Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My old Nikon LS-8000ED film scanner has finally died. I've had it for 19 years and scanned thousands of photographs with it. I still have a huge amount of film to scan, especially since I have gotten back into film pretty heavily in the last year after shooting mostly digital for the last couple years before that.
Well, no one makes a decent film scanner anymore. The Plustek stuff just isn't that good from what I've seen done with it. I can't afford another old Nikon, they're selling for stupid prices considering that they're not repairable in many cases if they break. Even if I had the money, I would not take that risk.
So, I guess I am going to try photographing my film with my digital camera. I did some quick tests to see if it is worth investing in a the equipment I'll need for it. I have a great macro lens and a good camera, but need a copystand and light source.
The tests I did were done by standing the camera on its lens, pointing down at my light table, using some film developing reels to hold the lens a few inches above the film. The film was in a print file page, which makes the sharpness I got all the more nice.
This is the full image captured by the camera. It is not the full 35mm frame because I couldn't get the camera up high enough to see the whole negative. It looks very sharp!
This is a 100% crop from the full image above. It captured as much detail as my Nikon scanner would have. I think this will work once I get a copystand and a better light source. My old light table has very uneven light, so its not suitable for actual work.
My camera is an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II, a 20mp camera. I'm using the Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro. Once I get the other equipment, I'm going to experiment with the Olympus camera's high-resolution sensor-shift mode to see if it gets me any more detail out of the film. The film in the example I've posted was Tmax 400, 35mm.
Well, no one makes a decent film scanner anymore. The Plustek stuff just isn't that good from what I've seen done with it. I can't afford another old Nikon, they're selling for stupid prices considering that they're not repairable in many cases if they break. Even if I had the money, I would not take that risk.
So, I guess I am going to try photographing my film with my digital camera. I did some quick tests to see if it is worth investing in a the equipment I'll need for it. I have a great macro lens and a good camera, but need a copystand and light source.
The tests I did were done by standing the camera on its lens, pointing down at my light table, using some film developing reels to hold the lens a few inches above the film. The film was in a print file page, which makes the sharpness I got all the more nice.
This is the full image captured by the camera. It is not the full 35mm frame because I couldn't get the camera up high enough to see the whole negative. It looks very sharp!
This is a 100% crop from the full image above. It captured as much detail as my Nikon scanner would have. I think this will work once I get a copystand and a better light source. My old light table has very uneven light, so its not suitable for actual work.
My camera is an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II, a 20mp camera. I'm using the Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro. Once I get the other equipment, I'm going to experiment with the Olympus camera's high-resolution sensor-shift mode to see if it gets me any more detail out of the film. The film in the example I've posted was Tmax 400, 35mm.
madNbad
Well-known
Currently I’m using a Skier Copybox. It’s a fairly expensive option but includes everything. Light source, negative holders for 135, 35mm slides and an adjustable holder for 120 adapting from 6x6 to 6x9. I had been using a Sony A5100 with a Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 Ai-S but just changed to an A7II using the same lens. Good luck, there are a lot of options.
helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
Chriscrawfordphoto; said:
Very SORRY to hear Chris about your scanner...
Ahh to Death & Resurrection
Unto digital scanning for You
and for Me
I beg to Differ Big Time re : Your thoughts on Plustek scanners
I have used them since 2007 and Love them
Compact, inexpensive, easy to use, Do the job !
Maybe I am settling for less but to my Eyes I am very Happy
In the Cards ... by Helen Hill, on Flickr
Ray by Helen Hill, on Flickr
the Green people Organizing by Helen Hill, on Flickr
Glistening...tracks laid bare by Helen Hill, on Flickr
Huss
Mentor
I've heard there's a thread on scanning with digicams someewhere on RFF.
valdas
Mentor
When my Coolscan V dies I will also move to digicam scanning. For 35mm I have another dedicated film scanner - Reflecta RPS 7200. I use it only for BW - colors really suck, and it has this terrible banding issue. Even Epson V800 is better for color than this Reflecta even if it has nice resolution and can scan the whole film of 36 frames at once...
CharlesDAMorgan
Mentor
It's about time I abandoned my scanner - huge amount of banding and horrible medium format trays. I try to use it as a form of digital contact sheet for 35mm, but the preview is too small.
I did like my Plustek Opticfilm 120 (or whatever) but I could never get it to batch scan so I sold it, to someone who got it to work properly first time.
I did like my Plustek Opticfilm 120 (or whatever) but I could never get it to batch scan so I sold it, to someone who got it to work properly first time.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
Chris,
are you aware of the Nikon Coolscan facebook group? They have a bunch of experts at diagnosing common issues, many of which are repairable. A couple of members run repair services too. The LS8000 is great, don't give up on it too easily!
are you aware of the Nikon Coolscan facebook group? They have a bunch of experts at diagnosing common issues, many of which are repairable. A couple of members run repair services too. The LS8000 is great, don't give up on it too easily!
