/p/ - Photography » Thread #3573871

[39 / 6 / ?]

77KiB, 1300x1300, Canon-CanoScan-LiDE110-Thumbnail.jpg

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 16:12:42 No.3573871 View View Reply Original Report

Hey /p/,

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on what's the deal with flatbed scanners.
I'm looking to get an used one to scan 35mm negatives and I've noticed a lot of them don't have the frames included, even fully new and unboxed ones.
How come so many of them don't have the frames? Are the frames necessary? Can I get the frames anywhere seperately?
Thanks guys

NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8

NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 Sat 23 Nov 2019 16:23:39 No.3573874 Report

Quoted By:

The frames are generally viewed as necessary unless you're going to scan wet. You also need to make sure that the scanner supports scanning film (which it will if it comes with frames). In order to do film scans it needs to have a back light in the lid. Used nikon coolscans are good as are some of the epson perfections.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 16:56:59 No.3573881 Report

Quoted By: >>3573887

>>3573871
Scanners that don't have frames included usually don't have front light necessary for scanning transparent negatives, only back light for reflective documents.
Look up some reviews, and do note that even the best flatbed scanners will only give you 5-8 MP equivalent quality from a 35mm film frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 17:11:33 No.3573887 Report

Quoted By: >>3573890 >>3573894 >>3573909

>>3573881
So what would you recommend? A dedicated film scanner? Those are a lot harder to come by 2nd hand

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 17:38:12 No.3573890 Report

Quoted By: >>3573899

>>3573887
Depends on what you need the scans for, and what kind of film you want to scan.
If you just want half-decent scans of color negatives for web use, something like Epson V370 will absolutely suffice. If you want to scan slides and contrasty B&W negatives, an inexpensive flatbed will likely clip highlights/shadows due to insufficient density range - you need either a high-end flatbed or a dedicated scanner for those. And to get archival quality scans of high quality, low sensitivity film, you absolutely need either a dedicated scanner or a reproduction rig based around a 25+ megapixel digital camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:01:41 No.3573894 Report

Quoted By: >>3573899

>>3573887
Get a dedicated. 35mm scans from flatbeds are absolutely abysmal and if anyone tells you differently it's because they've only ever known flatbed scan quality.

Another option, assuming you have a good interchangeable lens digital camera, is to get a macro lens and Nikon ES-1. This will give 4 figure scanners a run for their money.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20191123_201052_com.e (...).jpg, 1MiB, 1080x2340

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:12:21 No.3573899 Report

Quoted By: >>3573904 >>3573978

>>3573890
Noted, thanks

>>3573894
Don't laugh at me but this is the only 'dedicated' one I could find on the local 2nd hand website. Would it really be *that* bad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:14:26 No.3573904 Report

Quoted By:

>>3573899
Nvm I don't know anything about scanners and I can tell this one is crap

NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8

NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 Sat 23 Nov 2019 18:20:52 No.3573909 Report

Quoted By:

>>3573887
Another option is to look around your local arts or technology community to see if there's a space that has one you can just use. I can think of 4 places off hand around where I live with film scanners.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO film-scanners.jpg, 62KiB, 420x500

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 21:50:51 No.3573978 Report

Quoted By: >>3573991

>>3573899
These "scanners" are just a crappy cellphone sensor in a box. You can get a better result by just holding your film a couple inches from your phone over a white background and shooting it with any digital camera you have at your disposal.

If you want top quality, you need a scanner that actually scans, as in line by line. But they're pricey, not easy to come by, and slow.

