Back in the late 70s to early 90's, I worked on Forox and Marron Carrel camera stands producing multimedia shows in NYC. I also duplicated a couple of hundred thousand slides during that period. We always duplicated emulsion side down as we found it to be sharper in the film to film process. The duplicates would be mounted like the originals with emulsion side down to be place in trays to be projected. Focus was maintained to the screen using this method. In your example, if you flip the scan of the image that was shot emulsion side (dull side) the images may be easier to compare. You may be able to zoom in closer in Lightroom to see a difference or not. A better test might also be a street scene with greater detail as opposed to skin areas that show grain. A useful video and you are right about using the same method every time before you walk away. Thank you for putting this together.
Thanks for the input! I know there is some science behind this. I think I am going to do a follow up vid with your advice and shoot a better scene and maybe a test target... something not shot at iso 800 pushed and aperture 2.5. :) My feeling is there will be some benefit to shooting through the emulsion... Ultimately I think everyone should test for themselves but do not feel I stressed that enough in the video. What works for me might not be optimal for everyone. Thanks!
Emulsion vs shiney sides comparison; need to flip to proper, same correct orientation (include writing or text in image). Also, must look at color negatives under different exposures, indoor and outdoors. Thanks for doing this. I will post my comparisons later.
Nice seeing your solution evolve. I don't see a need to autofocus every time. No need for the same roll. Personally, I manually focus using highlight peaking, and leave it there.
Thanks! Yeah your right about the autofocus…. I think I am just so used to always half pressing the shutter to grab focus that it has carried over here 🧐
Just yesterday I've been playing with emulsion side up vs. down, however not with DSLR scanning, but using Primefilm XAs. I tried both auto focusing and manually dialing the focus in. In the case of autofocus I couldn't tell the difference, mostly because the autofocus was all over the place. However, when I dialed the focus in manually, the best case for emulsion side up was noticeably sharper. I could clearly see grain in both, though.
I have been thru a good number of scan to DSLR videos and you are the first to do tethering at last a no brainer I would have thought. In LR do you use any lens correction? Emulsion side up or down well as you know it's down in the enlarger which I think makes more sense than having the precious image carrying light go thru the celluloid.
Tethering just seems so much more convenient for this... Not sure why not a lot of people seem to be doing it? Thanks! So then it should be facing the camera opposite the light source. Makes sense!
Another great video. Yes, I see a difference. The one shot through the emulsion is very slightly brighter. This may be caused by using auto exposure. Are the recorded exposure times from the exit data exactly the same?
The exposures are identical. The white balances are slightly off (not sure how I manages to do that ). But it is very slight. One is 6600k / +2 tint and the other is 6650k / +1. I have the treatment set to B&W in Lightroom . This does slightly adjust the exposure (not the color so much) when in black and white mode and explains the exposure difference (and probabally the slight tone difference as well) I wish I had not messed that up as the right one to me does look "better". just not sure if it is any sharper. Anyway I think if anyone is concerned it is a simple test they can do and make the decision for themselves :) Thanks for watching!
Nice workflow! I also had a 10-roll shoot recently, which exposed my inefficient (100% analog) workflow for film. I'm figuring out how to integrate scanning into my digital workflow as well, so the scans are handled the same way as the digital files. Your video was very helpful. Using Capture One, so Negative Lab Pro sadly isn't an option, but the other steps look good to me.
Nice workflow. I'm just getting set up for DSLR scanning and will incorporate a few of your steps. BTW, personally, even a pixel peeper can't tell the difference. I plan to shoot through the shiny side to keep the process simple.
Thanks, That is what I am still doing... Maybe if I had one I planned on printing really big I might do another comparison... But I would also use a glass sandwich etc... Not necessary for 99% of what I do...
In my humble experience , HP5 has too much grain to make such comparisons,...maybe try the 35mm PAN-F Ilford or the Kodak Technical Pan... these 2 neg films (Kodaks Tech Pan has virtually no grain, but is a 25 ISO/ASA, and the TP developer, is Technidol, or Agfa's Rodinal, is very special developer).. but these 2 films are an invitations to test borderline Capabolities of your v850 scan versus your Canon R5 in a "Formula One" comparisons of such 35mm negs. ...Not sure if this info could inspire You to get more curious about these. Thanks for your amazing Videos...
The “finest” film I have on hand is TMax 100. Not sure if that would be a better comparison. Shot some Pan F long ago, never Kodak Tech Pan. I guess I personally really like grain… but would be interesting to see the tests on films as you suggest. Do you think the Tmax 100 would cut it? Seems pretty fine grained to me?
