Good point on the operator / scanner. This is important because unless they have a mood board on your preferred style/colors, they’ll adjust to what looks good to them.
@@TIPSinc01 the minilab scanners are working to emulate how print paper looks when printing film onto AgX paper. That is why it will never look 'how you like'. It generally is a truer representation of the film in that context but not always suitable for digital (LCD) output.
@@TIPSinc01I did find a v600 for about $140, but a macro lens for my DSLR is $300, plus a light table and film holder. I won't be scanning much (I don't think lol) I'm just getting started as a hobby
You also need to learn how to get the most out your scanner, how to get the best capture, how to get the best inversion. I have a dedicated 35mm scanner and a v700 for 120 and 4x5. It took me a long time but I have a workflow where I love the results I get. CCD scanning means you are actually capturing the actual color of the film vs a CMOS censor where the raw processor is smartly guessing the color. I will say the DSLR workflow looks quick. I may switch to using a DSLR for quick captures then use dedicated film scanner for images I actually want to get the best out of.
Colors and contrast can always be adjusted later. The V600 is not sharp no matter how hard you try to properly position the negative or, make it perfectly flat. It always gives soft images. I had a V600 and it was a waste of money. Eventually, the inside of the glass of the bed fills with dust and becomes foggy. There is no way to take it apart and clean it. With DSLR scanning, you focus on the grain and the original sharpness of the image is captured.
Thanks. Valuable comparison. Digital camera sensors have a tendency to increase contrast, so it's harder to sustain a gradual transition across darker areas of an image. In my opinion, that's why Canon adds the DLO option ("digital light optimization") in their cameras. You can see this In your beach picture. The Noritzu (sp?) Is able to sustain a mild shadow on the berm to the left of the pathway. I think that's closer to how your eye sould process that scene. That being said, the DSLR would be the winner for my goal of restoring 1000's of film photos and slides. Your detailed analysis and experience give me the confidence to go ahead and use my mirrorless. The workflow seems better, and from your examples, scanners seem to have the same tendency to boost contrast a tiny bit and the resolution is actually better with the camera. I believe I heard somewhere that some of the software people use with scanners have good capabilities for removing dust specs and maybe even correcting color shift in aging echtochrome slides. Do you know if it's possible to run your digital images from a DSLR through the scanner software packages? Thanks for making the video.
Thanks! Well, I think when you convert the raw files straight out of the camera the contrast can be high. But with these modern sensors and RAW files you'll have a lot of room also in those shadows. I also like to showcase a scene as how my eyes saw it. The one thing I hate about DSLR scanning is the dust... You'll have to blow it away with a handblower before scanning, and even then small parts will be visible sometimes. That's where Lightroom and photoshop come in. With the Scanners you'll have the option for infra red dust removal, doesn't always work that good but most of the time it does. This will save you some time in post but I don't think it will add up in time compared to DSLR scanning. I only remove the dust I can see at 50%. Only for prints I'll go in depth!
I gave up my V600 pretty quickly. I scan with a mirrorless camera. I used to run a massive scan lab for a high volume portrait company here in the USA, and the combination of a good digital camera, raw files, Negative Lab Pro, Lightroom Classic, and a bit of knowledge and experience often beats that old scan lab for quality. We used Kodak Bremson HR500+ scanners. Results from camera scanning are at least as good. The key is the light source.
Yes I agree on the “DSLR” scanning, really gives such good quality results. Sometimes can be tricky to get the colors right but when you have it it’ll be amazing!
@Phillip Banes not so good, that’s why I’m blowing every negative once with a blower. (For the lack of a better word lol). After that it’s okay, I still have to do some manual work in Lightroom.
@Phillip Banes I think I spend just a couple of seconds on each frame, if I even feel like it. Only when I’m printing work I really go in depth and spend a couple of minutes on it. I agree on the lack of modern film scanners. But who knows in the future!
