Has anyone used their DSLR w/ macro to capture a 35mm negative?

geekette · 04-21-2011, 05:07 AM

I wonder if snapping a pic of a 35mm negative (with dslr camera w/ macro setup) would give as good results as using a negative scanner.

violini · 04-21-2011, 06:51 AM

It'll work on slides but not negative.

Tom in Delaware · 04-21-2011, 07:15 AM

You can do this but you have to be able to invert the image in Photoshop and then correct the image to remove the (now blue) color mask. Here is a link to a description of the scanning process:
http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html

Here is a link to a description of the PS process:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2007HTM/ACT06-reversing_C41.htm

bobpur · 04-21-2011, 07:26 AM

Hi
Have done hundreds of slides and negatives with a home made light box and a tripod.
Both color and black/white.
Just a small wood box with 18w mini flor. bulb, glass top covered with a piece of paper to soften the light. You can use a cardboard cutout to align the Slides/neg. Once the setup and focus is
done it is a fast production line thing.
Just 2 steps. Reverse the images for negatives then use auto white balance.
I use Digikam to reverse ( I use Linux ) then I find the best is Picasa for the color adjust.
Have done 110 color neg. to 4x6 old B/W

doskopanda · 04-21-2011, 07:42 AM

I have done it based on few guides from the web, but I couldnt get an optically optimum looking image(maybe I'm just lazy and doing it incompletely). So i just a bought a scanner instead

Wombat · 04-25-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by geekette

I wonder if snapping a pic of a 35mm negative (with dslr camera w/ macro setup) would give as good results as using a negative scanner.

Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film.

stevebrot · 04-25-2011, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Wombat

Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film.

Huh?

The intent, I believe is to digitize legacy film images or to have an option, other than an expensive film scanner, to digitize current images. This idea gets tossed around every once in awhile, but with few exceptions, most users who have tried this approach don't give an encouraging report. (The one exception that comes to mind was a post I read where someone was using an Olympus duplicator bellows that had an adapter for spooled roll film. Very well built and very cool.)

Steve

titrisol · 04-26-2011, 12:07 AM

If you can scan/digitize how do you share the pics with people like us?
And yes it does work fine, however reflectios can be a bitch and the use of a decent white light is essential.
I have a mini light table from GEPE (20x15 cm) which is good enough, but I guess some leds and a diffuser should also work.

I am now digitizing hunderds of negatives and slides I found in my mother's house. My father took those in the 60s and 70s (aka my childhood) using a Zeiss Ikon first, and then the mighty Spotmatic (he bought it new in Japan 1973).
After digitizing I'm sharing them with my brother and sister on the other side of the world. Possible otherwise but far more expensive.

For slides, I'll also try this sometime in the summermonths
http://babryce.com/slidedigitizer.html

Originally posted by Wombat

Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film.

Wombat · 04-26-2011, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

The intent, I believe is to digitize legacy film images...
Steve

I must have missed this somewhere. But yes, I did make an assumption, so sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt, geekette.

geekette · 04-26-2011, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Wombat

I must have missed this somewhere. But yes, I did make an assumption, so sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt, geekette.

I want to use it for both digitizing old film and new film pics I take. I want to be able to share film caputres online on flickr, here and elsewhere. And yeah I like taking film pics for the pure enjoyment of it because I've used film SLR since the 80's. It brings back memories and I like how the heavy Pentax K2 feels in my hands--it sure feels a lot more comfortable in my hands than these lightweight tiny, 2/3rds body cameras, that feels like I can only hold with one hand.

BirdDude007 · 04-30-2011, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by geekette

I want to use it for both digitizing old film and new film pics I take. I want to be able to share film caputres online on flickr, here and elsewhere. And yeah I like taking film pics for the pure enjoyment of it because I've used film SLR since the 80's. It brings back memories and I like how the heavy Pentax K2 feels in my hands--it sure feels a lot more comfortable in my hands than these lightweight tiny, 2/3rds body cameras, that feels like I can only hold with one hand.

It's funny you should say that, I have used an ME Super all my life and now I have a K-X and was thinkin that it mightbe smaller than my old film camera, after I did a side by side comparison the K-x is larger and actually heavier than my ME Super body, and it feels more comfortable in my hands. Now if you add the ME II winder to the Me Super body along with batteries you then have something bigger and heavier.
I too love the feel of the old film cameras but hate the cost of film and developing and the hassel of it all.