@@Distphoto Tech Pan has no grain at all... if its a tech comparison review you want to do, it will be ultimate the way to go when it comes to 135mm neg film.... if you want to do a creative image and not a tech comparison then its up to you. of course. 135mm Technical pan will have as little grain as a 4x5inch negi Tmax100... to give you an idea. technical pan was a scientific film used mostly in Lab environments or astrology, not in commercial Photography. it will be worth the experiment, especially to take that variable of grain completely out of the equation ...
I don’t see a difference at all but that might gust be the compression. Based on your response I think there really isn’t a dif. Thanks for this process man. 🤘🏼
You can see individual grains even with compression, I don't think it matters much here. The only difference would be if the base side is scratched or otherwise damaged. Happens with super old weird-ass dirty cameras. But not an issue with good gear and normally articulated hands.
That would be my stance right now.... But my eyes are getting old :) My wife watched the video and immediately said the right was sharper... But she kind of said it like the answer should be obvious.. I think it was the slight brightness and tone difference that made it appear sharper to her... Not sure. I do think it is easy enough to test this for oneself if you feel necessary. Might do a follow up vid depending on the feedback. Cheers!
I don't do DSLR scanning, but I do use a Prime Film XAs for 35mm scanning, and the manual for it actually stressed shooting emulsion side up, and flipping the image later. I tested both directions and there's a massive difference in sharpness (even though it has auto-focus, so sharp focus for both sides). It really blew me away how much better it is to scan emulsion side with the XAs. That being said, at least through TH-cam, I couldn't tell a difference in sharpness much in your example. A better test might be a shot of some text, which I find preferable for determining sharpness
That’s interesting. I want to do a more thorough test with a calibration target and finer grain film. It is in the plans! Do you see a difference with color film like portra?
@@Distphoto yes, I do. I tend to shoot low speed films though. It might be that with less obtrusive grain, that the sharpness differences are more obvious. I prefer Portra 160 over 400 when shooting color
@@peterfarr9591 good to know. thanks! The finest film I currently have is Tmax 100... thinking I will maybe order a roll of Pan F to see if I can get this sorted better!
I think it might be best (at least for me) to leave the already shot frame half way scrolled to the next. This way, when coming back it would be more obvious that I need to advance and shoot the following frame. But that's just me, not sure if it'd work for everyone.
I think the important thing would to be very consistent whatever way you advance. Nothing worse than coming back and drawing a blank as to what you did!
hi , quick question regarding smart shooter. I have used capture one but i already get adobe creative cloud free from university so dont want to pay a subscription. i really like capture one and know its an indusrty standard for teather and image editing now, very nice software. . is Smart shooter the best one to use with adobe? why don't adobe do a teather system? or do they? i see you recommend smart shooter. just wondered if you had any thoughts on teathering options available?
I do not really no a ton about teathering. 5 or 6 years back I was teathering to Lightroom shooting portraits in my studio and found it would lose connection a lot. A lot has prob changed and It might work great for this purpose and believe it should work teathering straight out of Lightroom. I would give it a shot and see if it works for you. I do like the ability to control the camera from the computer but you might be able to do that with Lightroom as well. I use Lightroom over Capture One for this as I use Neg Lab Pro. Hope that helps!
Hi Please share your lens settings. I have same camera and lens. I am unable to focus and entire screen become blurr. It will be great if you can also specify distance.
@@srana2000 I fill the frame with the negative for the distance. The lens does have a switch to set different distances so try the different settings… I shoot at F 7.1 ISO 100 in Aperture priority. Hope that helps!