1) Epson V600 is an entry model; I have V850 and I compared with my friend's V600, the result is significantly different; not even mentioned to the Hasselblad Flextight X5 2) Nortitsu is designed for commercial use - patch process. You can scan a lot of film without taking too much time, just their software is quite outdated 3) with Epson V850 you can scan much higher resolution than DSLR (in terms of similar budget of camera and lens), but you can only output jpg and tiff 4) scanning with DSLR, you need a good output of light source, the light panel has to be even, and strong enough to penetrate films that has higher density to obtain all details 5) cont. 4), if so you can shoot in RAW and obtain more details than flatbed scanner there is actually no best choice, just depends on your preference; As I am a large format shooter (up to 8x10), and I shoot BW film most, V850 is the best choice for me, as you can scan 16bit TIFF for black white
To each its own of course! I think I'm able to get way more detail and dynamic range with DSLR scanning. Definitely for 35mm film I think it's also quicker and easier than flatbad scanning.
I made a DIY slide scanner that cost around $5 usd and will copy at the max capability of your camera / macro lens. The parts are a board, two 3D printed pieces (on thingiverse), and a bolt to hold the camera. For light, a flat panel LED with diffuser that is placed as far away as possible. Shoot at max aperture to ensure blurry background. Can be modified for film of various sizes.
Why would you not shoot at the aperture your lens is the sharpest at? Usually that's around f/8. I don't see why you'd want a blurry background for scanning in the first place
@athmaid You don't want to see individual LEDs, or inconsistencies of the brightness or color of the light source. This is also why you put the light source as far away as possible. "Blurring the background" ensures the most even lighting.
I think the DSLR should always yield the best result because you have control over all the variables by adjusting camera settings and lighting, But for consistency across every scan I’m going with V600
i prefer to load a roll into my scanner and come back to a file of 36 cropped and corrected tiffs. if i want 36 megapixels of perfection i would have just shot it on my digital camera to start with
I still don’t have good frame of reference with DSLR scanning. What is the camera and pixels needed. I want to shoot medium format film but does it make sense to scan it with a lower resolution camera? Can you give more details on the specs of the lab/DSLR/scan resolutions? Thanks.
I think you shouldn’t really bother with the resolution too much. If you have a decent megapixel count it will be alright. Depends on how big you want to print it maybe. A lot of newer cameras even have a bigger resolution than lab scanners. It’s more about the quality of the sensor and definitely the lens. 🙌🏼
I have a few thousand 120 film negatives to scan (family photos for archive). The film was shot 40-60 years ago and unfortunately the negatives were cut up (mostly singles and doubles) to fit in albums. Could you comment on the possible workflow for using a film holder with cut negatives (not a strip)? Many of the negatives have started to curl over time which I believe would further make it difficult. I've tried V850 flatbed, but the results aren't sharp possibly due to film curl.
Hmm that's a very interesting one. Thousands of negatives, that will take you a while... If the flatbed with holder isn't working for you, you might want to check out the liquid method. Maybe Nick Carver has some advice: th-cam.com/video/mfGKd_AEZtY/w-d-xo.html Otherwise, maybe DSLR scanning with a mounted slide holder could help out too: www.negative.supply/shop-all/mounted-slide-holder-light-source-35 Difficult one, because they're all cut up..
I have the Plustek 120 Pro and damn, even a pixel shifted 100mp image doesn’t compare, it has lots of micro contrast, fantastic colors, slow as hell though 😅
@@TIPSinc01 I noticed every video of yours has a diff color grading and they all look great. This one in particular has a very chiq grainy look as well.. Is there a shorcut for me to achieve the same grading? ( I absolutely loved the style!!)
Great overview of different ways of scanning. Thanks for sharing. Just started SLR RAW scanning of old diapositives and 35mm negatives and the workflow is fast even without Negative Lab Pro for the negatives. It all depends on your subjective view of colors, whether it being the highlights or shadows.
You're welcome mate! Glad you liked it! Yes the workflow can be very fast for sure, I've been scanning a lot of rolls lately and I don't want to know how long it would take otherwise LOL!
Thanks a lot, your video has been decisive for me on what to do to scan my film pictures... I've been wandering around for weeks trying to find out the best way to digitalize film photos, ranging from €2.000 scanners, labs that asked for €8 per PHOTOGRAM! And wacky scanning software, you just made me realize that at the end of the day... DSLRs are just better... so I'll gladly walk the paradoxical path of shooting with a film camera a roll of film, develop it on my coffee table on the couch while listening to Spotify... and then take a pictures of those negatives with my DSLR... even though I could've shot the picture with the DSLR to begin with... but where would the fun be in that?! 😂 thanks again for the help! PS: EIGHT FUCKING EUROS TO SCAN ONE SINGLE PICTURE?! I CAN BUY A Sony Alpha 7 IV AFTER 10 ROLLS!! AND HAVE SPARE CHANGE!!
