Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 01 Feb 2018 (Thursday) 04:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is there a section for film shooters?

 
RodS57
Senior Member
668 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Jun 2014
     
Feb 02, 2018 16:40 |  #46

Bassat wrote in post #18554901 (external link)
OK, sidebar.

I have a good tripod, and an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Is backlighting negatives and using my macro for a scanner an option? Seems reasonable, but leaves me with negative images and and orange cast.

Another sidebar.

I honestly appreciate all the help and suggestions given here, but I don't want make this too complicated. At TheDarkroom.com, medium resolution scans (good for 8"x10" prints) are $5 per roll. High res are $9/roll. 4"x6" prints are $5/roll. That isn't a ton of money for one or the other. I'd happily spend $5/roll for decent scan I don't have to put a butt-load of time into. With that in mind, is scanning worth the trouble?

Anyone else remember when we dropped of a roll at Photo Hut, went to A&W for a Root Beer, picked up our prints an hour later, and were happy with that? Me neither. :)

I did see an article about using your camera to take pictures of film, mounted slides, in that particular article. Maybe an hour or two to make the jig and after that, five minutes for set up. Interesting topic. Been gonna do this for years... just can't seem to get past the "I should" step.

Some of the flat bed scanners mentioned in this thread are not cheap. You can get a dedicated film scanner for about the same price. Do your scans and sell it.

Rod


>>> Pictures? What pictures? <<<<

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,183 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2023
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 02, 2018 19:49 |  #47

RodS57 wrote in post #18554962 (external link)
I did see an article about using your camera to take pictures of film, mounted slides, in that particular article. Maybe an hour or two to make the jig and after that, five minutes for set up. Interesting topic. Been gonna do this for years... just can't seem to get past the "I should" step.

Some of the flat bed scanners mentioned in this thread are not cheap. You can get a dedicated film scanner for about the same price. Do your scans and sell it.

Rod

Keep in mind, if trying to photograph a slide with a digital camera to convert image to digital, that most dSLRS do not show 100% of the frame in the viewfinder.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 02, 2018 20:01 |  #48

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18554947 (external link)
just sayin'

tom, comments about printing you have made in the past lead me to believe you should avoid scanning. :D

Yeah, thanks. I'm kind of leaning that way anyhow. I like taking photos. I don't like agonizing at length over processing them. For most of what I do, even low-res scans (free at Darkroom) would likely be enough. Less than 1% of my photos ever get printed. Mostly web-shares. From time to time, the photography gods smile on me and I get a really good shot. Two or three of those a year get the whole 8"x10" framed treatment.

I think I'm gonna shoot a roll and let TheDarkroom.com show me what they can do for $11. Of course, if something turns out really well, I can get the local photo shop (a real camera STORE) to scan a frame or two and get me some nice files or even prints.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 02, 2018 20:05 |  #49

RodS57 wrote in post #18554962 (external link)
I did see an article about using your camera to take pictures of film, mounted slides, in that particular article. Maybe an hour or two to make the jig and after that, five minutes for set up. Interesting topic. Been gonna do this for years... just can't seem to get past the "I should" step.

Some of the flat bed scanners mentioned in this thread are not cheap. You can get a dedicated film scanner for about the same price. Do your scans and sell it.

Rod

Not shooting slides. Negatives. Slide processing costs more.

I remember the neighbors' slide shows of their vacation from when I was a kid. The TRUE definition of boring: being compelled to look at slides of someone else's vacation, and having to act like you are enjoying the show.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photosbytw
Goldmember
Avatar
1,256 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 895
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains
Post edited 4 months ago by photosbytw.
     
Feb 03, 2018 06:43 |  #50

Bassat wrote in post #18555096 (external link)
Not shooting slides. Negatives. Slide processing costs more.

I remember the neighbors' slide shows of their vacation from when I was a kid. The TRUE definition of boring: being compelled to look at slides of someone else's vacation, and having to act like you are enjoying the show.

Ha............I wasn't going to add any additional comments to this thread but...............

I remember horrid times when someone else had slides to show..........now I get excited when given the chance, only because I'm looking at them differently. Finding shots of what they/them/it looked like back when and using same to restore/digitally perserve to use for whatever later...............

Same goes for old photo albums..............:-):-):-)


Don't even begin to think I'm criticizing your images.
Just a natural curiosity.
tw
www.photosbytw.net

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 03, 2018 07:26 |  #51

An update of sorts. I found an EOS 3 for not much more than a set of ND filters. Now I have 1/8000!


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RodS57
Senior Member
668 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Jun 2014
     
Feb 03, 2018 17:07 |  #52

Bassat wrote in post #18555096 (external link)
Not shooting slides. Negatives. Slide processing costs more.

I remember the neighbors' slide shows of their vacation from when I was a kid. The TRUE definition of boring: being compelled to look at slides of someone else's vacation, and having to act like you are enjoying the show.

I realize that but my research was for slides and I imagine someone has done the same for negatives. all this old tech is being swallowed by digital but I feel my slides in their little yellow boxes are safer than the ones and zeros on a hard drive. Full stop.

In my "would like to scan" hiarchy I have in order of importance to me

1. Slides
2. Color negatives
3. B/w negatives

Some chemicals to process my remaining exposed b/w film would be cool. A guy can dream can't he. :-)

Rod


>>> Pictures? What pictures? <<<<

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 03, 2018 20:35 |  #53

I've been looking a bit more into slides. They are color POSITIVES, aren't they? If I shoot slides, wouldn't that take 90% of the PITA out of scanning. I mean, no orange casts, no tweaking the reversal process for every different roll, and scanning with a macro lens on a light table would be much easier, I'd hope.

BTW, If I scan, I'd only be scanning the frames worth digitizing. Certainly not everything.

