Advice please on scanning

Rickystyx

Rickystyx

Popular Poster
Registered User
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
81
So I'm getting an intrepid enlarger soon but I'm also wondering about scanning 4x5 and 8x10 negatives or even glass plates. There aren't many scanners available that are expressly capable of doing the job and I've read lots of posts on various forums about using a dslr and a copy stand instead.
I already have a stand and a DSLR with 24,2 Mpixel sensor and a pure white light pad so my question is which is better?
I am prepared to experiment but why buy a scanner if it isn't going to be any better and a bit of advice from experienced members would be very helpful.
I've looked at posts on here and see many folk use epson scanners, with the odd mention of using a DSLR but which is really the best?
If I use the DSLR how many photos would be optimal for assembling in photoshop/lightroom?
I have a D7200 which isn't the biggest Mp camera these days but still isn't bad and a good 60mm macro lens which works fine with computer controlled focus etc.
So what would be the optimal number of photos to stitch together for a 4x5 negative and what are the drawbacks of using such a system?
Any advice would be gratefully recieved.
 
O've been using an Epson V750 scanner for some years, I used a friend V700 and had a much older Canon for some tears before that talking 20+ 0+ years ago that could scan one 5x4 neg at a time.

If you only need low res scans a DSLR may do the job well, but I scan my B&W 5x4 negs at 2400 dpi minimum and resolution and file sizes are way higher/bigger, it's vastly superior quality, my B&W 10x8 neg scans are close to 1Gb.

It's horses for courses, one low end amateur London lab prefers DSLR scans, he doesn't know better, all pro labs are using way better options and are no more expensive. This is the cheapest and fastest option if high end digital quality is not critical, and you really just need images for posting online or modest sized prints..

Ian
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear - I doubt if I will ever sell an image, or turn one into a poster print (although I did get a 36 inch panoramic printed recently which I love) but I would like to produce something that I can hang on the wall that looks good. So I don't need a "high quality digital scan" I need something that will give me a negative I can play with to my own satisfaction. I'm retired so time is not an issue and dissabled so don't have an income to spend lots on scanners but I would like to do the best I can with what I have or find something that I can reasonably ask someone to buy as a present - so a second hand whatever will do the job may be a possibility.
 
As I said, it's horses for courses, a DSLR scan will be fine for what you want. I'm working my way through decades of negatives, and in my case it makes sense to scan at a very high resolution. I'd add that I digitised a lot of my early exhibition prints back in the days when a 2mb camera was the norm, the problem has always been I print on FB papers which don't scan well on a flatbed scanner, and my prints are too large for an A4 scanner anyway.

You might well find a second hand Epson V700. I gave away my older Canon 2400U scanner a few years ago it could scan up to 5x4, but there was no driver for the then current version of Windows.

Ian
 
My real need is to import the negatives mainly for storing them but also if I want to send them either for printing or to send them to competitions etc, as most competitions now want digital files not prints. I could I suppose make a print and scan that on my printer scanner but it would be nice to be able to scan the negative to work with in photoshop and lightroom. The other alternative of course would be to take the same photo using the DSLR at the time of taking the film photo but that means taking two cameras and doesn't seem as much fun and it wont reproduce a pinhole in the same way
 
The traditional way to copy negatives or transparencies in high end labs was a specialist light box, De Vere made them, and they were essentially a modified 5108 colour head, (used upside down), that gave options for colour correction etc.

However, any light-box will be sufficient as long as you adjust for the colour temperature if copying E6 slides. You ideally need a flat field lens for negative/slide copying, an enlarger lens on bellows works well with an SLR/DSLR. A set of M42 bellows, an enlarger lens, and the adapters M39/M42 for the enlarger kens, and then M42 to the DSLR can be found for very little.

Ian
 
Are you thinking of taking one DSLR image of your negs? Perfectly satisfactory if your needs are modest, but why not just take the DSLR alone and not bother with LF at all? For many images, you could leave the tripod at home too.
I think you were suggesting that you would make multiple images of the neg and stitch them together afterwards. You’d need some way to move the neg around that was repeatable - this could be as simple as a set of cards of different sizes to position the neg on the light box. Naturally, you’d need to have a constant exposure for the whole set. A bit of experiment would be needed but I think you expect that already.
My suggestion would be to make your scans better than adequate. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, one day someone will like your work so much that they will ask you for a print. They might want it bigger and you’d need to go through the whole multi-scan business again.
Secondly, one of the unique joys of LF is the way that as you move closer and closer to a print, more and more detail and texture is revealed. (rather like reality) This is not a commendation of pressing our noses against the glass, but it does happen.
A scanner (and its dedicated software) would almost certainly give you more and better control, but they are expensive. Large format photographers are notorious for their ingenuity and resourcefulness, so I’m pretty sure that you can make a fist of whatever equipment you have to hand.
If you do go down the DSLR route and find it works well, perhaps you could pass on your experience. Many forum members devised their working methods before digital cameras became universal, so you might have something to teach us.
 
