35mm's Snapshots
- Thread starter 35mm
- 1,929 comments
- 131,381 views
- 7,843
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
Since my extension tubes arrived, today I finally tried to scan my own film.
Here's what I used:
- Nikon D3200 (my father's camera, because my D600 is at Nikon being serviced);
- Nikkor AI 55mm f/1.2;
- extension tubes;
- plastic film holder (from a horrible "Rollei" film scanner I had);
- my Note 3 with a white wallpaper as background light;
- RAWs developed in Lr.
And here's the result:
This is the lab version in comparison:
A couple of notes:
- The lab version probably looks more pleasant to the eyes, but I think my result definitely looks more natural. Besides, I could have tweaked my image more if I wanted, in order to get a closer result to the lab.
- I need to get a method going, in order to make this a faster process. This was done in a very poor manner (no tripod, no way to get the film completely parallel to the sensor, etc.). More importantly, I need to find a way to have the film completely flat, maybe between two pieces of glass, I don't know. You can see the curve of the film quite well.
- Dust and fingerprints. Damn, these are hard to get rid of...
- All camera setting were 100% manual. I ended up using f/8, ISO100 and 3s.
Well, that's it.
Here's what I used:
- Nikon D3200 (my father's camera, because my D600 is at Nikon being serviced);
- Nikkor AI 55mm f/1.2;
- extension tubes;
- plastic film holder (from a horrible "Rollei" film scanner I had);
- my Note 3 with a white wallpaper as background light;
- RAWs developed in Lr.
And here's the result:
This is the lab version in comparison:
A couple of notes:
- The lab version probably looks more pleasant to the eyes, but I think my result definitely looks more natural. Besides, I could have tweaked my image more if I wanted, in order to get a closer result to the lab.
- I need to get a method going, in order to make this a faster process. This was done in a very poor manner (no tripod, no way to get the film completely parallel to the sensor, etc.). More importantly, I need to find a way to have the film completely flat, maybe between two pieces of glass, I don't know. You can see the curve of the film quite well.
- Dust and fingerprints. Damn, these are hard to get rid of...
- All camera setting were 100% manual. I ended up using f/8, ISO100 and 3s.
Well, that's it.
- 5,080
- Panama City, FL
Two pieces of glass will just add surfaces and reflections, I think. As for flat film, you may recall my story a few months ago about making a serious effort to re-scan one of my favorite slides, the pool with lily pads and the sun reflected on it. I ended up using multiple focus points with the scanner (Vuescan allows placement of focus point) and focus-stacking the resulting multiple scans. It's not something I would do as regular workflow, but I wanted that image!
The only other thing I can think of would be to use a very small aperture to maximize depth of field, which may not help much anyway, since DOF in macro with tubes seems to be measured in angstroms.....
I've been thinking about trying this method of digitizing, but the effort of cleaning the slides I'm scanning, around 50, even 60 years old, makes the I.C.E. feature in the scanner look really really worthwhile! It works well.... enough. (If I may be permitted a GlaDOS quote from Portal 2.)
EDIT: Thought I'd add some dust filtering to the mix.... This is a slide of my aunt in 1954, actually three years before I was born. She was newly married, and showing off some cooking skills (which she definitely had!!!) Here is the full frame unfiltered and filtered, then a detail of the center with the same comparison.
The filtering is all in the scanner hardware and the software's use of the infrared scan, no other work or cloning to clean anything.
I know this is cruel, because you've said that film scanners are too expensive. Well, they are! This one is refurbished from an eBay vendor, and he warranted it for a year. It was a little over 300 bucks, and when I upgraded to my current PC (No PCI slots and 64-bit Win7) I had to find software (Vuescan) and a PCIe SCSI card. He honored the warranty, too, when the power supply went out on the scanner. Downside to this scanner, it's a SCSI interface, and the cards are not exactly free if you need PCIe, although you can find one for somewhere between 50 and 80 bucks. He supplies a PCI card with it.