I saw you have a VCCE module on your enlarger. The one I use at my local community darkroom has a CMY module. Do you find that the VCCE easier to use? Or did your enlarger happen to come with it? Thanks for the video. TH-cam algorithm wins again :)
Thanks! I love the enlarger and was looking for this model. I have had several dichroic head enlargers. The one I used previous to this was an OMEGA Super Chromega Color head. The black and white heads are nice in a sense they are a tad more straightforward… but not by much. In a way I feel the color heads might be more superior because you have finer degree of control. I really liked the idea of variable contrast constant exposure. That is what sold me. However in practice it does not work with the papers I use. I believe (and I am guessing) that they were calibrated with older versions of Ilford paper and Kodak Papers which… :( So if I am adding more filtration I have to give a bit more exposure to keep the highlights consistent. Easier to use, I would say no. I would gladly use the color head version and it would not make difference to me…. Plus would then maybe more inclined to print color… 👍
@@Distphoto That's cool you've been able to experience working with both. I've been making my way through the The Variable Contrast Printing Manual. There's a chapter on printing with dichroic heads that's interesting. The darkroom I print at has a table on the enlargers that provides the combination of Y and M settings for your desired contrast. I believe the combination of Y and M, as opposed to the individual Y setting or M setting, allows for consistency in exposure when changing contrasts. Regardless of the setting or module, those machines are my favorite to print with. Thanks for your thoughts :)
Let this clip whet your appetite. The song is "I want to change the world" by Ten years after. The Story of W Eugene Smith is quite remarkable.th-cam.com/video/xzMTgsL532s/w-d-xo.html
Look at the eyelashes and also the creases in her lips. They are sharper on the emulsion side shot. It's stands to reason because you are shooting the image 'neat'.. Shooting through the shiny side is like shooting though a window. Never ever going to be as sharp.... shooting the emulsion is the only guaranteed way to get the best results. When I scan I scan emulsion side towards the scanner head for the same reason. When I dirty scan my negs with my smart phone, usually 120 or 5x4, using my SAD Lamp (Seasonal Adjusted Disorder) masked up to cut out stray light, I get significantly a better result photographing the emulsion as opposed to through the film base.... Just sayin....
Interesting... Thanks! So if both sides are the same finish (like tmax 100) where they are both shiny do you still see a benefit. I have noticed some color films are this way as well?
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Back in the late 70s to early 90's, I worked on Forox and Marron Carrel camera stands producing multimedia shows in NYC. I also duplicated a couple of hundred thousand slides during that period. We always duplicated emulsion side down as we found it to be sharper in the film to film process. The duplicates would be mounted like the originals with emulsion side down to be place in trays to be projected. Focus was maintained to the screen using this method. In your example, if you flip the scan of the image that was shot emulsion side (dull side) the images may be easier to compare. You may be able to zoom in closer in Lightroom to see a difference or not. A better test might also be a street scene with greater detail as opposed to skin areas that show grain. A useful video and you are right about using the same method every time before you walk away. Thank you for putting this together.
Thanks for the input! I know there is some science behind this. I think I am going to do a follow up vid with your advice and shoot a better scene and maybe a test target... something not shot at iso 800 pushed and aperture 2.5. :)
My feeling is there will be some benefit to shooting through the emulsion...
Ultimately I think everyone should test for themselves but do not feel I stressed that enough in the video. What works for me might not be optimal for everyone.
Thanks!
Emulsion vs shiney sides comparison; need to flip to proper, same correct orientation (include writing or text in image).
Also, must look at color negatives under different exposures, indoor and outdoors.
Thanks for doing this.
I will post my comparisons later.
@@Dave-ht7dx Thanks!
Nice seeing your solution evolve. I don't see a need to autofocus every time. No need for the same roll. Personally, I manually focus using highlight peaking, and leave it there.
Thanks! Yeah your right about the autofocus…. I think I am just so used to always half pressing the shutter to grab focus that it has carried over here 🧐
Just yesterday I've been playing with emulsion side up vs. down, however not with DSLR scanning, but using Primefilm XAs. I tried both auto focusing and manually dialing the focus in. In the case of autofocus I couldn't tell the difference, mostly because the autofocus was all over the place. However, when I dialed the focus in manually, the best case for emulsion side up was noticeably sharper. I could clearly see grain in both, though.
That is interesting! Wonder if their is reference to this in the software or scanner somewhere? Thanks!
I have been thru a good number of scan to DSLR videos and you are the first to do tethering at last a no brainer I would have thought. In LR do you use any lens correction? Emulsion side up or down well as you know it's down in the enlarger which I think makes more sense than having the precious image carrying light go thru the celluloid.
Tethering just seems so much more convenient for this... Not sure why not a lot of people seem to be doing it? Thanks! So then it should be facing the camera opposite the light source. Makes sense!
Another great video. Yes, I see a difference. The one shot through the emulsion is very slightly brighter. This may be caused by using auto exposure. Are the recorded exposure times from the exit data exactly the same?
The exposures are identical. The white balances are slightly off (not sure how I manages to do that ). But it is very slight. One is 6600k / +2 tint and the other is 6650k / +1.
I have the treatment set to B&W in Lightroom . This does slightly adjust the exposure (not the color so much) when in black and white mode and explains the exposure difference (and probabally the slight tone difference as well)
I wish I had not messed that up as the right one to me does look "better". just not sure if it is any sharper. Anyway I think if anyone is concerned it is a simple test they can do and make the decision for themselves :)
Thanks for watching!
