*Post Your Film Shots*

The lower left and upper left corners look really blurry.

TooManyShots wrote in post #17252209
Is getting there....tonality has been improved a lot by doing HDR. Unfortunately, more involved since I am shooting two sections per negative in order to render both the long and short ends at 5k pixels (square negative). 3 frames bracketing per section. Totaling 6 shots per negative.

Here is the DSLR scan version. Unfortunately, my Nikon AF D 28-105 is soft on the corners at marco close focusing, about 6", 1:2 ratio.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oZFC​5T testing2 by vracing, on Flickr

Here is the shot scanned with the Canon 9000f. Yes, I cloned out the garbage can.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pV5H​uP garbage by vracing, on Flickr

CRCchemist wrote in post #17252491
The lower left and upper left corners look really blurry.

Is the lens. Corner sharpness is better with my Tamron adaptall 2 35-80 lens. But the Nikon has a much closer focusing distance, something like 6." I like the sharpness but can't nail down the inversion workflow. Is hit or miss though.... If I decide to do the DSLR scan, I would need a better macro lens with better corner sharpness at a very close focusing distance.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17252491
The lower left and upper left corners look really blurry.

he lists it in his post

I've had great results with DSLRs scans and honestly a under $800 scanner isn't going to do any better.

I use a 50mm with tubes to scan 35mm and a 28mm 1:4 macro to do 120.

TooManyShots wrote in post #17252523
Is the lens. Corner sharpness is better with my Tamron adaptall 2 35-80 lens. But the Nikon has a much closer focusing distance, something like 6." I like the sharpness but can't nail down the inversion workflow. Is hit or miss though.... If I decide to do the DSLR scan, I would need a better macro lens with better corner sharpness at a very close focusing distance.

I swapped from my 5D to 7D, as I decided to see if live view helped to ensure that everything was flat, and found that it did. I shoot at ISO 100, usually at f/8, with my Sigma 150mm macro. And as maverick said, I'm not convinced that I'll get better results with a dedicated scanner. Although I'll admit that developing good technique and a good inverting workflow takes time.

I'm learning about new to me PrimeFilm 7200 scanner.
I have this bagging bars if I use auto exposure.
No auto exposure enabled - less or no bars.
Scanning old films with ICE and to JPEG1 this way.

I thought this shot turns out nice..another DSLR scan test with the Tamron adaptall 2 35-80 f2.8-3.6 lens. Didn't notice any corner softness. This was shot with the RZ67 with the 110mm f2.8 lens. Tmax 400 with HC110.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pEa5​An

B.Toews wrote in post #17252538
I swapped from my 5D to 7D, as I decided to see if live view helped to ensure that everything was flat, and found that it did. I shoot at ISO 100, usually at f/8, with my Sigma 150mm macro. And as maverick said, I'm not convinced that I'll get better results with a dedicated scanner. Although I'll admit that developing good technique and a good inverting workflow takes time.

I think I finally nail it...hehehe.... The trick with the highlight is to bracket your captures with a greater exposure differences. -+2 stops. Here is my latest example. BTW, I have been experimenting with DSLR scan because my Canon 9000f scanner is showing vertical banding lines and streaks even scanning in BW. Not sure if the sensor would get worst. To properly mask those lines, I needed to add another layer mask in CS5. Another needless step to compensate for the scanner short coming..

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/vracing/155289​24638

This shot was originally taken 2 years ago, with my Mamiya c330, 65mm lens. It was shot in Tmax 400 and developed in Rodinal.

Ran through it with DSLR scan..hehehe..with 6 frames bracketing. 2 sections. Totalling 12 shots. Yeah, I am digging this...although a bit more involved. Unfortunately, my resolution only tops out around 4600 pixels both short and long ends. The hardest part is to figure out the tone curves or at least trying to match the film curves you are supposed to duplicate but you don't really know what it is...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pXeV​tq

maverick75 wrote in post #17252526
I've had great results with DSLRs scans and honestly a under $800 scanner isn't going to do any better.

I use a 50mm with tubes to scan 35mm and a 28mm 1:4 macro to do 120.

Feel free to write a tutorial on that and post a link here.

My DSLR doesn't have ICE, nor it converts to positive. And two of my scanners costs not even $400.
I could understand why some would DSLR the 135mm, but it is useless for 4x5, IMO.
And proven to be waste of time with 6x6 example above.

kf095 wrote in post #17254582
My DSLR doesn't have ICE, nor it converts to positive. And two of my scanners costs not even $400.
I could understand why some would DSLR the 135mm, but it is useless for 4x5, IMO.
And proven to be waste of time with 6x6 example above.

ICE....hehehe....wear antistatic gloves and you would have no dust. Rinse your final wash with distilled water, you would get no water spots. Who needs ICE..... No...not waste of time, not at all. The resolution and sharpness are way better than your Epson V700. However, the inversion process is tricky. The result so far is better than my Canon 9000f.... Oh, my Brooklyn Bridge shot...you can count the stars on the flag viewing at 100%. Hehehehe.....

And oh...this the same shot scanned with the Canon 9000f. This shot is a bit blurry because back then I was using multi pass. As a result, each pass the sensor is actually scanning at different locations. Duh.... DR is not here...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dJtD​1m

TooManyShots wrote in post #17254647
ICE....hehehe....wear antistatic gloves and you would have no dust...

Nope.

I'm dealing with old negs and slides. They are dust free, but without ICE it is not worth it.
It was already mentioned and agreed in the thread about scanner here few days ago.

Ok...I am going to put on hold of the DSLR scan project. The sharpness is there...and gloriously sharp too. Unfortunately, I can't render the highlight correctly, with glows. So far, the highlights are flat.

TooManyShots wrote in post #17254996
Ok...I am going to put on hold of the DSLR scan project. The sharpness is there...and gloriously sharp too. Unfortunately, I can't render the highlight correctly, with glows. So far, the highlights are flat.

Increase exposure?