Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.
As some of you may know from my recent posts, I've become interested in film photography of late. Ultimately, I'd like to develop and digitise my own films so that I have complete control over a hybrid workflow. Whilst this is primarily for creative reasons, it's also to minimise costs. Here in the UK, a typical photographic lab will charge around GBP £16 (USD $22) or more to develop, scan and return a single 35mm film. The most costly element in that service is scanning, with basic quality 8-bit JPEG scans costing around GBP £6 (USD $8.25). Higher-quality TIFF scans are considerably more expensive, and some labs don't even offer these as an option.
In taking control of my workflow, I set myself two projects - (1) learning and equipping myself to develop film, and (2) putting together a film digitising solution. Since the costs of lab scanning outweigh those of developing, I decided to build the digitising solution first and use labs to develop my films for the time being.
I own a number of film cameras in 35mm, 6x6 and 645 formats, and I'll be shooting these with both B&W and colour negative films. Hence, my digitising rig needs to be capable of handling all these formats and converting negatives to positives. With this requirement in mind, I started researching various approaches to digitising, including professional drum scanners, dedicated desktop film scanners, flatbed scanners with film capability, and photographic digitising (using a DSLR or mirrorless camera to capture negatives as photos).
These were my broad findings:
Professional drum scanners are capable of the best results but they're expensive to buy and run. Even well-used examples command high prices of several thousand pounds or dollars, and they need periodic service and maintenance to keep running.
Dedicated desktop film scanners that handle both 135 and 120 are fewer in number than 35mm-only units. Some models come with software that, in conjunction with the hardware, provide dust and scratch removal for colour films during scanning, at the expense of some detail. Scan times are lengthy. Unlike 35mm-only units, dual format models are expensive, with PlusTek's excellent OpticFilm 120 Pro costing around GBP £2,000 (USD $2,750). Older, used models such as Nikon's revered CoolScan 9000 ED seem to command even higher prices. The considerably-cheaper Pacific Image PF120, whilst well-specified, seems beset by issues and poor reviews.
Flatbed scanners can be very affordable (especially mid-range models such as the Epson V500 and V600), and with either OEM or third-party film holders they're able to scan both 35mm and 120 film formats with fairly good quality, and capable of scanning several frames at once. As with dedicated scanners, some have software that removes dust and scratches for colour negatives, at the expense of some detail. However, flatbed scanners can suffer from several well-known and often-discussed issues - (1) a significant difference between claimed and real image resolution, limited by the sensor's lens; (2) possible exposure inconsistencies, banding and line artefacts in scans, especially with larger formats, requiring flat field correction in post-processing; (3) the need to adjust or shim film holders to offset poor focus calibration; (4) issues with OEM film holders in keeping film completely flat; and (5) lengthy scan times for higher resolution files.
Photographic digitising can also be very affordable, especially for those who already own a good DSLR or mirrorless camera and suitable macro lens (or non-macro lens plus extension tubes). Depending on the camera's sensor resolution and lens used, it's possible to achieve capture resolution exceeding that of many dedicated film scanners and most (perhaps all) flatbed units. Best resolution is obtained when the aspect ratio of the film format matches that of the camera, while for other aspect ratios, the output resolution will be lower due to cropping. Where very high resolution files are required, multiple shots can be taken and combined by stitching. Each frame can be digitised in a matter of seconds; it's by far the fastest method of all the options. However, unlike some desktop and flatbed scanners there is no integration between hardware and software to allow dust and scratch removal for colour negatives, and these have to be removed by hand in post-processing. This means that it's very important to ensure negatives are as clean as possible before digitising them.
The only two options that met my requirements and budget were flatbed scanning and photographic digitising. Both are good options, but I decided that photographic digitising was preferable for me, since I already own several DSLRs and macro lenses.
It seems there are two popular ways to configure a photographic digitising rig:
The first involves mounting the camera and macro lens at one end of an adjustable rail, a suitable film holder at the other, and - optionally, but highly recommended - a bellows between lens and film holder to provide a light-tight path. The film holder is then back-lit using a diffused flash or other light source. This setup can be constructed quite inexpensively from mostly used, vintage or even DIY components, but sourcing suitable film holders, bellows, adapters and mounts to support both 135 and 120 film is easier said than done. Once constructed, however, it enables effective digitising in almost any lighting situation, including a brightly-lit room.