Nice workflow! I also had a 10-roll shoot recently, which exposed my inefficient (100% analog) workflow for film. I'm figuring out how to integrate scanning into my digital workflow as well, so the scans are handled the same way as the digital files. Your video was very helpful. Using Capture One, so Negative Lab Pro sadly isn't an option, but the other steps look good to me.
Very cool, hope it helped!
Nice workflow. I'm just getting set up for DSLR scanning and will incorporate a few of your steps. BTW, personally, even a pixel peeper can't tell the difference. I plan to shoot through the shiny side to keep the process simple.
Thanks, That is what I am still doing... Maybe if I had one I planned on printing really big I might do another comparison... But I would also use a glass sandwich etc... Not necessary for 99% of what I do...
Great work Flow Bro
Thanks man 🤘
I could see a difference as noted by Stephen Scott but I went back and forth on which I prefered. She was gorgeous and photographed well either way :)
Thanks Michael! I change my mind every time I look now 😂
In my humble experience , HP5 has too much grain to make such comparisons,...maybe try the 35mm PAN-F Ilford or the Kodak Technical Pan... these 2 neg films (Kodaks Tech Pan has virtually no grain, but is a 25 ISO/ASA, and the TP developer, is Technidol, or Agfa's Rodinal, is very special developer).. but these 2 films are an invitations to test borderline Capabolities of your v850 scan versus your Canon R5 in a "Formula One" comparisons of such 35mm negs. ...Not sure if this info could inspire You to get more curious about these. Thanks for your amazing Videos...
The “finest” film I have on hand is TMax 100. Not sure if that would be a better comparison. Shot some Pan F long ago, never Kodak Tech Pan.
I guess I personally really like grain… but would be interesting to see the tests on films as you suggest.
Do you think the Tmax 100 would cut it? Seems pretty fine grained to me?
@@Distphoto Tech Pan has no grain at all... if its a tech comparison review you want to do, it will be ultimate the way to go when it comes to 135mm neg film.... if you want to do a creative image and not a tech comparison then its up to you. of course. 135mm Technical pan will have as little grain as a 4x5inch negi Tmax100... to give you an idea. technical pan was a scientific film used mostly in Lab environments or astrology, not in commercial Photography. it will be worth the experiment, especially to take that variable of grain completely out of the equation ...
The grain is great for me, very 70s classy push film and the treatment a question which One Dev and exposure use it (sorry for me bad english)
I don’t see a difference at all but that might gust be the compression. Based on your response I think there really isn’t a dif. Thanks for this process man. 🤘🏼
You can see individual grains even with compression, I don't think it matters much here. The only difference would be if the base side is scratched or otherwise damaged. Happens with super old weird-ass dirty cameras. But not an issue with good gear and normally articulated hands.
That would be my stance right now.... But my eyes are getting old :) My wife watched the video and immediately said the right was sharper... But she kind of said it like the answer should be obvious.. I think it was the slight brightness and tone difference that made it appear sharper to her... Not sure.
I do think it is easy enough to test this for oneself if you feel necessary. Might do a follow up vid depending on the feedback.
Cheers!
I don't do DSLR scanning, but I do use a Prime Film XAs for 35mm scanning, and the manual for it actually stressed shooting emulsion side up, and flipping the image later. I tested both directions and there's a massive difference in sharpness (even though it has auto-focus, so sharp focus for both sides). It really blew me away how much better it is to scan emulsion side with the XAs.
That being said, at least through TH-cam, I couldn't tell a difference in sharpness much in your example. A better test might be a shot of some text, which I find preferable for determining sharpness
That’s interesting. I want to do a more thorough test with a calibration target and finer grain film. It is in the plans!
Do you see a difference with color film like portra?
@@Distphoto yes, I do. I tend to shoot low speed films though. It might be that with less obtrusive grain, that the sharpness differences are more obvious. I prefer Portra 160 over 400 when shooting color
@@peterfarr9591 good to know. thanks! The finest film I currently have is Tmax 100... thinking I will maybe order a roll of Pan F to see if I can get this sorted better!
Your videos are fantastic. Thank you for always sharing!
My pleasure!, thanks!
I think it might be best (at least for me) to leave the already shot frame half way scrolled to the next. This way, when coming back it would be more obvious that I need to advance and shoot the following frame. But that's just me, not sure if it'd work for everyone.
I think the important thing would to be very consistent whatever way you advance. Nothing worse than coming back and drawing a blank as to what you did!
Maybe scanning through the emulsion side is more important for colour negatives?
