan to get good scans? How does that compare to other methods?

What size do you want to scan and what size do you want to print? Also do you need to scan color or just black and white?

As to how things compare, I think you can get incredibly detailed quality scan with careful work. I have a drum scanner. Comparing some stitched 6x6 scans from my Sony A7RIV I got a scan at least as detailed as I would get from the drum scanner, though I seem to have lost the drum scan file (it looks like I deleted the drum scan version).

I think think this was done with a Rodagon D at a bit more than 1:1, but I was also experimenting with other lenses so maybe it was the Nikon 120mm AM. It's also stitched rather than one shot. Ended up ~7500ppi. FP4+ in xtol, Hasselblad 50mm CF

You should be able to get that level of detail out of any modern DSLR, though you would need to stitch more images at higher resolution out of a lower res cameras. A system with a 24MP crop sensor DSLR with the same magnification from an old Nikon macro would be comparable in terms of real detail and could probably be put together for under $500.

Note, this was just a test to see if it could be done. Normally I have no need to create scans of this resolution and I'd use a regular macro lens and take it one shot.