Good to hear! Just imagine your camera is a scanner and not a ''camera''. They are doing the same thing in essence but the DSLR is modern and better in a lot of ways. And yeah, some scanning services are really expensive, therefore DSLR scanning is economical and faster. I recommend the gear from Negative Supply, with your calculations you've got it earned back in no time haha. Check out this episode if you want to: th-cam.com/video/OwE-iFuMqCE/w-d-xo.html
Here because im tryjng to incorporate scanning myself into my workflow. My fiancé has a mirrorless camera that I want to try to use for scanning instead of buying a new scanner. I’ve just heard in some other videos that DSLR scanning doesn’t yield the same results as a dedicated scanner. I think this video has put this assumption to bed.
Not really noticeable. I’ve tried Nikon and canon and they both came out the same. The lens does matter of course. If you have a high quality macro lens it will improve.
I thought about getting an Epson V600 but I don't feel like that would give me satisfying results. DSLR scanning seems to be much better because I didn't like a single V600 scan you showed here. 😅I just watched your video that you linked in the description about DSLR scanning. I might get stand an a macro lens for my Canon 600D then. I don't shoot a lot of film so I might stick to the lab a bit longer for scanning as it is quite the upfront cost.
I understand! I feel like I have so much room to do the things I want with dslr scanning. Yes it’s a cost upfront but if you’re shooting more film it’ll pay up! Most important thing, keep making the work you love! 😎
The thing that gave away this first image was the black levels. The shadows on DSLR were A LOT darker than the lab and V600 which makes sense because it's going to be less likely to pick up on that dynamic range due to the size of the negatives and the differences in the way the scanning works.
Doing it on my own, comparing what I got between the lab scan and my own mirrorless scans (using Silkypix and a M43 camera), I also noticed the lab scans tend to clip highlights and in general have less dynamic range. I did both for a while and sometimes I'd get photos with blown highlights from the lab, then scan it myself and I was able to recover details from the highlights easily. I also noticed a tendency for shadows to go green in the lab scans. I guess it really depends on the scanner and the operator.
Been using the plustek 8200i, self developing and scanning to make for more affordable shooting of great film. But damn does it take long. Then you have the cost for lab vs. just buying a digital camera for dedicated scanning. Decisions decisions. Really appreciate your content though man. Cheers.
Yeah it’s always weighing off the costs and time. But if you’re already owning a SLR it might be more efficient quickly. Thanks mate really appreciate that!
Yes but nobody's giving me a closeup comparison on the grain itself, of the same very sharp perfectly focused Leica 35mm photo, scanned with a Noritsu (which one, what settings?) then with an Epson flatbed (a couple different programs if possible, with related settings) and finally a good DSLR with an high grade macro lens, negative lab pro + settings. Like, I've got like 95 rolls to scan from the last 10 years but I just can't do that with the flatbed cause I swear I'll die before finishing... and everybody's talking me into the DSLR scanning but I need be sure the results are worth the investment / time
Yeah it's also hard to see with the TH-cam compression too. I've did some close up comparison in this video though. If you're only planning on scanning those 95 rolls and don't shoot anymore I don't think it will be worth the investment in a good scanning kit with a camera and good macro lens. Although, scanning 95 rolls at a lab isn't cheap too. I wouldn't recommend the flatbed for 35mm if you're keen on having the highest quality and sharpness, and yes that's a slow process too. The best way I think to do this is to check if you have somebody close with a good DSLR setup and try that out, also send the same roll to the lab and then you can compare it with your own work. I find that I get the best quality in colors and sharpness from my ''DSLR" setup with the Canon RF 100mm L macro lens. But it took me a while to get the colors right and get consistent results within Negative Lab Pro. Nowadays I know exactly how to do it and how the software responds on some negatives. So if you're doing this for the first time and don't plan on doing this for the future I might suggest this isn't really the best option.
DSLR scanning it's a no brainer since most of us already have one, is by far the fastest method and all you need it's an inexpensive macro lens and a light source, film scanners are expensive and super slow and lab is just way too pricey in the long run no to mention having to wait about a week to get your scans
I do agree on that! Also, I think it's way better to be in total control of your work instead of letting someone else handle it. If you have the time of course.