The only other thing I can think of would be to use a very small aperture to maximize depth of field, which may not help much anyway, since DOF in macro with tubes seems to be measured in angstroms.....
I've been thinking about trying this method of digitizing, but the effort of cleaning the slides I'm scanning, around 50, even 60 years old, makes the I.C.E. feature in the scanner look really really worthwhile! It works well.... enough. (If I may be permitted a GlaDOS quote from Portal 2.)
EDIT: Thought I'd add some dust filtering to the mix.... This is a slide of my aunt in 1954, actually three years before I was born. She was newly married, and showing off some cooking skills (which she definitely had!!!) Here is the full frame unfiltered and filtered, then a detail of the center with the same comparison.
The filtering is all in the scanner hardware and the software's use of the infrared scan, no other work or cloning to clean anything.
I know this is cruel, because you've said that film scanners are too expensive. Well, they are! This one is refurbished from an eBay vendor, and he warranted it for a year. It was a little over 300 bucks, and when I upgraded to my current PC (No PCI slots and 64-bit Win7) I had to find software (Vuescan) and a PCIe SCSI card. He honored the warranty, too, when the power supply went out on the scanner. Downside to this scanner, it's a SCSI interface, and the cards are not exactly free if you need PCIe, although you can find one for somewhere between 50 and 80 bucks. He supplies a PCI card with it.
Last edited:
- 7,843
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
I'll start by saying this: wow, that's expensive and troublesome! 
Having said that, I'm truly impressed with that sample! Really, amazing! I never cared for I.C.E., but I can see how it makes sense. Great detail and colours, too.
About photographing film, I don't think smaller apertures will help much, not only because of the reason you mentioned, but also because at f/16 diffraction starts to kick in (particulary on FF) and you'll end up having soft images anyway.
If I have a chance, I'll give the "two pieces of glass" a shot. It may work, if I can avoid reflections.
Someone also mentioned to me slide duplicators. I'll check those as well.
But hey, for the amount of film I shoot and the result I got, I don't think I will bother much more and just scan film the way I scanned this one. It will require some swearing, but I'll get the job done.
Having said that, I'm truly impressed with that sample! Really, amazing! I never cared for I.C.E., but I can see how it makes sense. Great detail and colours, too.
About photographing film, I don't think smaller apertures will help much, not only because of the reason you mentioned, but also because at f/16 diffraction starts to kick in (particulary on FF) and you'll end up having soft images anyway.
If I have a chance, I'll give the "two pieces of glass" a shot. It may work, if I can avoid reflections.
Someone also mentioned to me slide duplicators. I'll check those as well.
But hey, for the amount of film I shoot and the result I got, I don't think I will bother much more and just scan film the way I scanned this one. It will require some swearing, but I'll get the job done.
nobuffalo
Premium
- 2,692
- USA
Those look pretty good @DiabolicalMask and @wfooshee.
I've tried a few different methods for scanning film and before I realized my old flatbed had a tray for film I tried sandwiching a piece of film in between two pieces of glass with not the best results. It cause this weird reflection/ripple thing to appear on the image but other than that it was pretty flat and focused.
I've used a DSLR with decent results, I haven't really tried it much. I shot the image out of an enlarger with maybe better results, biggest issue with that is the texture of the surface the image is projected on. I wonder how good it would look if the image was projected large enough on a super smooth surface, perhaps you could even get some good detail of the grain.
I went home to Missouri for christmas and brought back all my mom's old negatives with the intention of scanning them, it's a crap load and many are in pretty bad shape, I'm paying for playing with them as a kid now.
My current method is with a scanner I found at goodwill for $5, an HP PhotoSmart S20. Claims to do 2400 dpi and all you gotta do is insert the end of the film strip in the slot and it takes it away, does 5 frames at once which is kinda odd. Software is for XP so I'm running a virtual machine with that going and switch back and forth with a couple buttons, I just scan directly to a shared folder. The software is a bit old and doesn't have the best interface but get's the job done, scanning does take some time though. A good DSLR setup seems like it could be super fast.
