Film meets digital technology, version 2.0

 Semi conclusion update: August 17, 2018

During the past two months I have been experimenting and testing various ways to digitize film negatives with a digital DSLR camera, my conclusions so far "it depends" For the most part it works really well depending on film size, and how big the resulting digital files end up being. I have been doing a lot of comparisons between the camera copy method and using a film scanner.

I have tried all sorts of experiments, first I devised a system of using an 8x10 view camera as sort of a reverse copy camera, it did work just fine with 35mm negatives and even my medium format negatives. I finally settled on using a good copy stand, this one made by Kaiser which was given to me on long-term loan. It's probably the best method as it easier to square up the camera so it accurately lines up with the negative or slide. All one needs is a light source, I have a customized lightbox with LED daylight balance bulbs or I can use a drawing lightbox, mine is made by Huion sold by Amazon.

Here are some of my observations so far...

35mm film: Without a doubt using a digital camera (Nikon D7200 camera with a Nikkor 60mm macro lens) to copy 35mm negatives or slides, produces far better results than what I could achieve with my flatbed scanner, (Microtek model F2). The results are very clear and it makes a real difference in capturing the minute amount of detail from 35mm negatives, which every bit of detail is needed if making prints around 33 x 48 cm (13" x 19") in size. The D7200 has a 24-megapixel sensor which makes for a 13 x 20-inch print @300 dpi. If I photographed the negative with a Nikon D850 at 45.7 megapixels (which I don't own) it would make a print at around 27 x 18 inches.

120mm film: There is a slight edge to the camera copied images, I photographed the negative in two parts then stitched them together in Photoshop which gave me a finished digital file of around  19 x 19 inches from 6 x 6 cm negatives. The same negative scanned looked quite good actually, it's just that the camera copy negative showed a bit more detail. With some extra sharpening applied to the scanned negative, I was able to match the camera copied negative. However, I would prefer to use a minimal amount of sharpening. Plus I am shooting all my camera copied negatives in raw format (Nikon's NEF) using in-camera jpeg works fine too, except that the sharpening is already included.

4x5 film: Not much difference here, if I squint really hard I could maybe see a difference but there really wasn't any. I photographed the large format negative in four parts and then stitched them together. A fair amount of work actually compared to a single scan and with no real discernible difference.

5x7 and 8x10 film: No difference, depends on the print size. My scanner can take quite a while to chug through a scan from an 8x10 negative or a slide, especially if its big enough to make a 30 x 40-inch print.

Semifinal thoughts: If you have no scanner and are shooting some film these days or have some old negatives or slides laying around, and you have a reasonable digital camera on hand (12 to 24 megapixels), and a macro lens (but not essential), you can achieve some very good results if you have good technique. If you already have a flatbed scanner and want the very best from your 35mm or medium format negatives try copying them with a digital camera. If you already have a dedicated film scanner, like the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5, then you have the  Mercedes of scanners

Original Article  starts here:

A while back (July 11/2018) I wrote about my experimental idea with adapting my 8 x10 view camera as a sort of makeshift copy camera to digitally copy my film negatives. I made a bunch of parts to attach to the camera in order to make it work. And it did work to a degree, except I found that the wood field camera was not exactly lined up perfectly so it was hard to square and level everything up since I was photographing various sections of the negative and stitching them together.

 Before I started this project I had already concluded that my cropped frame Nikon D7200 with 24 megapixels produced better detail from the negative than my Microtek F2 scanner. If the scanner was a camera it would be about 6 megapixels. I found that my scanner is only able to optically produce about 1000 dpi or 3X the size of the original negative anything larger gets interpolated.

A couple people mentioned a copy stand, at first I didn't have but just a few days ago one magically appeared (thanks Michael!). For my light source I have tried a suggestion to buy a LED light pad that artists use for tracing, it about 20 x 30 cm in size, works quite well, with good daylight white balance of 6000k.

My unique light box that I am using is constructed from an old 8 x 10 contact printing box that I acquired from a photo swap and shop, I have been using it for years as my light table, but the lights I was using were not very bright, so I installed some regular daylight balanced (5000k or better) LED light bulbs and it works great and look good!

I am using the copy stand with camera and lightbox with the film attached to metal film holders, I position the camera once, move the film negative around and photograph various sections of the negative, then using photoshop I stitch the photo files together to make the original negative or slide. It works very well and lines up perfectly square. The example I posted here (which has been downsized for the internet) was made with four separate images with my Nikon D300 (12 megapixels) in raw format, and a 60mm Macro lens. I then combined all the images to make one, which made for a 40 x 50 cm print @300 dpi. With a newer camera with more megapixels, I can make even bigger prints.

Lead photo: Copy stand and camera digitizing process.

