Scanning film with digital camera

[Minox]

Hello everyone!

I will start by saying that I am not a digital camera user, although I used to. I am shooting film only these days.

I am looking to change the way I scan my negatives; currently I am using a film negative scanner (Plustek 7200), which is way beyond its era. That is why I am looking at a digital camera use for scanning, I do believe this will improve the results I get with film.

So, I already have a camera, a Nikon D3200 with a AFS Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 G lens, the regular one that comes with this camera. I would like to know if this lens will work and if yes, what sort of extensions I would need (if any), or perhaps a different lens would be needed? I also have a Nikkor Micro 55/2.8, but when I insert this into the D3200 I get a screen message "lens not detected". It would seem this is an avoidable issue, but I haven't explored it yet.

My line of thinking is that if I get this camera to work with my negatives, then the most expensive part of the kit is sorted; I will of course need the light box, column and the frames for the film negatives I use: 8x11 (Minox), 16mm, 35 and 120. Is there a chance to find a suitable lens to cover these formats?

I am not at all certain I have posted this in the right forum, so if not, please remove or move it somewhere it does belong, thank you !

 

[koraks]

Moved to the scanning forum, where this fits perfectly

 

[Minox]

Thank you, moderator.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Hello everyone!

I will start by saying that I am not a digital camera user, although I used to. I am shooting film only these days.

I am looking to change the way I scan my negatives; currently I am using a film negative scanner (Plustek 7200), which is way beyond its era. That is why I am looking at a digital camera use for scanning, I do believe this will improve the results I get with film.

So, I already have a camera, a Nikon D3200 with a AFS Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 G lens, the regular one that comes with this camera. I would like to know if this lens will work and if yes, what sort of extensions I would need (if any), or perhaps a different lens would be needed? I also have a Nikkor Micro 55/2.8, but when I insert this into the D3200 I get a screen message "lens not detected". It would seem this is an avoidable issue, but I haven't explored it yet.

My line of thinking is that if I get this camera to work with my negatives, then the most expensive part of the kit is sorted; I will of course need the light box, column and the frames for the film negatives I use: 8x11 (Minox), 16mm, 35 and 120. Is there a chance to find a suitable lens to cover these formats?

I am not at all certain I have posted this in the right forum, so if not, please remove or move it somewhere it does belong, thank you !

The D3200 should be able to accept manual focus lenses. I don't think that camera has an aperture follower so you can mount even the oldest nikon lenses on it. But you will need to change a setting to tell the camera to allow the shutter to release without a lens. The 55mm will be a great lens for digitizing your film. Use Live View for focusing. You will need extension tubes or a bellows to increase the magnification for the minox and 16mm formats.

 

[Minox]

The D3200 should be able to accept manual focus lenses. I don't think that camera has an aperture follower so you can mount even the oldest nikon lenses on it. But you will need to change a setting to tell the camera to allow the shutter to release without a lens. The 55mm will be a great lens for digitizing your film. Use Live View for focusing. You will need extension tubes or a bellows to increase the magnification for the minox and 16mm formats.

Larry, thank you. I have tried to see how the Micro works with D3200, but the camera keeps telling me the lens is not recognized. Is there a way around this ? I mean, it should work so I guess I have to tweak the camera settings somehow. Any ideas on that, please?

Also, any ideas on what extension tube are needed? I am completely green on this entire digital camera scanning stuff. Thank you !

 

[brbo]

Did you try putting the camera in full manual mode?

 

[xkaes]

I'm assuming you can use the camera in fully manual mode with your 55mm Micro lens.

I'm also assuming that the lens uses an extension tube to reach 1:1 and that you have it.

For Minox and 16mm you need to get way passed 1X. You can do this with extension tubes or a bellows (maybe with a slide copier) -- both are inexpensive and easy to get, especially if you don't stick with Nikon,

And if you are into film, and have an enlarger, you already have a perfect light source.

 

[Minox]

The camera accepts the Micro lens after all, I didn't know it needed to be put into manual mode. So now the lens is working with the D3200.

Regarding the ext tube, no, I do not have such an item. I know however why it is needed, but what exactly I need, escapes me. The mount of the extension tubes need to be Nikon I believe, because the only digital camera I have is this Nikon D3200.

No, I do not have a darkroom as such, not printing my negatives, just scan them in the known fashion, with a film scanner.

It's a slow start on this, so I may come across a bit dense, but I am quick learner. Thank you for your input, appreciated !

 

[Minox]

Did you try putting the camera in full manual mode?

That sorted it, Brbo, thank you !

 

[L Gebhardt]

Larry, thank you. I have tried to see how the Micro works with D3200, but the camera keeps telling me the lens is not recognized. Is there a way around this ? I mean, it should work so I guess I have to tweak the camera settings somehow. Any ideas on that, please?

Also, any ideas on what extension tube are needed? I am completely green on this entire digital camera scanning stuff. Thank you !

From the manual the camera must be in manual mode, M. The camera will not meter, but you should be able to adjust by looking at the histogram and exposing to the right (adjust exposure until the histogram is moved to the right, but not clipping). You should be able see the histogram in Live View, or at least you can on the Nikons I've used.

With the all manual lenses you could use a cheap set of tubes like the

Fotodiox Macro Extension Tube Set Compatible with Nikon F Mount Cameras for Extreme Close-up Photography​

 

[xkaes]

That's OK that you don't have an extension tube. If I'm correct, your micro lens with not get to 1X magnification on full frame cameras without an extension tube, but since your camera is an APS size with a 1.5X factor, your lens will currently get to 0.75X. That's fine for 120 images, but not good enough for 35mm or smaller. For Minox, you are going to need 3X-4X magnification, which means you will need around 150mm-200mm of extension, so bellows is the way to go. Extension tubes are FIXED length and you can only vary the distance on the lens -- not much. Plus one set does not get close to 150mm.
I'd recommend a Vivitar, Soligor, Spiratone, etc. bellows with a slide copier attachment -- with a Nikon or T-mount (adaptable to Nikon). These are on EBAY all the time for $25-50. Avoid the Spirtone-type slide copiers. They are NOT designed for submini formats -- let alone 120.

 

[Helge]

Macro tubes will allow you to go beyond 1:1, which will become handy once you want to do scanning that actually resolves the grain. Film has information way beyond the 24MP of the 3200 (nothing controversial in that dear mods. Just a basic fact .

Nikons own 1.4x tele extender will be even better.

 

[koraks]

nothing controversial in that dear mods

No offense taken.
It's IMO an arguable point, but I say that as a private individual, not a moderator And also not with the intent to spark of a debate on this...have at it if you must, but for me it's not very necessary.

 

[Minox]

Had a look at this set, it is available and cost is quite affordable. I am going to order one such, and see what happens. If all goes well for the film formats I use, then a kit for digital scanning will be needed. This I know what and how, the issue was what camera, lens and extension tubes were needed. And I'll take it from there.

Thank you, Larry, appreciated!

 

[Steven Lee]

Scanning threads inevitably succumb to resolution maximization tips. But how many of us frequently print at magnification ratios where this matters? Or print at all? Regardless of my scanning equipment, if I ever make an image worthy of being on my living room wall, I'm ordering a drum scan anyway. Besides, I always found the color balancing to be by far the hardest thing about scanning film, particularly with digital cameras.

@Minox what is the reason you're leaving the Plustek behind? Your original post only says "which is way beyond its era". What do you mean?

 

[Helge]

No offense taken.
It's IMO an arguable point, but I say that as a private individual, not a moderator And also not with the intent to spark of a debate on this...have at it if you must, but for me it's not very necessary.

Well, I’m not going to go any further than this post. Here is an old Rokkor Files review of the 7s II: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/7SII.htm

The scanner output files in the 40MP range and clearly doesn’t out resolve the grain (not that grain is a primitive like a pixel. Resolving power goes way beyond grain, just like magnetic grain hiss is not the end of resolution on tape).

The scanner is clearly not bottoming out the film at 40MP.

 

[Helge]

Scanning threads inevitably succumb to resolution maximization tips. But how many of us frequently print at magnification ratios where this matters? Or print at all? Regardless of my scanning equipment, if I ever make an image worthy of being on my living room wall, I'm ordering a drum scan anyway. Besides, I always found the color balancing to be by far the hardest thing about scanning film, particularly with digital cameras.

@Minox what is the reason you're leaving the Plustek behind? Your original post only says "which is way beyond its era". What do you mean?

It’s nice to be able to do and it’s nice to know that the data is there if you need it.

It’s not forbidden to explore a photo by zooming into parts of interest.
It’s what you do in a gallery when you walk closer.

Also useful is being able to get all the shadow information out of negative film which has a tendency to bloom out with a single exposure and with bad scanner optics.
And being able to get to the bottom of the deep darks in slide.

Colour balance is mainly a matter of having the right light source.
And it’s no problem with black and white and much less of a problem with slide.

 

[xkaes]

Had a look at this set, it is available and cost is quite affordable. I am going to order one such, and see what happens.

FYI, that extension tube set -- and similar ones -- will only get you to about 1.5-2X, not nearly enough for 16mm or Minox.

 

[Steven Lee]

Colour balance is mainly a matter of having the right light source.
And it’s no problem with black and white and much less of a problem with slide.