I will have to try. I have not based on the fact that both sides are shiny. At least of Portra 400...
The highlights seem slightly brighter on the right image
Could be... I keep going back and forth. Gonna have to go get my eyes checked I think 🤣
Does the autofocus nail focusing on the grain each time?
In my experience, yes it has been perfect 👍
hi , quick question regarding smart shooter. I have used capture one but i already get adobe creative cloud free from university so dont want to pay a subscription. i really like capture one and know its an indusrty standard for teather and image editing now, very nice software. . is Smart shooter the best one to use with adobe? why don't adobe do a teather system? or do they? i see you recommend smart shooter. just wondered if you had any thoughts on teathering options available?
I do not really no a ton about teathering.
5 or 6 years back I was teathering to Lightroom shooting portraits in my studio and found it would lose connection a lot.
A lot has prob changed and It might work great for this purpose and believe it should work teathering straight out of Lightroom.
I would give it a shot and see if it works for you.
I do like the ability to control the camera from the computer but you might be able to do that with Lightroom as well.
I use Lightroom over Capture One for this as I use Neg Lab Pro. Hope that helps!
Have you scanned any of the Fuji 690 negs this way? Good as the R5 is I doubt it can out resolve the Fuji, any thoughts? Thanks
Yes I have! I’m not sure about out resolving but since the nes Gil the frame perfectly is works out quite nice and the scans look incredible 👍
Hi
Please share your lens settings. I have same camera and lens. I am unable to focus and entire screen become blurr. It will be great if you can also specify distance.
@@srana2000 I fill the frame with the negative for the distance. The lens does have a switch to set different distances so try the different settings… I shoot at F 7.1 ISO 100 in Aperture priority. Hope that helps!
I saw you have a VCCE module on your enlarger. The one I use at my local community darkroom has a CMY module. Do you find that the VCCE easier to use? Or did your enlarger happen to come with it? Thanks for the video. TH-cam algorithm wins again :)
Thanks! I love the enlarger and was looking for this model. I have had several dichroic head enlargers. The one I used previous to this was an OMEGA Super Chromega Color head. The black and white heads are nice in a sense they are a tad more straightforward… but not by much. In a way I feel the color heads might be more superior because you have finer degree of control.
I really liked the idea of variable contrast constant exposure. That is what sold me. However in practice it does not work with the papers I use. I believe (and I am guessing) that they were calibrated with older versions of Ilford paper and Kodak Papers which… :( So if I am adding more filtration I have to give a bit more exposure to keep the highlights consistent.
Easier to use, I would say no. I would gladly use the color head version and it would not make difference to me…. Plus would then maybe more inclined to print color… 👍
@@Distphoto That's cool you've been able to experience working with both. I've been making my way through the The Variable Contrast Printing Manual. There's a chapter on printing with dichroic heads that's interesting. The darkroom I print at has a table on the enlargers that provides the combination of Y and M settings for your desired contrast. I believe the combination of Y and M, as opposed to the individual Y setting or M setting, allows for consistency in exposure when changing contrasts. Regardless of the setting or module, those machines are my favorite to print with. Thanks for your thoughts :)
Have you seen Minamata? I think you would greatly appreciate the film.
NonInhave not…. I will look into it thanks!
Let this clip whet your appetite. The song is "I want to change the world" by Ten years after. The Story of W Eugene Smith is quite remarkable.th-cam.com/video/xzMTgsL532s/w-d-xo.html
Shiny side, dull side....I dunno, she looks foxy either way😀. Thanks for sharing your workflow.
You’re welcome 😊
Only 36? Even my F100 gives me 37 pretty consistently. Which is both nice to have an extra and mildly irritating to sleeve.
Sleeving that 37th.... 😩. My EOS 1 stops at 36. most of my others (older manual) give me the "extra" frame...
Look at the eyelashes and also the creases in her lips. They are sharper on the emulsion side shot. It's stands to reason because you are shooting the image 'neat'.. Shooting through the shiny side is like shooting though a window. Never ever going to be as sharp.... shooting the emulsion is the only guaranteed way to get the best results. When I scan I scan emulsion side towards the scanner head for the same reason. When I dirty scan my negs with my smart phone, usually 120 or 5x4, using my SAD Lamp (Seasonal Adjusted Disorder) masked up to cut out stray light, I get significantly a better result photographing the emulsion as opposed to through the film base.... Just sayin....
Interesting... Thanks! So if both sides are the same finish (like tmax 100) where they are both shiny do you still see a benefit. I have noticed some color films are this way as well?