The second approach involves mounting the camera and lens on a tripod, pointing down towards a film holder and back-lighting panel resting on the floor or table-top. The tripod must be configurable such that the camera can be mounted in this orientation, or a horizontal arm attachment can be used instead. Any adjustable tripod head can be used, but fluid or geared heads that allow fine X-Y axis adjustment are preferred, so that lens-to-film geometry can be optimised. A variation on this approach replaces the tripod with a copy stand, which makes it easier to adjust height and ensure correct lens-to-film geometry. Since there is no bellows between lens and film holder in this setup, it should be used in a darkened room (lights off, curtains closed) to avoid reflections on the film and a resulting loss of contrast in the images.
I considered both approaches and settled on the second, since I already owned (what I thought was) a suitable tripod. Armed with that, one of my Pentax DSLRs and the D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR lens, all I needed was a film holder and light panel of some description.
When it comes to film holders, there are numerous options including OEM and third party flatbed scanner strip holders, "frame-by-frame" holders where the film is advanced after each frame is digitised, and all manner of DIY solutions made from plastic, wood and even card! Perhaps the most important capability of any film holder is to keep the film as flat as possible during the digitising process, so that all areas of the frame will be in sharp focus. Many flatbed scanner film holders and DIY solutions are notoriously poor in this respect, especially when film strips have curled. Some 3D-printed frame-by-frame holders are better, but the best performance is generally offered by some of the commercially-manufactured versions. After much research and deliberation, I chose the EFH Essential Film Holder, designed and manufactured here in the UK by Andrew Clifforth. It supports 135 and 120 film and slides in a range of formats, using a variety of masks that can be easily configured by the user. Although a considerably more expensive option than 3D-printing one of several free designs available, it's a better-engineered solution that rivals far more costly products from larger companies like Kaiser. The EFH kit comes with a 135 mask and a 120 mask that accommodates 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Additionally, I ordered dedicated 645 and 6x6 masks that allow for quicker and easier alignment when digitising just one specific format at a time; a 135 mask that exposes the sprocket holes and film info; a 120 mask that exposes the borders; and a 135 slide holder (whether I'll use all of these is debatable, but it was cheaper to buy them as a bundle with the kit).
There are even more choices where light panels are concerned, including many types of LED video lights, panels designed for viewing negatives and slides, cheap so-called "tracing panels", home-rigged daylight halogen bulbs etc. The most important properties of any light source for this purpose are that it should be well-diffused and - for colour negatives and slides - have a colour temperature of around 5000K, with a CRI (Colour Rendering Index) of around 95 or higher. These properties ensure that the film is evenly lit and projects accurate colours for digitising. After reviewing and considering a wide range of options, I chose the Kaiser SlimLite Plano 2453 light panel, which is purpose-designed for viewing negatives and slides. It features an evenly-diffused LED panel with colour temperature of ~5000K and a CRI of 95, and is powered by USB or the built-in rechargeable Li-ion battery.
On my first attempt at setting everything up, I used my Giottos aluminium tripod and Manfrotto MH055M8-Q5 head to mount the camera and lens in a downward-facing orientation, pointing at the EFH film holder (with 135 film inserted) and Kaiser light panel which were resting on my dining room table. At this point I discovered a significant limitation with the tripod. To mount the camera in this orientation, the central column is removed and re-attached such that it sits almost horizontally... however, since the central column has been removed, the only way to adjust the height is via the legs - and every time I adjusted the legs, I had to re-adjust the Manfrotto head to ensure the camera and lens were absolutely perpendicular to the film. Achieving precisely the right height and lens-to-film geometry to capture the frame accurately was a fiddly and time-consuming process, involving quite a bit of trial and error. Since I'd have to go through this same charade every time I set up my rig, I decided a better solution was required.
I had two options at this point: (1) buy some form of horizontal arm and mount that attaches to the tripod's central column, or (2) buy a copy stand. After careful thought, I decided that a copy stand - purpose-built for this kind of work - was a more robust and efficient solution.
There are numerous copy stands on the market (though not as many as you might expect), but surprisingly few budget products that are sturdy enough for a reasonably heavy DSLR and lens whilst offering sufficient height adjustment range to cater for digitising both smaller and larger film formats. A few companies such as Kaiser offer professional stands, but these are expensive. After a good deal of searching, I found and ordered an unbranded model - the "CS 720" - that matched my requirements perfectly, at an attractive price.