Here's a recent scan from the HP, negative is from the mid eighties and is of an older brother. I've already did a lot of cleaning using photoshop. That ICE would be quite nice.
(2328 x 3448)
(691 x 1024)
I've tried a few different methods for scanning film and before I realized my old flatbed had a tray for film I tried sandwiching a piece of film in between two pieces of glass with not the best results. It cause this weird reflection/ripple thing to appear on the image but other than that it was pretty flat and focused.
I've used a DSLR with decent results, I haven't really tried it much. I shot the image out of an enlarger with maybe better results, biggest issue with that is the texture of the surface the image is projected on. I wonder how good it would look if the image was projected large enough on a super smooth surface, perhaps you could even get some good detail of the grain.
I went home to Missouri for christmas and brought back all my mom's old negatives with the intention of scanning them, it's a crap load and many are in pretty bad shape, I'm paying for playing with them as a kid now.
My current method is with a scanner I found at goodwill for $5, an HP PhotoSmart S20. Claims to do 2400 dpi and all you gotta do is insert the end of the film strip in the slot and it takes it away, does 5 frames at once which is kinda odd. Software is for XP so I'm running a virtual machine with that going and switch back and forth with a couple buttons, I just scan directly to a shared folder. The software is a bit old and doesn't have the best interface but get's the job done, scanning does take some time though. A good DSLR setup seems like it could be super fast.
Here's a recent scan from the HP, negative is from the mid eighties and is of an older brother. I've already did a lot of cleaning using photoshop. That ICE would be quite nice.
(2328 x 3448)
(691 x 1024)
Last edited:
- 7,843
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
Damn, I had high hopes on a glass sandwich... Still, I'll see if I can give it a try sometime (it's not easy to get hold of two pieces of glass, too).
Anyway, looks like you're getting some results from that HP. 👍
- 4,159
- United States
Dat.. composition.
- 7,843
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
That was taken almost a year ago, but I still remember that she was quite a fine, young tourist. And all by herself.
- 5,080
- Panama City, FL
I was looking for some way to say that..... Mine would have been nowhere near as eloquent or succinct.
nobuffalo
Premium
- 2,692
- USA
@DiabolicalMask, I don't remember if you have any experience developing film yourself but if you do I have a quick question for you. I finally got around to getting a couple rolls of ilford b&w developed, delta 50 and HP5 400. The HP5 looks fine exposure wise, but the delta is way unexposed, so much so that they couldn't see the break in frames enough to cut them for me. The entire roll is like this including the boarders of the film, you can only very faintly read the "ilford" and see the notches printed on the boarder. Do you think this roll could have been ruined while being processed? Perhaps processed at iso400? No rolls in that particular camera before or after have turned out like this. I've tried scanning them and they're just too far gone to pull anything from them that is worth keeping. About the only thing I can think of doing is printing them using filters to maybe boost the contrast like crazy and bring some of the image back, I don't know that this would work like I'm thinking but was just an idea.
This is quite upsetting, the roll mostly consisted of shots from a weekend trip to the north cascades and my first summit. I did take a few with my phone but that doesn't really offer any relief.
This is quite upsetting, the roll mostly consisted of shots from a weekend trip to the north cascades and my first summit. I did take a few with my phone but that doesn't really offer any relief.
- 7,843
- Leiria
- jpfctf
- jpfctf
@casey_2005: I'm sorry to hear that. And I'm afraid I can't help you since I have absolutely no experience in film developing. In fact, I'm very naif regarding the processes and chemicals envolved.
(It's something I've been wanting to learn and try for some time now, but never got the opportunity to do so.)
I hope someone else here can help you out with that. Good luck. 👍
(It's something I've been wanting to learn and try for some time now, but never got the opportunity to do so.)
I hope someone else here can help you out with that. Good luck. 👍
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
@casey_2005: That's a shame, I have a hunch that your Delta 50 (or is it Pan F 50? Or Delta 100 rated at 50? Delta 50 doesn't exist) is underdeveloped since the film rebate is faint as well.
Similar threads
- Poll