Good point on the operator / scanner. This is important because unless they have a mood board on your preferred style/colors, they’ll adjust to what looks good to them.
Yes, and I’ve tried also sending some work and creating a moodboard. But they never came out as I really wanted them too.
@@TIPSinc01 the minilab scanners are working to emulate how print paper looks when printing film onto AgX paper. That is why it will never look 'how you like'. It generally is a truer representation of the film in that context but not always suitable for digital (LCD) output.
Thanks for making this video. I learned that there is no perfect system. That's very good to know.
You’re welcome! And that’s true! All about preferences and taste 😉
I actually preferred all of the v600 scans without seeing all the results. Guess I'm getting a scanner over a macro lens and stand👌
It’s all about preference of course! But I do think detail and workflow wise the others have a big advantage.
@@TIPSinc01I did find a v600 for about $140, but a macro lens for my DSLR is $300, plus a light table and film holder. I won't be scanning much (I don't think lol) I'm just getting started as a hobby
@@BenjaminTrillington then it’s a perfect setup my friend! Definitely for that price 😎
I prefer v600 in all the images, i feel the reviewer needs to learn how to use the scanner better.
You also need to learn how to get the most out your scanner, how to get the best capture, how to get the best inversion. I have a dedicated 35mm scanner and a v700 for 120 and 4x5. It took me a long time but I have a workflow where I love the results I get. CCD scanning means you are actually capturing the actual color of the film vs a CMOS censor where the raw processor is smartly guessing the color. I will say the DSLR workflow looks quick. I may switch to using a DSLR for quick captures then use dedicated film scanner for images I actually want to get the best out of.
Congratulations, thanks. Valuable comparison.
Thanks mate!
Colors and contrast can always be adjusted later. The V600 is not sharp no matter how hard you try to properly position the negative or, make it perfectly flat. It always gives soft images. I had a V600 and it was a waste of money. Eventually, the inside of the glass of the bed fills with dust and becomes foggy. There is no way to take it apart and clean it. With DSLR scanning, you focus on the grain and the original sharpness of the image is captured.
The colors can be adjusted to a certain point, not infinite. Better to start off with a good scan and DSLR scanning is the way for me!
Thanks. Valuable comparison. Digital camera sensors have a tendency to increase contrast, so it's harder to sustain a gradual transition across darker areas of an image. In my opinion, that's why Canon adds the DLO option ("digital light optimization") in their cameras. You can see this In your beach picture. The Noritzu (sp?) Is able to sustain a mild shadow on the berm to the left of the pathway. I think that's closer to how your eye sould process that scene.
That being said, the DSLR would be the winner for my goal of restoring 1000's of film photos and slides. Your detailed analysis and experience give me the confidence to go ahead and use my mirrorless. The workflow seems better, and from your examples, scanners seem to have the same tendency to boost contrast a tiny bit and the resolution is actually better with the camera.
I believe I heard somewhere that some of the software people use with scanners have good capabilities for removing dust specs and maybe even correcting color shift in aging echtochrome slides. Do you know if it's possible to run your digital images from a DSLR through the scanner software packages?
Thanks for making the video.
Thanks! Well, I think when you convert the raw files straight out of the camera the contrast can be high. But with these modern sensors and RAW files you'll have a lot of room also in those shadows. I also like to showcase a scene as how my eyes saw it.
The one thing I hate about DSLR scanning is the dust... You'll have to blow it away with a handblower before scanning, and even then small parts will be visible sometimes. That's where Lightroom and photoshop come in.
With the Scanners you'll have the option for infra red dust removal, doesn't always work that good but most of the time it does. This will save you some time in post but I don't think it will add up in time compared to DSLR scanning. I only remove the dust I can see at 50%. Only for prints I'll go in depth!
I gave up my V600 pretty quickly. I scan with a mirrorless camera. I used to run a massive scan lab for a high volume portrait company here in the USA, and the combination of a good digital camera, raw files, Negative Lab Pro, Lightroom Classic, and a bit of knowledge and experience often beats that old scan lab for quality. We used Kodak Bremson HR500+ scanners. Results from camera scanning are at least as good. The key is the light source.
Yes I agree on the “DSLR” scanning, really gives such good quality results. Sometimes can be tricky to get the colors right but when you have it it’ll be amazing!