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sat 23 Nov 2019 21:58:32 No.3573981 Report

Quoted By: >>3573991

>>3573871
Get a Epson v600 or v550 and a Lomography digitaliza frame holder. Used, this setup is $150 ish and gives great results, especially if you shoot 120 film

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:27:12 No.3573991 Report

Quoted By: >>3573998

>>3573978
Yeah I'll check it out. I just wanted a cheap scanner so I could do stuff by myself God damn it :(

>>3573981
Yeah I'll put some search alerts on the local websites. Thanks homie

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO P1010139.jpg, 2MiB, 2663x3994

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:44:10 No.3573998 Report

Quoted By: >>3574000 >>3574002

>>3573991
If you already have a half-decent digital camera and a 1:1 macro lens, you don't need a film scanner, just a film holder and some means of holding it perpendicular to the optical axis. A phone or iPad works as backlight. With a bit of tinkering with proper color inversion, this can give results at least as good as a flatbed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:46:52 No.3574000 Report

Quoted By: >>3574001 >>3574008

>>3573998
except that good macro lenses ain't cheap

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:49:32 No.3574001 Report

Quoted By: >>3574005

>>3574000
you can buy the nikon 55mm macro for next to nothing

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:51:12 No.3574002 Report

Quoted By: >>3574003 >>3574009

>>3573998
while true, this is a very annoying setup to use.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO diagram.jpg, 595KiB, 1200x900

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:53:55 No.3574003 Report

Quoted By: >>3574021

>>3574002
ive used

canon flatbed scanners
epson flatbed scanners
nikon coolscan scanners

and this is by far the easiest and fastest way to scan 35mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:58:10 No.3574005 Report

Quoted By: >>3574006 >>3574007 >>3574010

>>3574001
not sure man but a quick ebay search shows prices going from at least 50 USD, that's a lot for a poorfag student such as myself

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:59:21 No.3574006 Report

Quoted By: >>3574010

>>3574005
let alone the ES-1 and everything... Seeing the prices honestly discomforts me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:59:29 No.3574007 Report

Quoted By: >>3574014

>>3574005
how can you afford to shoot and develop film if you can't afford a $50 one-time purchase scanning solution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 22:59:54 No.3574008 Report

Quoted By: >>3574014 >>3574016

>>3574000
That's why I said "if you already have", there isn't much sense in buying a macro lens just for derping around with film (although if you have a really good camera with a lot of pickles, a $400 macro lens can yield significantly better results than a $400 scanner)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:01:53 No.3574009 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574002
It's an annoying thing to *set up*, once you have everything mounted and your processing macros hotkeyed, it's faster than a flatbed or dedicated scanner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:02:19 No.3574010 Report

Quoted By: >>3574014 >>3574015 >>3574021

>>3574005
>>3574006
nikon 55mm macro = $50usd off eBay
nikon es-1 = $35 shipped from Amazon Japan
cheap extension tube to reach 1:1 magnification = $20 off amazon

Literally ~$100USD to have a killer scan setup utilizing an exensive digital imaging machine you already own.

If $100usd blows your scanner budget out of the water just wait and save...because the results you'll get from a $20 scanner like in the OP image are going to make you stop shooting film altogether.

Maybe that's a good thing, you seem too poorfag for film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:03:53 No.3574014 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574007
I get C-41 film only (developing is 1€ per roll) and have a friend scan it for me

>>3574008
>>3574010
both valid points. Might as well do this right. I'll consider it, thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:03:55 No.3574015 Report

Quoted By: >>3574017 >>3574018

>>3574010
well, the scanner in the OP image can't scan film at all

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:04:46 No.3574016 Report

Quoted By: >>3574027 >>3574028

>>3574008
it makes sense of you also do macro photography, have an interest in macro photography, or have a specific use case outside of just scanning film. I found my macro lens for $15 at goodwill (Sears 55mm f2.8 with 1:1 adapter) and it does fine for scanning negatives. Even if its faster, its much more involved than just throwing a negative in a holder, putting it on the scanner, and pressing a button.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:05:02 No.3574017 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574015
exactly. they are thinking they can spend $20 and buy any scanner to scan film...not realizing that even the super shitty flatbed scanners that CAN scan film typically cost more than what a macro lens and es-1 will cost them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:06:04 No.3574018 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574015
what are you talking about. i shoot 0 macro photography yet my $60 macro lens for scanning film was one of my best purchases in years.

why do you NEED to shoot macro to make buying a macro lens for scanning film worth it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:23:34 No.3574021 Report

Quoted By: >>3574022

>>3574003
>>3574010
anyone want to explain to the retard that I am why the spacer/extension tube is necessary?