I was thinking of multiple images brought together in photoshop or lightroom. I have an A4 lightpad that I could use but also the Intrepid enlarger kit can be used too which I will certainly be experimenting with. I'm imagining having the negative on the light source which I will move on a fixed track (possibly my camera slider) to move the negative and take overlapping photos to stitch together.
I've seen people use 20 photos on a 4x5 but have never seen any results published, which is really why I was asking.
Do you really need 20 images? That strikes me as a lot of overlap although I haven't worked it out mathematically.
Why LF? simply because that is what I'm really enjoying doing at the moment but it does leave me without a way to share the results over the internet which I why I want the results scanned.
Paper negatives scan in using the standard scanner on my printer and are giving nice if not perfect results but I have some film negatives that I can't do that with.
I'm very happy to experiment and share the results but I thought I'd ask for advice thinking someone would have already done this and have experience of it or would say why it wasn't as good as a scanner apart from the time it takes
 
If it's purely for sharing images a single DSLR shot at 20+ mb is way large enough. Competitions will have file size specifications.

If you use a lens like a Componon, plain or S, there's no need to reverse it for negative copying as they are Symmetrical lenses.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Twenty does seem a lot. I have heard overlaps recommended of one third which means the effective number of scans is 20/3 if we didn’t overlap and scanned edge-to-edge. That’s more ore less three at the top and three at the bottom. Whole number divisions are not possible because the formats are different shapes.
One advantage you may have is exposure-stacking. You could control unruly highlights and reluctant shadows in a way that would make semi-stand developers of all faiths green with envy. Many scanners can do this too. Sadly, it would increase your number of scans and the on-screen work dramatically.
As Ian says, a single shot should be entirely adequate for on-screen sharing. An iPhone will do that.
 
I've continued reading and as you say David exposure stacking is something that seems to be very effective so I will give this a go. I can see that people do try to get massive megapixel results from their DSLR scans but I don't think that's what I need at all. anyway I will give it a go and try the exposure stacking or as some are calling it HDR stacking and see what results I get. I also have got into panoramics using 120 film so want to be able to do that too and it seems like a reasonable way of doing both for my needs without spending more money. On the other hand I'm also playing with paper negatives, cyanotypes, salt prints and hand emulsion on art paper and that is fun and they scan happily on my printer scanner. It's all about playing and having fun as far as I'm concerned so I'll continue to do so.
 
I think exposure stacking is different from HDR, but in the way the software is applied.Exposure stacking seems useful, but HDR seems to be a system devised for making really ugly prints. It uses focus stacking too. Are there other kinds of stacking?
I’m sure there is plenty of enthusiastic advice on the web.
 
I'm probably misunderstanding HDR then because I only read about using different exposures to bring the scan together - it did show significantly better detail in the example shown but there wasn't any focus stacking involved. With it being a flat plane photo focus stacking issn't going to help unless the film isn't completely flat I wouldn't have thought but when I get things set up I will see how flat the fim really lays - it might be that a little focus stacking would help - I use it on my microscope so there's no reason not to check it out in scanning too
 
The Epson scanners come with ScanSoft, as well as Epson's own scanning software. ScanSoft does allow dial scanning at different exposures, but I've never needed to use it.

Ian
 
For the few you want to print and hang, use an outside service. For the rest, the digital camera you own might be sufficient. Have you tried it yet to see the results?
 
Further to Alan’s comments, there may be a member here not too far from you able to help with the odd higher resolution scans you may need..

Ian
 
I haven't tried it yet - I've been looking for information. I wish I had the spare cash for a scanner but I wasn't going LF until I got my Calumet which I intended sticking the DSLR onto the back of just to get the lens movements. Having got it of course I then decided to have a go at rebuiding it to take film and it has grown from there. I've spent all my spare cash on an intrepid 4x5 and an intrepid enlarger as well as some lovely pinhole cameras and the LF interest has just grown.
However I don't meet people these days due to health issues and still trying to avoid covid. So when I want to show folks what I'm playing with now I want to be able to put the results online and it would be nice to be able to enter them into competitions.
So since I have the DSLR and a stand from my enlarger which will also work as a copy stand it seems worth a try.
I'm getting things set up but my other half keeps finding me things to do so although I'd like to have it all set up and ready it is taking me a bit longer but it is also giving me time to work out exactly how I want to approach it. I have a light source already but I'm also awaiting delivery of my Intrepid enlarger kit which also doubles as a light source for scanning so may be better than what I already have.
I'm getting there slowly
 
It might be me who has HDR wrong. Too many articles with titles like: “Seventeen secret hacks you need to know about in Lightroom.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top