@Phillip Banes not so good, that’s why I’m blowing every negative once with a blower. (For the lack of a better word lol). After that it’s okay, I still have to do some manual work in Lightroom.
@Phillip Banes I think I spend just a couple of seconds on each frame, if I even feel like it. Only when I’m printing work I really go in depth and spend a couple of minutes on it. I agree on the lack of modern film scanners. But who knows in the future!
V600 sucks but epson v850 with fluid mount is amazing. Especially with a multi exposure scan from silverfast
1) Epson V600 is an entry model; I have V850 and I compared with my friend's V600, the result is significantly different; not even mentioned to the Hasselblad Flextight X5
2) Nortitsu is designed for commercial use - patch process. You can scan a lot of film without taking too much time, just their software is quite outdated
3) with Epson V850 you can scan much higher resolution than DSLR (in terms of similar budget of camera and lens), but you can only output jpg and tiff
4) scanning with DSLR, you need a good output of light source, the light panel has to be even, and strong enough to penetrate films that has higher density to obtain all details
5) cont. 4), if so you can shoot in RAW and obtain more details than flatbed scanner
there is actually no best choice, just depends on your preference;
As I am a large format shooter (up to 8x10), and I shoot BW film most, V850 is the best choice for me, as you can scan 16bit TIFF for black white
To each its own of course! I think I'm able to get way more detail and dynamic range with DSLR scanning. Definitely for 35mm film I think it's also quicker and easier than flatbad scanning.
Thanks for this, Lab scans are crazy expensive in LA and not happy with Flatbed scanning. Need to try DSLR.
Yeah those are expensive. Definitely would recommend DSLR scanning!
I made a DIY slide scanner that cost around $5 usd and will copy at the max capability of your camera / macro lens. The parts are a board, two 3D printed pieces (on thingiverse), and a bolt to hold the camera. For light, a flat panel LED with diffuser that is placed as far away as possible. Shoot at max aperture to ensure blurry background. Can be modified for film of various sizes.
Nice! 😎
Why would you not shoot at the aperture your lens is the sharpest at? Usually that's around f/8. I don't see why you'd want a blurry background for scanning in the first place
@@athmaidyes sounds weird to me too. I would shoot it as narrow as possible to make sure the whole negative is sharp. My lens is best at F8 F11 too.
@athmaid You don't want to see individual LEDs, or inconsistencies of the brightness or color of the light source. This is also why you put the light source as far away as possible. "Blurring the background" ensures the most even lighting.
@@tsbrownie why not use a bunch of diffusion layers instead. Personally I'd rather have slightly uneven lighting than a blurry scan
The V600 looks great and with the most dynamic range and highlight rolloff specially in the first portrait.
The V600 can look really great. But the most dynamic range comes from DSLR scanning tbh.
I think the DSLR should always yield the best result because you have control over all the variables by adjusting camera settings and lighting,
But for consistency across every scan I’m going with V600
Yes I think so too! But consistency can also be achieved with DSLR scanning!
i prefer to load a roll into my scanner and come back to a file of 36 cropped and corrected tiffs. if i want 36 megapixels of perfection i would have just shot it on my digital camera to start with
To each its own of course! But there’s a lot more to it than just megapixels lol. Otherwise people wouldn’t decide on a noritsu or frontier.
If the lab used a drum scanner, or a high end flat bed scanner, they usually use a lot of unsharp mask to sharpen the scan.
Probably, there are a lot of different ways to increase detail and sharpness. But these results are how I find them ''right out of the scanner''.
I still don’t have good frame of reference with DSLR scanning. What is the camera and pixels needed. I want to shoot medium format film but does it make sense to scan it with a lower resolution camera? Can you give more details on the specs of the lab/DSLR/scan resolutions? Thanks.
I think you shouldn’t really bother with the resolution too much. If you have a decent megapixel count it will be alright. Depends on how big you want to print it maybe. A lot of newer cameras even have a bigger resolution than lab scanners. It’s more about the quality of the sensor and definitely the lens. 🙌🏼
Thank you for this video. I think I’ll get a v600 initially and if I stick with it spring for the dslr set up 🫡
Great way to start off! Let me know how it goes!
Awesome comparison! Do you happen to know which model of the Noritsu the lab is using?
Thanks! Glad you liked it. I believe it was the noritsu HS-1800.