As to what the OP is concerned about I actually photographed a bunch of my old slides and negatives with a point and shoot Canon and a light box, they came out pretty good but I imagine the dedicated scanners work better.

fafo13 · 04-30-2011, 09:45 PM

one word -scanner

geekette · 04-30-2011, 10:50 PM

fafo13, which one?

stevebrot · 05-01-2011, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by geekette

fafo13, which one?

There is a fair amount of discussion in this section of this site:

Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom - PentaxForums.com

The short answer is that there is no short answer! Much depends on the size of negative you scan, your purpose for scanning, how much time you have, and your resolution/quality requirements...oh, yeah...and budget. If you are scanning 35mm, have tons of slides to archive, have little time, and need better than 2400 dpi...$$$$$$

If you are scanning MF or larger with the same requirements...

To balance the above...almost any decent film scanner will deliver better results than what you get from the minilab...regardless of the size of file they deliver (garbage bigger = bigger garbage). Entry point is around $200 USD.

Steve

(Currently has two scanners...Nikon 5000 ED (for 35mm, currently in the shop, no longer made, mucho dinero used) and Epson V700 (for 120 and 4x5)...also has a Microtek flatbed that cannot be given away...)

geekette · 05-01-2011, 02:50 PM

I have the 8400F canon scanner. I've used it to scan a few negatives. I guess it's ok. I just have to clean up the dust in photoshop.

04-21-2011, 05:07 AM	#1
geekette Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 528	Has anyone used their DSLR w/ macro to capture a 35mm negative? I wonder if snapping a pic of a 35mm negative (with dslr camera w/ macro setup) would give as good results as using a negative scanner.

04-21-2011, 07:15 AM	#3
Tom in Delaware Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Delaware Posts: 177	You can do this but you have to be able to invert the image in Photoshop and then correct the image to remove the (now blue) color mask. Here is a link to a description of the scanning process: http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html Here is a link to a description of the PS process: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2007HTM/ACT06-reversing_C41.htm Last edited by Tom in Delaware; 04-21-2011 at 08:02 AM.

04-26-2011, 12:07 AM	#8
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,852	If you can scan/digitize how do you share the pics with people like us? And yes it does work fine, however reflectios can be a bitch and the use of a decent white light is essential. I have a mini light table from GEPE (20x15 cm) which is good enough, but I guess some leds and a diffuser should also work. I am now digitizing hunderds of negatives and slides I found in my mother's house. My father took those in the 60s and 70s (aka my childhood) using a Zeiss Ikon first, and then the mighty Spotmatic (he bought it new in Japan 1973). After digitizing I'm sharing them with my brother and sister on the other side of the world. Possible otherwise but far more expensive. For slides, I'll also try this sometime in the summermonths http://babryce.com/slidedigitizer.html Originally posted by Wombat Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film. Last edited by titrisol; 04-26-2011 at 12:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bulk 35mm negative/slide scanning services?	heatherslightbox	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	9	05-28-2011 05:35 AM
some ?? about the asp-c sensor compared to 35mm negative	lguckert79	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	02-12-2011 11:44 AM
35mm negative scanning progress: Me vs. Walgreens	ismaelg	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	9	08-27-2010 02:12 PM
35mm negative scanning: Emulsion side up, down or....	ismaelg	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	4	08-23-2010 06:07 PM
Can I still get 35mm Negative binder Sheets?	konraDarnok	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	01-02-2008 11:02 PM

04-21-2011, 06:51 AM	#2
violini Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Winnipeg MB Photos: Gallery Posts: 350	It'll work on slides but not negative.

04-21-2011, 07:26 AM	#4
bobpur Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 328	Hi Have done hundreds of slides and negatives with a home made light box and a tripod. Both color and black/white. Just a small wood box with 18w mini flor. bulb, glass top covered with a piece of paper to soften the light. You can use a cardboard cutout to align the Slides/neg. Once the setup and focus is done it is a fast production line thing. Just 2 steps. Reverse the images for negatives then use auto white balance. I use Digikam to reverse ( I use Linux ) then I find the best is Picasa for the color adjust. Have done 110 color neg. to 4x6 old B/W

04-21-2011, 07:42 AM	#5
doskopanda Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 46	I have done it based on few guides from the web, but I couldnt get an optically optimum looking image(maybe I'm just lazy and doing it incompletely). So i just a bought a scanner instead

04-25-2011, 08:11 AM	#6
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Originally posted by geekette I wonder if snapping a pic of a 35mm negative (with dslr camera w/ macro setup) would give as good results as using a negative scanner. Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film.

