Your parents can be proud of you son! Nice, structured video, you've got talent. And your English will get better in time. The ultimate video on this topic would be to process the 4-5 negatives both ways, and show the results next to each other in the end. Best regards from the Lowlands!
Thank you very much my friend. Your comment really motivates me to keep doing this and improving. That's an excellent idea for a follow up video. It is nice to have you here :)
Flatbed isn't one of the main methods. Those would be a dedicated film scanner like Plustek 8300 or Prime Film XA vs camera scanning. I've an Epson V550 (same as V600 - digital ICE) and flatbed scanner sucks for 35mm. It does ok for 120.
Man RU-vid is strange. I still havent found a video that considers the most expensive aspect: time. The real question is: what is the fastest option that gives me the best quality with minimal effort? All the time you spend scanning is not spent doing something else. The cost of the gear is irrelevant if you have 60 years, or more, of negatives to scan.
That’s also a very good point to consider. You can check out another video I published after this one where I share the reasons why I actually changed to digital camera scanning, time was one of them 😉. Thanks for sharing your view and for watching my channel
Ever since DSLR "scanning" became a thing, I've always thought it was the most rediculours and moronic nuance to happen to photography. Dedicated 35mm scanner (or a flat bed scanner which is a compromise IMO) is by far the more superior method of scanning at home. I could talk for hours about it. I might do a video myself haha.
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages and most recently I have obtained better results using my digital camera. But that applies for my particular set up. The main reason I gave up on flat bed scanning a while ago was because of the annoying amount of dust I was getting on the scans coming from manipulating the negative too much in order to put it inside the scanner. It would be nice to see your take on the topic on your own video 😎
@@ArmandoStreets I use a dedicated 35mm scanner. Yeah, theres some dust on the photos sometimes but PS is goot at removing it. My scanner just sits on my desk, it's ready to rock at any time and so even if all I want to do it scan a single frame, there's no faff. To me, the most moronic thing about using a camera to take a picture of a photo taken with another camera (🤦♂) is that you're introducing more error. I use the best lenses I can afford so that my photos have as little distortion, as little chromatic aberration, as little noise and as much colour and contrast as possible but there'll still be some imperfections. Those imperfections will be amplified with the macro lense in your DSLR setup and your macro lens will introduce it's own imperfections, barrel distortion and vignetting more than anything. There'll be light collected by the lens that hasn't come off the negative you're "scanning" as there's light bouncing around the room. What colour is that light? How is it polorised? Is it flarring off the macro lens? Is it introducing a colour or contrast shift to your scan? Most likely. I look upon DSLR scanning in the same way as I look upon using your phone camera to take a "screen shot" of someone else's phone or a PC monitor. Fine if you simply want to make a record of something but moronic if your intention is to make the best possible copy and to presever as much detail as possible. I mean, just try to repeat it and get the same result twice. An actual scanner has fixed perameters into each of its components, it's a completely controled environment for negative and for the scanning process, a miniature lab. Everything in consistent and predictable. It's quality, controled!
@TheDisruptiveRU-vidr A dedicated 35mm scanner is probably the best option but must people cannot afford it. I understand your points about DSLR scanning and they are valid. Everything depends on the results the film photographer wants to get. Thank for sharing your thoughts and adding value to the conversation. I hope to see you around the channel again 😎🎞️
@@ArmandoStreets I use a Plustek 7400. It cost me only £290 around 2009 so still less than one of those flat bed scanners in your video even if you adjust for inflation. Yes, I'll stick around bud =)
@TheDisruptiveRU-vidr oh ok…I thought you were talking about a lab grade scanner. I have heard good things about the Plustek scanners, hopefully I can try them someday.
Yes, all true. But you forgot some little things 😉. The sensor of the DSLR has one ratio, for example 4:3 on Fuji. But with my analog cameras I shoot films 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 35mm panoramic. The flatbed scanner handles all these film formats and even all large formats. The DSLR setup might be ok for one negative format but you will have to invest again when changing the format. I shoot with a DSLR from Fuji which has a crop sensor and ratio aspect of 4:3 . Already the task scanning a regular 35mm film, which has a 16:9 aspect ratio, gives mediocre results, since i can cover only a part of my DSLR sensor. A third point: The better Espon scanners have an infrared scanning process available. The infrared light does not pass color negative films, but it catches all the dust particles on the surface. Silverfast software and Epson software are taking this infrared shot as a mask to remove the dust already during scanning. It takes time, yes, but you start the scanning process for several exposures once, go away do something else and come back later. Time is not that issue if you do that on a non professional base. Great Video. Thx for all the insights!
Hello my fiend. You make very good points that I missed…it is true that different aspect ratios of the camera sensor might not be able to capture the best quality image from different aspect ratios negatives. Thanks for your contributions to this timeless discussion …nice to have you here 😎👌🏽
i used a classic dslr camera, a flatbet scan and a negative scanner. i get the best results with lowest work with the flatbed and the nikon scanner. my probelm with dslr was -1 which lens is the best for scanning (28, 35, 50mm) -2 focos on the point (auto focus dont work with macro lenses); this is absolutly no fun esp when the negativ is not total flat -3 found correct exposur time and aperture. the highest (16 or 22) is not the best.