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:27:37 No.3574022 Report

Quoted By: >>3574024

>>3574021
necessary to get 1:1 with the nikon. Its only a 1:2 lens on its own.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:28:52 No.3574024 Report

Quoted By: >>3574037

>>3574022
how can I find out how much extension I need?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PB278642.jpg, 109KiB, 1000x750

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:30:12 No.3574027 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574016
>its much more involved than just throwing a negative in a holder, putting it on the scanner, and pressing a button.

It's really situational. Normally, with half a dozen strips straight from the lab that I want to post to /p/, I'd take a flatbed any day. With a hundred of ancient uncut B&W rolls, I'd kill myself before I use one. And if I had to scan some museum tier shit at the highest possible quality, I'd think twice between trying to reanimate a Heidelberg or machining some holders for e.g. an A7R4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:32:54 No.3574028 Report

Quoted By: >>3574066

>>3574016
from setting up my camera on a tripod to having a 36exp roll scanned takes me about 5 minutes. add another 3 minutes for transferring photos to my computer and having them batch edited.

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sat 23 Nov 2019 23:53:06 No.3574037 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574024
just google macro extension tube calculator.

giannis

giannis Sun 24 Nov 2019 01:50:42 No.3574066 Report

Quoted By: >>3574068

>>3574028
>add another 3 minutes for transferring photos to my computer and having them batch edited.
This is very unrealistic. First of all, if you’re batch editing negative film, you’re doing something wrong. No profile can work well on full auto, even from well established film scanner makers (Heidelberg, Noritsu, Frontier, Cezanne, Silverfast etc.), let alone a photoshop plugin.
Second, 36 high res pictures (say 36x30MB raw files) are highly unlikely to be able to get imported in photoshop and edited in 3min (with colour inversion, sharpening, etc.), even with a beastly machine, cause photoshop can’t multi thread efficiently for dick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 02:08:52 No.3574068 Report

Quoted By: >>3574072 >>3574092

>>3574066
1. I made my own action for each emulsion based of inverting and color correcting off the film base. It works beautifully.

2. Takes about 1min for a roll to transfer to my computer and 2-3 minutes to batch edit. I dunno what else to tell you.

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D

t.h.i.e.f !!6VsGLJtuT1D Sun 24 Nov 2019 02:22:28 No.3574072 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574068
Whenever I do my negative scanning, the process takes 30 minutes from unpacking the negatives, putting them in the holder, taking the pictures, archiving the negatives (repeat 7-10 times depending on 24/36exp) then importing to Lightroom, cropping, applying correct color balance, and then negative pro lab conversion. 30 minutes is rushing.

giannis

giannis Sun 24 Nov 2019 02:47:44 No.3574092 Report

Quoted By: >>3574100

>>3574068
Mate if it works for you, go for it.
But your method is not optimal. For instance, you can’t create an accurate inversion profile off the film’s base. Because the orange mask is not a uniform filter to cancel out, but is an integral mask that changes in hue in accordance to density (exposure). The only way to create an accurate profile is to shoot a colour checker over, say, half stop increments, through 12-14 stops range. And then create a profile that cancels out the mask accurately over different densities (ie both highlights and shadows and everything in between).
And even then, with the profile ready at hand, you need - for every scanned frame - to provide a point of reference, usually black point and neutral grey point. The only way even for a perfect profile to work over a batch of images, they’d need to have been shot under very similar lighting conditions and with similar subject matter.

Anyway, for me with a Plustek it takes me around 1:20 hour to do a 38-exp. roll.
Maybe 40minutes is the actual scanning, the rest is colour balancing, previewing, processing etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Nov 2019 02:54:29 No.3574100 Report

Quoted By:

>>3574092
>And even then, with the profile ready at hand, you need - for every scanned frame - to provide a point of reference, usually black point and neutral grey point. The only way even for a perfect profile to work over a batch of images, they’d need to have been shot under very similar lighting conditions and with similar subject matter.

Totally incorrect and would ruin any special light temperatures occurring. Making a profile for daylight film based off a properly color-corrected daylight scene that contains a neutral grey is all you need. From there using that profile for any shot taken with that film will allow for the actual qualities of the light present to come through.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches