Scanning Film Negatives without Flatbed Scanner

[Stephen Power]

Stephen Power submitted a new resource:

Scanning Film Negatives without Flatbed Scanner - Using the Lomography Digitalizer and a Light Table to Scan Film

Read more about this resource...

 

[Mick Fagan]

Pretty interesting, but I would have thought making a black mask to surround the blank work area to reduce and/or eliminate flare, should help considerably.

Another way to hold the negative would be to use removable masking tape to hinge the film to the light box surface, then using your hand blower remove as much dust as possible, then use another piece of removable magic tape to secure the film under slight tension. This way you are reasonably sure of having the negative flat. I would also suggest having the emulsion facing towards the optics instead of going through the back door; which is another slight enhancement for when photocopying and striving to get the best results for minimal cost.

Interesting to note the nominal size of the light box appears to be A4, a very handy size for all manner of things around the world, except perhaps the USA. Or, is 8.3" x 12.2" a standard paper size in the USA?

Have you run a light meter over the various light intensity settings to work out the stop range of the light box? Could be useful to information know, I would think.

Mick.

 

[Stephen Power]

Pretty interesting, but I would have thought making a black mask to surround the blank work area to reduce and/or eliminate flare, should help considerably.Mick.

Hi Mick and thank you for all the valuable feedback. I had previously considered some of your points, but didn't include them in the video.

For example, I have tried scanning the with the Lomography Digitalizer mask both with and without a card mask to help prevent flare. I haven't noticed any difference and this is also remarked on by others who have reviewed that mask.

I have measured the brightness from the Huion light panel with a Minolta light meter, using both the incident and reflected method, based on your suggestion. I can only find a maximum of 3/10th's of a stop between the edges of the panel and the centre. Closer to the centre this drops to 1/10th of a stop and in the centre, where I place the negs, there is no difference.

I'm not in the US (I'm in Ireland) and A4 is a standard paper size here, the Uk and Europe and the one most used for printing documents, so I assume that the panel is made for that that market.

I'll come back to you later when I've tried photographing from the emulsion side. I did try to research this but came up with no valid information on which works best.

This is a scan I made yesterday from my newly acquired Topcon Horseman 6x9 camera, using the method described and processed in Lighrroom.

Stephen

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the resource.
I have what appears to be the same light panel as the one you are using. It is portable and works very well, particularly with black and white negatives. It may be problematic as a light source for scanning colour - its output is a long way from the continuous spectrum (tungsten, halogen or flash) light that gives the best results with colour.

 

[Stephen Power]

@MattKing Thanks for that. I think it may not be quite as colour-corrected as it claims. I find I have to de-saturate the file once I have reversed the negative to stop it looking a bit pink.

@Mick Fagan This is the same image digitized from the emulsion side and then horizontally 'flipped' before reversing it in Lightroom. I can't see much difference other than what I've added in the post processing.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing Thanks for that. I think it may not be quite as colour-corrected as it claims. I find I have to de-saturate the file once I have reversed the negative to stop it looking a bit pink.

Even if it has a high CRI, as an LED source it will be discontinuous. Digital sensors (and film for that matter) respond differently to those discontinuities than our eyes do, and at least some CRI tests are aimed at how we see the results. It isn't as simple as just a colour cast - it is gaps that can have different effects with different negatives or slides.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Stephen, thanks for your replies. The lightbox certainly seems to have a reasonably good spread of light, with only a small amount of drop off. 3/10's of a stop, whilst it would be noticeable with some images, certainly is not a real issue as long as you know it is there. I would therefore assume that the sweet spot where minimal difference would be, would be an A5 central portion of the lightbox. This would mean that you should have extremely even light over 4x5', 5x7' and full plate film. 8x10' film could be a stretch on the 210mm side, but not the 310mm side. For the benefit of the USA people, A4 is 297mm x 210mm.

With regards to A4, I fully knew you were in Ireland, what with your accent for starters. No I was thinking out loud that an A4 sized platten is perfect for pretty much the entire world, except for maybe the USA market, Canada may also be slightly affected but by and large I think they are metric.

With regard to emulsion to emulsion; or in this case, to your electronic sensor. It may not seem to be much of an issue, or maybe no issue at all, but compound generations of photocopying do start to add up. I would suggest it is probably only noticeable under magnification for one generation, but subsequent generations would probably show some deficiencies in general appearing. In another life we would use duplicating film and always emulsion to emulsion in a vacuum frame. Or if photocopying a negative or transparency, it was usually imperative that you did emulsion to emulsion. With electronic imagery and software available these days, it may no longer be that much of an issue. Your flipped sample is appreciated, but only you can detect if there has been a gain over the original which was through the back door; probably not worth pursuing as I'm sure you have a myriad of other more important photographic things you wish to do.

With regard to flare, I'm assuming that the lens you have used is excellent to outstanding, such is the level of consumer product available these days. That said, having black paper surrounding the film on the lightbox would also help your eyes if you were working for hours at a time duplicating/copying. I know this as I have done that kind of work for hours at a time, the eyes and brain do get fatigued when confronted by a light source quite a few stops brighter than surrounding ambient.

Matt brings up an interesting point, I hadn't thought about the, the discontinuous nature of LED technology.

Mick.

 

[MattKing]

With regards to A4, I fully knew you were in Ireland, what with your accent for starters. No I was thinking out loud that an A4 sized platten is perfect for pretty much the entire world, except for maybe the USA market, Canada may also be slightly affected but by and large I think they are metric.

The overwhelming influence of the US here means that we in Canada use US measures for things like paper sizes.

 

[Stephen Power]

With regards to A4, I fully knew you were in Ireland, what with your accent for starters.

My accent is misleading, as I'm actually a Brit. Interestingly when I won the NAPP Guru Award for Excellence in Photoshop, in 2007, I went to Boston to get it from Scott Kelby, in front of 3000 people. Some of those were members of a forum I was on at the time. One American woman said to me, "oh, your voice is a surprise, as you don't have an accent in the forum!" I replied, "neither do you"!

With regard to flare, I'm assuming that the lens you have used is excellent to outstanding, such is the level of consumer product available these days.

It's a Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro. Not my most expensive - worth about €600, but the magazine I used to write for bought it for me - but excellent quality as you suggested.

Best wishes,

Stephen

 

[wiltw]

Accents are odd things...they disappear when singing.

 

[Denis OLIVIER]

Very interesting! I maintain an article about this technic I mostly use now for big prints from 120+ negatives here.
The challenge is, when you stitching, to have a very good lens to be as sharp as possible especially in corners when you go larger than1:1.