I have a few thousand 120 film negatives to scan (family photos for archive). The film was shot 40-60 years ago and unfortunately the negatives were cut up (mostly singles and doubles) to fit in albums. Could you comment on the possible workflow for using a film holder with cut negatives (not a strip)? Many of the negatives have started to curl over time which I believe would further make it difficult. I've tried V850 flatbed, but the results aren't sharp possibly due to film curl.
Hmm that's a very interesting one. Thousands of negatives, that will take you a while... If the flatbed with holder isn't working for you, you might want to check out the liquid method. Maybe Nick Carver has some advice: th-cam.com/video/mfGKd_AEZtY/w-d-xo.html
Otherwise, maybe DSLR scanning with a mounted slide holder could help out too: www.negative.supply/shop-all/mounted-slide-holder-light-source-35
Difficult one, because they're all cut up..
I've got the same problem!
What about a dedicated film scanner, 8ncl slides?
I don’t have a lot of experience with it. But I hear some good things about the plustek for instance.
I have the Plustek 120 Pro and damn, even a pixel shifted 100mp image doesn’t compare, it has lots of micro contrast, fantastic colors, slow as hell though 😅
I’ve heard some good things about the plustek scanners too. But I would go for a DSLR scanning setup anytime. 😁
your color preset in the videos are outstanding! Is there certain LUT that you use?
Thank you! No it’s not a LUT. I’m color grading it all! 🙏🏼
@@TIPSinc01 I noticed every video of yours has a diff color grading and they all look great. This one in particular has a very chiq grainy look as well.. Is there a shorcut for me to achieve the same grading? ( I absolutely loved the style!!)
@@artifintel well, try looking at some Kodak 2383 print emulations. Maybe some Fuji too, might help out 🙏🏼
Thanks, fantastic video
Appreciate that, glad you liked it!
Great overview of different ways of scanning. Thanks for sharing. Just started SLR RAW scanning of old diapositives and 35mm negatives and the workflow is fast even without Negative Lab Pro for the negatives. It all depends on your subjective view of colors, whether it being the highlights or shadows.
You're welcome mate! Glad you liked it! Yes the workflow can be very fast for sure, I've been scanning a lot of rolls lately and I don't want to know how long it would take otherwise LOL!
Thanks a lot, your video has been decisive for me on what to do to scan my film pictures... I've been wandering around for weeks trying to find out the best way to digitalize film photos, ranging from €2.000 scanners, labs that asked for €8 per PHOTOGRAM! And wacky scanning software, you just made me realize that at the end of the day... DSLRs are just better... so I'll gladly walk the paradoxical path of shooting with a film camera a roll of film, develop it on my coffee table on the couch while listening to Spotify... and then take a pictures of those negatives with my DSLR... even though I could've shot the picture with the DSLR to begin with... but where would the fun be in that?! 😂 thanks again for the help!
PS: EIGHT FUCKING EUROS TO SCAN ONE SINGLE PICTURE?! I CAN BUY A Sony Alpha 7 IV AFTER 10 ROLLS!! AND HAVE SPARE CHANGE!!
Good to hear! Just imagine your camera is a scanner and not a ''camera''. They are doing the same thing in essence but the DSLR is modern and better in a lot of ways. And yeah, some scanning services are really expensive, therefore DSLR scanning is economical and faster. I recommend the gear from Negative Supply, with your calculations you've got it earned back in no time haha. Check out this episode if you want to: th-cam.com/video/OwE-iFuMqCE/w-d-xo.html
Here because im tryjng to incorporate scanning myself into my workflow. My fiancé has a mirrorless camera that I want to try to use for scanning instead of buying a new scanner. I’ve just heard in some other videos that DSLR scanning doesn’t yield the same results as a dedicated scanner. I think this video has put this assumption to bed.
In my experience and opinions you'll able to get more dynamic range and sharpness when using a good DSLR setup. It's also a lot faster!
Does the camera also make a difference and will then effect the image?
Not really noticeable. I’ve tried Nikon and canon and they both came out the same. The lens does matter of course. If you have a high quality macro lens it will improve.
Thanks for that.@@TIPSinc01
@@thegroove2000 no problem at all!
I thought about getting an Epson V600 but I don't feel like that would give me satisfying results. DSLR scanning seems to be much better because I didn't like a single V600 scan you showed here. 😅I just watched your video that you linked in the description about DSLR scanning. I might get stand an a macro lens for my Canon 600D then. I don't shoot a lot of film so I might stick to the lab a bit longer for scanning as it is quite the upfront cost.