RObert Budding
D'oh!
What failed? It may be repairable. Perhaps you could contact Gleb.
http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Scanners.htm
http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Scanners.htm
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The scanner is not fixable, the inside of it has multiple parts that have broken over the years and jury rigged to work again. The problem is a circuit board failure this time. It is not worth putting any money into now.
arseniii
Well-known
Sad to hear it Chris! I was using your film scanning tutorial and they improved the quality of my work drastically. To which I am very grateful!
Here is a youtube video about some scanning accessories you might want to have to accelerate your process. I would be interested to learn your feedback of doing camera scans VS. CoolScans sometime in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kftytTcJxTY
Here is a youtube video about some scanning accessories you might want to have to accelerate your process. I would be interested to learn your feedback of doing camera scans VS. CoolScans sometime in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kftytTcJxTY
Michalm
Well-known
It is best to sell it for parts and move on , and as far I know your film work is mostly BW which digi cam scanning can handle easier than color film.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
What about a late-model Epson flatbed scanner? My original model 2450 may not find much favor with professionals and advanced amateurs, but they have improved them since then, no?
Dogman
Mentor
At the recommendation of another RFF member whose name rhymes with "Buss" I returned the just ordered but unopened scanner I had ordered and started using a Nikon "digitizer" attachment with a 60mm Micro-Nikkor and a D800. I was skeptical until I copied my first negatives and slides. A little playing around in Lightroom and the results were better than I hoped for.
I don't do a lot of scanning but this rig works wonderfully for 35mm negative and transparencies. With stepping rings it should fit other lenses but I'm not about the ratio of the image copied. Since it's designed for the Nikon micro lenses, other lenses might require more or less extension to cover the full negative format.
It's back ordered right now at B&H and yes it is overpriced but it works 100%.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1357884-REG/nikon_27192_es_2_film_digitalizing_adapet.html
I don't do a lot of scanning but this rig works wonderfully for 35mm negative and transparencies. With stepping rings it should fit other lenses but I'm not about the ratio of the image copied. Since it's designed for the Nikon micro lenses, other lenses might require more or less extension to cover the full negative format.
It's back ordered right now at B&H and yes it is overpriced but it works 100%.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1357884-REG/nikon_27192_es_2_film_digitalizing_adapet.html
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The Epsons are horrid. I need scans that can produce large exhibition quality prints; selling my prints is my main source of income, so I can't compromise on quality.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
It does, indeed, sound as if your scanner is toast. I've stayed with my Nikon scanner because of D-ICE. Now if someone would just build an IR channel into a DSLR . . .
gavinlg
Mentor
I recommend the plusteks. I've had Epsons, Minolta Scan Dual IV's, 2 plustek 8100s and I've tried DSLR scanning and I've found the Plustek and the Minolta to be about equal in quality (plustek making higher res scans though) and significantly better than the rest. Add to that the Plustek 8100 is cheap as chips, but needs vuescan to get the most out of it. I prefer my plustek with 35mm to my epson with 6x7 film.
I'll have a rummage through my archive and see if I can find some full res crops for you to look at Chris.
I'll have a rummage through my archive and see if I can find some full res crops for you to look at Chris.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've seen a lot of scans from the Plusteks. They just plain don't have the real resolution that the Nikon has. They won't work for me. The problem is that they have fixed focus lenses, and the lenses just aren't that good in them. Epson flatbeds have the same issues, but worse.
The Plusteks have a claimed resolution of 7200 dpi. That's because they use a 7200 pixel sensor, but the real resolution is only about 3200 dpi according to every test I have seen from them. Its the lack of focusing and the low quality lens that causes that resolution loss.
The lens I shot my tests with costs more than a Plustek scanner!
gavinlg
Mentor
What dpi resolution did you usually scan at with your nikon?
gavinlg
Mentor
Here's a 3600dpi full res scan with only minimal export sharpening - 3600dpi scan link
File size is 5100ish pixels or about 18 megapixels. Was taken with a ZM 35mm f2 biogon at f4 with Pan F 50 in ID11 at about 1/60th (so not ideal). I can read the name of the street on the bridge, and some of the numberplates on the cars in the traffic jam in the middle.
4200dpi is the limit to resolution with the 8100 in my testing. I've also found the available online reviews aren't representative of what you can get out of the scanner.
File size is 5100ish pixels or about 18 megapixels. Was taken with a ZM 35mm f2 biogon at f4 with Pan F 50 in ID11 at about 1/60th (so not ideal). I can read the name of the street on the bridge, and some of the numberplates on the cars in the traffic jam in the middle.
4200dpi is the limit to resolution with the 8100 in my testing. I've also found the available online reviews aren't representative of what you can get out of the scanner.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
Thanks for the link
I enjoyed watching it throughly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk