I honestly don't know why people moan about the quality of flatbed scanners. I have a V750 that I bought in 2012 and it is excellent. I regularly scan 120 film up to 8x10 film, and from the latter I get huge files up to 1.8gb that are spectacularly sharp and contain every atom of information I could ever need/want for further processing. I can't imagine needing anything better.
Caveat: I only scan B&W negs, so my work may be different from yours.
Two things come to mind:
1: 35mm
2: comparison with other scanners
Then, I would definitely abandon film photography altogether*, and would use that 4000$ DSLR and its lenses for the purpose for which it has been designed, which is photography, and not scanning.
*Actually probably not, I would get a 10X8 camera and learn to make 10X8 contact prints. I keep toying with this idea.
You are quite right, of course. But other than trying to inforce more rigorous semantics, is there some other point you are trying to make? If you want to get really technical, I'm not sure it is accurate to say digital cameras "take pictures" -- they capture data which can be converted to pictures (and so do scanners).Cameras do not scan. They take pictures and you can use them to digitize the film but definitely they can't scan. They capture all the pixels at once not scanning.
100-150€ old macro lens
20€ adapter
600-1500€ camera (fuji or sony aps-c, preowned or even new, something like that)
150€ copy stand (50-60€ if diy)
40-200€ film holder
100€ light source
You are quite right, of course. But other than trying to inforce more rigorous semantics, is there some other point you are trying to make? If you want to get really technical, I'm not sure it is accurate to say digital cameras "take pictures" -- they capture data which can be converted to pictures (and so do scanners).
I am all for using language with as much clarity and precision as possible, but sometimes the vernacular is good enough. Cell phones do not ring, but if I tell my wife her iPhone is ringing she knows what I mean. If she asks me for a Kleenex, and I offer her a Scotties facial tissue, that is probably going to be close enough.
What words do you prefer to refer to the process of using a digital camera to copy film?
To say "using a digital camera to copy film" is awkward and way too many words. I prefer "camera-scan" but I am open to any description which is short, simple, and reasonably clear to anyone who is familiar with the concept.Yes if you want to call it using digital camera to copy film or digitizing is fine or even invent a new word. I am bothered by the word scanning. Even I don't like to call thing like the Noritsu or Fuji scanner as scanner.
Cameras do not scan. They take pictures and you can use them to digitize the film but definitely they can't scan. They capture all the pixels at once not scanning.
it doesn't need to be any better than this, IMO.
No, you don't. You see the grain the way this flatbed tends to render it. You'd understand why you don't see it "sharp as can be" if you had actually seen that and then you'd recognize the difference. There's a whole lot more detail in that negative which the Epson can't touch. Again, it's fine if you don't need to go there.I can see the grain sharp as can be:
2. The film scanner was incapable of pulling faint shadow detail from my slides, especially if they were the least bit under exposed.
Yes if you want to call it using digital camera to copy film or digitizing is fine or even invent a new word. I am bothered by the word scanning. Even I don't like to call thing like the Noritsu or Fuji scanner as scanner.
Here’s what I did but for less, prices USD if I had to buy from scratch…
$100 - NIKON macro 3.5 non AI, M2 or PK 13 and a Nikon to MFT adapter, already had all except the adapter
$180 - Panasonic 20mp rangefinder MFT, already have a Nikon D90 but wanted something smaller and lighter
$50 - DIY copy stand, plywood base, 3/4 inch iron pipe and base mount, Super Clamp with tripod spigot
$60 - Essential Film Holder but could use a negative carrier
$40 - Cinestill light source
The richness of the English language did not get where it is today by linguistic pedantry but by 'knowing what another person means'. And particularly when the objection to 'camera scanning' is weaponised by the very same people who say they shoot film. Good look with that.
After looking at your results, I would not come to the same conclusion. Comparing the unsharpened results, the Howtek scans were significantly more detailed than the Epson. After sharpening, the Epson results were considerably improved. I guess you could say the sharpened Epson result compared favorably to the unsharpened Howtek result, but I think it would have been more relevant to compare sharpened to sharpened.For what is worth here's a comparison I did between an Epson 850 and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner on 4x5 bw Tmax 100 The Epson compares very favorably.
Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners
Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...www.largeformatphotography.info
how many people actually need more "resolving power" than that?
Be prepared for some minor challenges getting everything set up the first time, but if you can avoid one or two common "gotchas" I think you will be pleased with your results.[...] However, I think for the long term, I am going to set up and practice using a digital camera and a macro lens. I own several of each, as well as a copy stand and a light source, so my monetary investment will be minimal or nill. (Plan to use negative carriers for film holders.). We'll see ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?