Simple fixed slide copier will do. a bellows extension with slide holder and a good enlarger lens reversed (nikon; schneider; rodenstock etc). winter north sky is a great light source.
@@ArmandoStreets Or for that matter discard the DSLR idea and buy a used Nikon or Minolta slide scanner (does negatives too); Gives enough resolution for magazine cover glossy print. Drum scanners off course the best but another price range.
Personally I prefer flatbed scanning on my Epson V500. If you need to invert a negative image in software though, just invert the levels. No need for a special plug in.
great info, thanks. Question for you, I shoot 99% b&w film. Would you still suggest the flat bed scanner? What about dust that I always tend to miss cleaning some of it. What do you suggest for that? Thanks in advance for your help.
Hello my friend. I’m happy you found the video informative. Dust is definitely a big challenge as it is attracted to the film like a magnet. What I recommend is to work on a clean environment,also handle the negatives as little as possible and avoid using cotton gloves as they release loads of particles. A camera air blower also work really well and helps a lot. You will never be able to get rid of 100% of the dust but you can definitely improve it 😎
I'd been through both route, and can confirm that both does have their own pros & cons. 1. Digital camera scanner: Pros. - Lightning fast acquisition / capture process. - More than enough output resolution. It beats any flatbed scanner hands down. Cons. - Setup cost may vary wildly. That would easily suck you into bottomless pit of "upgrading" investment - bleeding your $$$ real fast. - If you not to invest into turn-key solution for color correction software, yes - you can do it fully manual way. But unless you really know what you're doing, you can easily spend an eternity going through hell of color manual correction (been there, done that). If dealing with old / faded negatives from your family collection for example, things will get even much, much uglier. 2. Flatbed scanner: Pros. - It's a one-time investment. You buy it, you use it, and that's it. It won't grow any additional cost on you. - It will take the most frustrating part - color inversion & primary correction out of the equation. Some scanners (Epson for example) would even have "color restoration" function specifically made for dealing with old/faded negatives . It is really a one - click solution. Just turn it on, and it'll give out the color just right 9 out of 10 times. Cons. - Yes, it would take FOREVER to scan. Be prepared to spend the entire afternoon just to scan a few rolls of film. But as stated earlier that since the scanner had already done the hard part (color inversion & correction) for you, therefore you'll spend less time doing just the final touch - up work. - The resolution would be of no match to today's 45 (or 60, or 100, or whatever) megapixel camera scanning. But it should be at least good enough for a small to medium sized prints, or posting on social media. I'm now planning for my large personal project of archiving my family's photo collection - several hundred if not thousands of photos. Since it won't be showing up on wall sized prints for sure, I'm now leaning towards flatbed scanning as preferred choice. But for any photos with significant value and needed to be of the best quality, I may consider camera scanning instead.
Hello my friend…thanks for sharing your insights here. I completely agree with you. Both are good options depending on what you are after. I have recently updated my scanning workflow to using a digital camera. My next video will be about it and it will be released tomorrow afternoon UK time. It would be great if you watch it and give your thoughts. It is nice to have you here.
You might like to check out Nick Carver's video series on his recent exhibition where he created most of his scans on an Epson V700 which were then printed up to 6feet wide, before you say things like 'small to medium sized prints or posting on social media' for sure, such scans take a bit more investment in time ie using fluid mounts, but overall, every time I think, 'shall I do DSLR scanning?' I then think WTF, my V850 is good for 100mp files of more with 4x5 and plenty big enough with MF. And as for 35mm, well even that can surprise, but it is really all about that 'characterful look' ie grainy.
There is one false assumption stated in the pros and cons which significantly rebalances the comparison. That error is the references to superior resolution from camera scanning, based in the megapixel capacity of the camera. When using a camera, you are just photographing the negative to obtain a positive. The limiting element in this package of equipment is the LENS, not the capacity of the camera. Very few lenses commonly available at any price, whether "macro" or otherwise, can resolve more than 125 lines per millimeter. (Some test better on a lab optical bench, but those numbers cannot be achieved in a real world application.) On a full frame sensor camera, that works out to about 26 meg of image data. The camera may be able to store double that amount or more, but there is no extra image data to store, so any recorded additional ends up being noise in some form. To achieve even that number, you need a near perfect rig, perfect alignment, no vibration, and one of the very expensive macro lenses with aperture set for its best resolution. For all of that, you probably cannot obtain a working resolution matching that of a second tier film scanner from the late 1990s. Makes you wonder what you'd have if the technical sensor and image processing advancements of the last 20 years were incorporated in a high quality, modern film scanner.