Do not be so dismissive. Color balancing is a problem in 99% of camera scans I see online, even in minuscule web sizes. To me this means that before resolution is even mentioned in a thread like this one, beginners need to get advice on how to get good color. Even with slides. I have tried several camera manufacturers, and the default happy path doesn't work for film scanning: Adobe Color or default camera profiles / picture modes produce wonky color. Tools like NLP help but they introduce inconsistency. I would even say that for a beginner with average image editing skills there is no simple and reliable solution to get good color out of a digital camera. In other words, when I look at the difficulty of scanning-related tasks, I assign the 80% weight to color balancing, 10% to resolution, and 10% to workflow convenience. And it's not as simple as choosing a good light source. It's that, plus dealing with camera color profiles, color filter arrays, and having above average image editing skills.

B&W is an exception, sure.

 

[jeffreyg]

I’m not sure about your setup but years ago I had a bellows that had an adapter that would let you reverse the lens for increased magnification. Perhaps someone can provide more info that would help with the small film.

 

[L Gebhardt]

FYI, that extension tube set -- and similar ones -- will only get you to about 1.5-2X, not nearly enough for 16mm or Minox.

I have one for Sony and one for Nikon. The central threaded sections of both are the same and you can thus combine them for more extension, so ordering another is a viable option since they are so cheap. But I agree I'd rather use a bellows with slide copy attachment at that point. I'm also not sure going significantly beyond 2x for any film format with an old macro lens will result in significantly more resolution, but I haven't tested it.

 

[Minox]

That's OK that you don't have an extension tube. If I'm correct, your micro lens with not get to 1X magnification on full frame cameras without an extension tube, but since your camera is an APS size with a 1.5X factor, your lens will currently get to 0.75X. That's fine for 120 images, but not good enough for 35mm or smaller. For Minox, you are going to need 3X-4X magnification, which means you will need around 150mm-200mm of extension, so bellows is the way to go. Extension tubes are FIXED length and you can only vary the distance on the lens -- not much. Plus one set does not get close to 150mm.
I'd recommend a Vivitar, Soligor, Spiratone, etc. bellows with a slide copier attachment -- with a Nikon or T-mount (adaptable to Nikon). These are on EBAY all the time for $25-50. Avoid the Spirtone-type slide copiers. They are NOT designed for submini formats -- let alone 120.

Valuable info here, really grateful, Xkaes. Will have a good look for the bellows mentioned.

Scanning threads inevitably succumb to resolution maximization tips. But how many of us frequently print at magnification ratios where this matters? Or print at all? Regardless of my scanning equipment, if I ever make an image worthy of being on my living room wall, I'm ordering a drum scan anyway. Besides, I always found the color balancing to be by far the hardest thing about scanning film, particularly with digital cameras.

@Minox what is the reason you're leaving the Plustek behind? Your original post only says "which is way beyond its era". What do you mean?

Steven, this scanner was a very good tool, and to some extent still is. But I cannot use it with Silverfast software, which is what I used to in the past and still want to use for the foreseeable future. I am using currently Vuescan Pro, which is all right, but does not offer the multitude of options, as Silverfast does.

To make things more interesting, the only version I've got for this Plustek 7200 is Silverfast software is 6.0, which cannot be used with Windows 10. I would need to buy a more recent version of the software, which is almost an arm and a leg. I know, there are numerous other software solutions, some even free, but the Silverfast offered me what I needed and I stick with what works for me.

It has been in my possession since 2005 or something like that, and it is time to get another one. The main reason I kept this scanner for so long is that it scans very well my 8x11 films (Minox size). But the machine is tired, slow and obsolete. I will donate it to a photo club for children, it is still ok for what I would call all right-ish scanning.

I just hope all of this makes sense to others .

 

[xkaes]

The Nikon 55mm Micro lens does better if reversed when the magnification is much past 1X because it is an asymmetrical lens. That's easy to do with a reversing ring, but it doesn't add any extension/magnification -- which is what's needed here. Minox is going to need 150-200mm of extension to handle the 8x11mm Minox format. The only other way is to add a tele-converter onto the camera -- which reduces the resolution. That's one way to go, another is to get a shorter focal length macro/process/copy lens -- they're pretty inexpensive too, but not needed here is a bellows is used.

 

[Minox]

I have one for Sony and one for Nikon. The central threaded sections of both are the same and you can thus combine them for more extension, so ordering another is a viable option since they are so cheap. But I agree I'd rather use a bellows with slide copy attachment at that point. I'm also not sure going significantly beyond 2x for any film format with an old macro lens will result in significantly more resolution, but I haven't tested it.

I would very much like to find something suitable, and if anyone has a link to such a bellows contraption, it would be greatly appreciated!

 

[xkaes]

I'm also not sure going significantly beyond 2x for any film format with an old macro lens will result in significantly more resolution, but I haven't tested it.

That Nikon formula may be old, but it's top-notch. Similary, the Minolta formula for their 50mm f3.5 Macro was so perfect from the beginning (1958), that they used it in all of their ROKKOR, ROKKOR-X & MD 50mm f3.5 Macro variants -- all six of them -- as well as their MAXXUM 50mm f3.5 lens.

Newer isn't always better.