And....
I've looked into software. It seems VueScan 9 is about the best I can get. Does anyone how well it will work on negative film when using a scanner that does NOT do pass-through, but only reflective?

I'm starting to be a bit surprised that nobody has asked, "What's film?", yet. :)


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,429 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 232
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited 4 months ago by MakisM1.
     
Feb 03, 2018 20:40 |  #54

RodS57 wrote in post #18555711 (external link)
I realize that but my research was for slides and I imagine someone has done the same for negatives. all this old tech is being swallowed by digital but I feel my slides in their little yellow boxes are safer than the ones and zeros on a hard drive. Full stop.

In my "would like to scan" hiarchy I have in order of importance to me

1. Slides
2. Color negatives
3. B/w negatives

Some chemicals to process my remaining exposed b/w film would be cool. A guy can dream can't he. :-)

Rod

Negatives are susceptible to ageing. I find that those developed with the C41 process suffer the most, especially if they are 20+ years old.

My slides have not shown any significant signs of ageing, but they can still get dusty and scratched, unless you never open the box (then why keep them?).

Here is a September 1979 Ektachrome slide, the oldest one I've found yet.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,185 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6649
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited 4 months ago by Archibald.
     
Feb 03, 2018 20:49 |  #55

Bassat wrote in post #18555844 (external link)
I've been looking a bit more into slides. They are color POSITIVES, aren't they? If I shoot slides, wouldn't that take 90% of the PITA out of scanning. I mean, no orange casts, no tweaking the reversal process for every different roll, and scanning with a macro lens on a light table would be much easier, I'd hope.

Yes, slides will be easier to do if you are re-photographing.

BTW, If I scan, I'd only be scanning the frames worth digitizing. Certainly not everything.

And....
I've looked into software. It seems VueScan 9 is about the best I can get. Does anyone how well it will work on negative film when using a scanner that does NOT do pass-through, but only reflective?

VueScan runs the scanner and processes the scan. It isn't a scanner. You still need a scanner that will pass light through the original. ... if you are scanning, that is. If you are photocopying, you don't need VueScan.

I'm starting to be a bit surprised that nobody has asked, "What's film?", yet. :)

I'm surprised you asked that.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 03, 2018 20:49 |  #56

MakisM1 wrote in post #18555846 (external link)
Negatives are susceptible to ageing. I find that those developed with the C41 process suffer the most, especially if they are 20+ years old.

My slides have not shown any significant signs of ageing, but they can still get dusty and scratched, unless you never open the box (then why keep them?).

Here is a September 1979 Ektachrome slide, the oldest one I've found yet.

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=185​55846&i=i134464053
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Nice. Digitized how? Pass-through or reflective scanner? Any PP to do with that (or any) shot? Are slides just easier to work with?


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
THREAD ­ STARTER
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,609 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Feb 03, 2018 20:57 |  #57

Bassat wrote in post #18555844 (external link)
...
I'm starting to be a bit surprised that nobody has asked, "What's film?", yet. :)

Archibald wrote in post #18555856 (external link)
...
I'm surprised you asked that.

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Honestly. Most of my co-workers are 20-something females. I mentioned to one of them that I just bought several rolls of film, and was considering a new film camera (Pondered Pentax 645, bought EOS-3. No new lenses!) She looked at me like I'd just told her my mother is Sasquatch and my father is Bigfoot.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,185 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6649
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
Post edited 4 months ago by Archibald.
     
Feb 03, 2018 21:15 |  #58

Bassat wrote in post #18555857 (external link)
Nice. Digitized how? Pass-through or reflective scanner? Any PP to do with that (or any) shot? Are slides just easier to work with?

You CAN'T scan a transparency by reflection. I mean, you can if you want, and get an image, but it will be garbage. That's because the reflected light passes through the transparency TWICE. That will cause the image to be doubled to some extent, and the contrast will be double too. Plus it will be very dark, and there will probably be ugly reflections of the scanning light. In short, garbage.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,226 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited 4 months ago by davesrose.
     
Feb 03, 2018 21:26 |  #59

Hey, I know what film (external link) is! "Film, also called a movie, motion picture, theatrical film, or photoplay, is a series of still images that when shown on a screen create an illusion of motion images."  :p Seriously, I did learn photography with manual film SLR and learned darkroom processing. Think it did give me a deeper appreciation when switching to digital. Dedicated negative scanners still are best for getting flat/consistent lighting and have automated software for converting to positive images. They can get expensive but might be worth it if you're going to do a lot of digitizing.


Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,429 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 232
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited 4 months ago by MakisM1.
     
Feb 03, 2018 22:26 |  #60

Bassat wrote in post #18555857 (external link)
Nice. Digitized how? Pass-through or reflective scanner? Any PP to do with that (or any) shot? Are slides just easier to work with?

Thank you.

I got a Plustek OpticFilm 7400 Film/Slide Scanner bundled with Silverfast software. It is a pass through scanner.

The software provided with the scanner, does quite a bit of post processing (Levels or Curves, Color Balance, Scratch removal and other) and also it has quite a few profiles for specific negative films or slides. I found that this post processing (or is it pre processing) is quite effective, rather than using LR/Darktable or PS/GIMP. You can retain quite a bit of flexibility using TIF as the output file, but the file size is massive. I did a very light sharpening of the photo when I downsized it for the forum.

Slides or negatives are the same in terms of workflow. The slides have better quality in high detail files (but you will still see emulsion patterns, not exactly grain in high magnification) the negatives will show grain. For well preserved (or newer) negatives, or slides that have proper exposure, the scanning results are near dSLR quality, I wouldn't hesitate to print the Half Dome photo in 12x18 size (as a matter of fact, I most likely will).


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,560 views & 13 likes for this thread
Is there a section for film shooters?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is elizaseren
760 guests, 266 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.