I understand! I feel like I have so much room to do the things I want with dslr scanning. Yes it’s a cost upfront but if you’re shooting more film it’ll pay up! Most important thing, keep making the work you love! 😎
bare in mind the v600 software is shit. u gonna have to use vuescan software with v600
The thing that gave away this first image was the black levels. The shadows on DSLR were A LOT darker than the lab and V600 which makes sense because it's going to be less likely to pick up on that dynamic range due to the size of the negatives and the differences in the way the scanning works.
In my experience the DSLR scanning method results in more dynamic range then the lab scans, but definitely more then the V600.
Doing it on my own, comparing what I got between the lab scan and my own mirrorless scans (using Silkypix and a M43 camera), I also noticed the lab scans tend to clip highlights and in general have less dynamic range. I did both for a while and sometimes I'd get photos with blown highlights from the lab, then scan it myself and I was able to recover details from the highlights easily. I also noticed a tendency for shadows to go green in the lab scans. I guess it really depends on the scanner and the operator.
Curious what camera you’re using for scanning ?
I use a Canon EOS R with a RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro
Very informative, might try dale scanning myself
Yes you should definitely try it out! ✌🏼
Been using the plustek 8200i, self developing and scanning to make for more affordable shooting of great film. But damn does it take long. Then you have the cost for lab vs. just buying a digital camera for dedicated scanning. Decisions decisions. Really appreciate your content though man. Cheers.
Yeah it’s always weighing off the costs and time. But if you’re already owning a SLR it might be more efficient quickly. Thanks mate really appreciate that!
Yes but nobody's giving me a closeup comparison on the grain itself, of the same very sharp perfectly focused Leica 35mm photo, scanned with a Noritsu (which one, what settings?) then with an Epson flatbed (a couple different programs if possible, with related settings) and finally a good DSLR with an high grade macro lens, negative lab pro + settings.
Like, I've got like 95 rolls to scan from the last 10 years but I just can't do that with the flatbed cause I swear I'll die before finishing... and everybody's talking me into the DSLR scanning but I need be sure the results are worth the investment / time
Yeah it's also hard to see with the TH-cam compression too. I've did some close up comparison in this video though.
If you're only planning on scanning those 95 rolls and don't shoot anymore I don't think it will be worth the investment in a good scanning kit with a camera and good macro lens. Although, scanning 95 rolls at a lab isn't cheap too.
I wouldn't recommend the flatbed for 35mm if you're keen on having the highest quality and sharpness, and yes that's a slow process too.
The best way I think to do this is to check if you have somebody close with a good DSLR setup and try that out, also send the same roll to the lab and then you can compare it with your own work.
I find that I get the best quality in colors and sharpness from my ''DSLR" setup with the Canon RF 100mm L macro lens. But it took me a while to get the colors right and get consistent results within Negative Lab Pro. Nowadays I know exactly how to do it and how the software responds on some negatives. So if you're doing this for the first time and don't plan on doing this for the future I might suggest this isn't really the best option.
Mmmmmm might have to try this. Thanks man.
Check it out & let me know!
Interessante vergelijking, de dslr methode spreekt mij het meeste aan. Als ik de resultaten op full resolutie van de video bekijk.
Ja mij ook! Ook de workflow ligt mij het beste. Thanks voor je reactie Bernd! ✌🏼
This is a great comparison! Thank you! So informative!
plusteks??
Haven’t tried those before but have seen some good results with the higher end ones.
god those KRKs are massive
Haha they are! 😎
Ah, de daf. Geweldig dankje
Haha! Prachtige auto! & graag gedaan 🙏🏼
DSLR scanning it's a no brainer since most of us already have one, is by far the fastest method and all you need it's an inexpensive macro lens and a light source, film scanners are expensive and super slow and lab is just way too pricey in the long run no to mention having to wait about a week to get your scans
I do agree on that! Also, I think it's way better to be in total control of your work instead of letting someone else handle it. If you have the time of course.
V600 does way better with lomography DigitaLIZA
Never used that before but looks promising!
Lab
Tell me why! 😁
V600
🙌🏼
A C B
🙌🏼
Very informative, might try dale scanning myself
Glad that it was informative!