Setting up with the copy stand was a breeze compared to the tripod. A quick release plate is attached to the camera and clips into the sturdy head which is height adjustable on the shaft using a large rotary knob. The Y-axis alignment of the camera to the stand's base is perfect as soon as it's clipped into the head. Only the X-axis alignment needs fine-tuning, by adjusting rotation of the camera on the quick release plate. To make this easier, I fitted an inexpensive shoe-mount spirit level to the camera's hot-shoe, and tightened the quick release plate just enough that I could make small adjustments by "nudging" the camera to rotate it ever-so-slightly as required. Once the correct alignment was achieved, I fully tightened the quick release plate.
One more addition was made to the rig. The surface area of the Kaiser light panel is greater than the dimensions of the film holder, and as a result a lot of unwanted light escapes around the sides of the holder and towards the lens. To address this, I cut a mask from 1mm black neoprene rubber, with a rectangular hole in the middle that's just slightly smaller than the film holder. This mat sits on top of the Kaiser light panel and ensures that only the film holder is illuminated. As an additional benefit, the feet of the film holder rest on this rubber mat, so it doesn't slide around on the light panel's shiny surface.
This is what the completed rig looks like:
EFH film holder:
Kaiser light panel and home-made mask:
To capture the negatives, I set the camera to raw format, manual focus, (A)v mode, base ISO, remote shutter with delay, and the lens to f/8 (or f/11 for greater depth of field, at the expense of very minor diffraction). In Live View I then look at the live histogram and adjust EV compensation until the histogram distribution is more-or-less centred. I fine tune manual focus with Live View magnified, ensure the frame is aligned reasonably well, then take the shot with an IR remote.
The Kaiser light panel isn't especially bright, so long shutter speeds are required - typically around 2 to 3 seconds. I suspect this could be improved by removing the film holder's diffuser panel, which isn't strictly necessary given that the Kaiser panel is itself diffused.
Having digitised the negatives, the final stage is to convert them to positive images...
Unlike dedicated desktop film scanners and flatbed scanners, this camera-based solution has no bundled software, so regular raw conversion tools must be used (or a combination of raw converter and image editor). I considered and trialled three options - Darktable, RawTherapee and Lightroom. Darktable comes with the Negadoctor module to assist with negative conversion, while RawTherapee has its Film Negative module. Lightroom has no such facility, but a commercial plug-in - the very popular "Negative Lab Pro" - is available, and I used the free trial of this while reviewing the capabilities of each.
With colour negatives kindly supplied by a fellow forum member and some B&W negatives of my own, I spent hours learning to convert these to positives in all three of my chosen tools. The conclusion I reached for both Darktable and RawTherapee is that they're each capable of producing great results with B&W negatives, but colour negative conversions require a good deal of additional work to remove colour casts and achieve convincing results - and even then, it's difficult to know if the end result conveys the character of the film stock used. Negative Lab Pro in Lightroom, though, is simple to use, powerful, emulates popular lab scanners and produces highly-convincing output that looks just like you'd expect from a lab. I'm no longer a fan of Adobe and try to avoid using Lightroom whenever possible, but I decided to make an exception where Negative Lab Pro is concerned and ordered a copy of the plug-in.
-----
If you're thinking of digitising your own negatives and haven't yet considered your options, I hope this post may give you a few pointers - and if you've any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. If, however, you're already digitising, I'd love to know what your setup consists of and receive any constructive criticisms you might have on my own choices - both for my own benefit and that of other members.
Thanks for reading, folks, and best wishes to all...
------
EDIT: Following my original post, I've since connected the camera's HDMI output to my 24" BenQ monitor. Whilst not essential, it's quite helpful when aligning negatives and adjusting critical focus. Once this is achieved, I switch the monitor off to avoid reflections on the film (remember: lights off & curtains closed for optimal contrast with this particular digitising config! 
)... 
Originally posted by BigMackCam 
Glad to hear you'll be doing something similar. It's quite rewarding being able to digitise negatives, and after a short "break" (where I intend to focus on actually shooting some film!! 
), I'll be ready to move onto developing 
Post #1 by BigMackCam
Similar Threads 