I use a Fuji xt20 with a Minolta macro I bought for $100 and I built my copy stand and bought a light source for about the same so the total is $200 IDK how you came up with your numbers
My best results come from a dedicated scanner Nikon Coolscan 9000. Even a 50mp MF mirrorless could not compare. Just cuz it’s 50mp does mean the negative will be great.
Hello there... If you have not tested the camera before and you are not sure if it's working properly I recommend you to try with Fomapan 200 or Kentmere 400 as first rolls.
both methods are equal in “money spent” category: ~ if you already have digital camera then go with camera path - if you already have nikon coolscan or better then stick with it never go “flatbet scanner” way ~ those are pure crap
just take a look at valoi easy35 film too expensive nowadays and ruining it in flatbed scanners is not a good idea I am processing and scanning various films for more than 20 years I have been trying various scanners during this period and I am making my conclusion out of this experience from the other hand: everyone has his own goals and if one does not care about resolution (effective resolution is 1200..1800 dpi in a very best and expensive of them) then flatbed is ok bc in other aspects like color or tonality good flatbeds are ok
Hey there @@seencere7284 thanks again for sharing your experience, it is very beneficial for the film community. I hope you keep giving helpful feedback on my future videos. Nice to have you here :)
Why are poeple referring to cameras as "DSLR"? SLRs were originally (in the film era) the necessary evil simply to allow viewing through the lens. SLRs were otherwise inferior to rangefinders in pretty much every way, incl. optically (the necessity of allowing extra space for the mirror box was a noticeable constrain on the optical design). In the digital era the SLR design has been rendered dinosaur-esque, obviously, since the through-the-lens viewing was no longer a problem. Amazingly, it took almost a decade for SLR to die out, and, even more amazingly, the totally pointless "DSLR" design has become popular for some inexplicable reason. My theory is that camera manufacturers intentionally kept pushing the obsolete and inferior SLR design simply because it's more complex, hence has a higher profit margin. There is a similar hoodwinking of the public on the binocular market today: the roof-prism design (which is inferior to Porro) is pushed very hard, again most likely because it's a more expensive design, optically inferior, but offering more opportunities to make money. Long story, all that.
Hello there... Thanks for sharing with all of us. I can tell you the DSLRs are no longer that popular as they are being phased out and being replaced by the mirrorless cameras. What camera do you mainly use for your photography? ... I'm curious 😎
@@ArmandoStreets Fuji X-T5 and X-T4. I also sometimes use a medium format (film) 6x7 Makina 670 by Plaubel (a rangefinder camera 🙂) whose lens is phenomenal. When SLRs were introduced originally (late 1940s, I think), they were considered a "necessary evil" due to the several problems inherent in that design: (1) the optics must accommodate the mirror box (hence the superior wide-angle lenses like Biogon or Hologon could not be used), (2) the lenses are larger, heavier, and more expensive, (3) there is the mirror slap or shake, (4) there is the mirror noise, (5) there is the shutter delay, again due to the mirror having to get out of the optical path first. Some photographers never switched to SLR because of all that, notably Cartier-Bresson whose approach to photography required lightweight but top-notch equipment with an immediate response. Sports photographers had especially hard time with the problem (5) (also same "problem" in... the adult entertainment). At one point Canon even introduced an SLR with a non-moving semi-transparent mirror, geared at sports photographers (the Canon Pellix camera). BTW, to this day all digital cameras, even the mirrorless ones, suffer from their inability to use the Biogon and Hologon-type lenses (so-called Rusinov wide-angle) because they utilise very skew rays hitting the film plane. And skew light rays do not register well on current digital sensors, so lens designers for digital cameras are restricted to "telecentric" lenses (lenses with rays exiting the rear element in a more or less straight bundle) which again raises their price and weight. If you ever wondered how the best film-Leica lenses are so small, here is one reason (besides the absence of mirror). Today the only true Biogon lens in a modern camera is the 43mm lens for the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. Its claim to fame is its super low distortion.
Your amount of knowledge regarding this topic is really amazing my friend and you have really made me rethink many things about SLRs cameras.... Thank you so much for sharing this information with all of us... I hope to see you around here often.
people typically refer to digital cameras as DSLRs and mirrorless. DSLRs have pretty much fall out of style, but you'll still occasionally hear people refer to mirrorless cameras as DSLRs just out of habit. Sorry if I misunderstand your viewpoint here, but DSLRs were very necessary in the transition from film to digital. Up until a few years ago, micro OLED displays for view finders and autofocus technology wasn't advanced enough to compete with the mirrors we had in DSLRs. Pair that with the time it takes to design and release an attractive lens line up for the transition from SLRs and DSLRs to mirrorless and it's obvious why DSLRs were so popular up until recently. Most people still shooting on and buying DSLRs are doing so because of the cost. If you're just getting into photography DSLRs offer a really good value, and if someone hasn't upgraded, it's often because the cost to switch over your whole system to mirrorless isn't worth it to them. I don't know of any manufacturers at this point that are still developing their DSLR range.