04-25-2011, 09:05 PM	#7
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Wombat Presumably you're shooting film for the joyful experience of shooting film. Then you want to re-shoot the negative with a digital camera? Doesn't make sense to me. You might as well take the shot with the digital and be done with it. No offence, but it seems to miss the point of shooting film. Huh? The intent, I believe is to digitize legacy film images or to have an option, other than an expensive film scanner, to digitize current images. This idea gets tossed around every once in awhile, but with few exceptions, most users who have tried this approach don't give an encouraging report. (The one exception that comes to mind was a post I read where someone was using an Olympus duplicator bellows that had an adapter for spooled roll film. Very well built and very cool.) Steve

04-26-2011, 01:37 AM	#9
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Originally posted by stevebrot The intent, I believe is to digitize legacy film images... Steve I must have missed this somewhere. But yes, I did make an assumption, so sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt, geekette.

04-26-2011, 01:48 AM	#10
geekette Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 528 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wombat I must have missed this somewhere. But yes, I did make an assumption, so sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt, geekette. I want to use it for both digitizing old film and new film pics I take. I want to be able to share film caputres online on flickr, here and elsewhere. And yeah I like taking film pics for the pure enjoyment of it because I've used film SLR since the 80's. It brings back memories and I like how the heavy Pentax K2 feels in my hands--it sure feels a lot more comfortable in my hands than these lightweight tiny, 2/3rds body cameras, that feels like I can only hold with one hand.

04-30-2011, 01:55 PM	#11
BirdDude007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Las Vegas NV Photos: Albums Posts: 784	Originally posted by geekette I want to use it for both digitizing old film and new film pics I take. I want to be able to share film caputres online on flickr, here and elsewhere. And yeah I like taking film pics for the pure enjoyment of it because I've used film SLR since the 80's. It brings back memories and I like how the heavy Pentax K2 feels in my hands--it sure feels a lot more comfortable in my hands than these lightweight tiny, 2/3rds body cameras, that feels like I can only hold with one hand. It's funny you should say that, I have used an ME Super all my life and now I have a K-X and was thinkin that it mightbe smaller than my old film camera, after I did a side by side comparison the K-x is larger and actually heavier than my ME Super body, and it feels more comfortable in my hands. Now if you add the ME II winder to the Me Super body along with batteries you then have something bigger and heavier. I too love the feel of the old film cameras but hate the cost of film and developing and the hassel of it all. As to what the OP is concerned about I actually photographed a bunch of my old slides and negatives with a point and shoot Canon and a light box, they came out pretty good but I imagine the dedicated scanners work better.

04-30-2011, 09:45 PM	#12
fafo13 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: us Photos: Gallery Posts: 55	one word -scanner

04-30-2011, 10:50 PM	#13
geekette Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 528 Original Poster	fafo13, which one?

05-01-2011, 08:28 AM	#14
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by geekette fafo13, which one? There is a fair amount of discussion in this section of this site: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom - PentaxForums.com The short answer is that there is no short answer! Much depends on the size of negative you scan, your purpose for scanning, how much time you have, and your resolution/quality requirements...oh, yeah...and budget. If you are scanning 35mm, have tons of slides to archive, have little time, and need better than 2400 dpi...$$$$$$ If you are scanning MF or larger with the same requirements... To balance the above...almost any decent film scanner will deliver better results than what you get from the minilab...regardless of the size of file they deliver (garbage bigger = bigger garbage). Entry point is around $200 USD. Steve (Currently has two scanners...Nikon 5000 ED (for 35mm, currently in the shop, no longer made, mucho dinero used) and Epson V700 (for 120 and 4x5)...also has a Microtek flatbed that cannot be given away...)

05-01-2011, 02:50 PM	#15
geekette Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 528 Original Poster	I have the 8400F canon scanner. I've used it to scan a few negatives. I guess it's ok. I just have to clean up the dust in photoshop.