1— Top photo: Gellatly Bay, West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, October 1994. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 8 x 10 slide (positive film) Tachihara 8 x 10 field camera, 300m lens. Fuji Velvia film.

2— Middle photo: Mt Rundle, Banff National Park, September 2017. Rolleiflex with 75mm lens. Kodark Ektar film. Two-stitch combination made with Nikon D7200, 20 inch wide print @300 dpi.

3— Bottom photo: three picture combo showing the camera capture process, using a Nikon D7200 camera and 60mm macro lens. From the left, the original 35mm negative made with a Leica III camera circa,1936 and an uncoated 50mm Summar lens. Middle frame shows the enhanced negative after removal of orange coloring. On the right is the completed digital file with final color corrections and dust removal, ready for printing. The photo was made at Royal Roads University Gardens, October 2011.

www.patreon.com/garynylander         www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Film tradition meets digital technology

 Semi conclusion update: August 17, 2018

During the past two months I have been experimenting and testing various ways to digitize film negatives with a digital DSLR camera, my conclusions so far "it depends" For the most part it works really well depending on film size, and how big the resulting digital files end up being. I have been doing a lot of comparisons between the camera copy method and using a film scanner.

I have tried all sorts of experiments, first I devised a system of using an 8x10 view camera as sort of a reverse copy camera, it did work just fine with 35mm negatives and even my medium format negatives. I finally settled on using a good copy stand, this one made by Kaiser which was given to me on long-term loan. It's probably the best method as it easier to square up the camera so it accurately lines up with the negative or slide. All one needs is a light source, I have a customized lightbox with LED daylight balance bulbs or I can use a drawing lightbox, mine is made by Huion sold by Amazon.

Here are some of my observations so far...

35mm film: Without a doubt using a digital camera (Nikon D7200 camera with a Nikkor 60mm macro lens) to copy 35mm negatives or slides, produces far better results than what I could achieve with my flatbed scanner, (Microtek model F2). The results are very clear and it makes a real difference in capturing the minute amount of detail from 35mm negatives, which every bit of detail is needed if making prints around 33 x 48 cm (13" x 19") in size. The D7200 has a 24-megapixel sensor which makes for a 13 x 20-inch print @300 dpi. If I photographed the negative with a Nikon D850 at 45.7 megapixels (which I don't own) it would make a print at around 27 x 18 inches.

120mm film: There is a slight edge to the camera copied images, I photographed the negative in two parts then stitched them together in Photoshop which gave me a finished digital file of around  19 x 19 inches from 6 x 6 cm negatives. The same negative scanned looked quite good actually, it's just that the camera copy negative showed a bit more detail. With some extra sharpening applied to the scanned negative, I was able to match the camera copied negative. However, I would prefer to use a minimal amount of sharpening. Plus I am shooting all my camera copied negatives in raw format (Nikon's NEF) using in-camera jpeg works fine too, except that the sharpening is already included.

4x5 film: Not much difference here, if I squint really hard I could maybe see a difference but there really wasn't any. I photographed the large format negative in four parts and then stitched them together. A fair amount of work actually compared to a single scan and with no real discernible difference.

5x7 and 8x10 film: No difference, depends on the print size. My scanner can take quite a while to chug through a scan from an 8x10 negative or a slide, especially if its big enough to make a 30 x 40-inch print.

Semifinal thoughts: If you have no scanner and are shooting some film these days or have some old negatives or slides laying around, and you have a reasonable digital camera on hand (12 to 24 megapixels), and a macro lens (but not essential), you can achieve some very good results if you have good technique. If you already have a flatbed scanner and want the very best from your 35mm or medium format negatives try copying them with a digital camera. If you already have a dedicated film scanner, like the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5, then you have the  Mercedes of scanners

Original Article  starts here:

A while back (July 11/2018) I wrote about my experimental idea with adapting my 8 x10 view camera as a sort of makeshift copy camera to digitally copy my film negatives. I made a bunch of parts to attach to the camera in order to make it work. And it did work to a degree, except I found that the wood field camera was not exactly lined up perfectly so it was hard to square and level everything up since I was photographing various sections of the negative and stitching them together.

 Before I started this project I had already concluded that my cropped frame Nikon D7200 with 24 megapixels produced better detail from the negative than my Microtek F2 scanner. If the scanner was a camera it would be about 6 megapixels. I found that my scanner is only able to optically produce about 1000 dpi or 3X the size of the original negative anything larger gets interpolated.

A couple people mentioned a copy stand, at first I didn't have but just a few days ago one magically appeared (thanks Michael!). For my light source I have tried a suggestion to buy a LED light pad that artists use for tracing, it about 20 x 30 cm in size, works quite well, with good daylight white balance of 6000k.

My unique light box that I am using is constructed from an old 8 x 10 contact printing box that I acquired from a photo swap and shop, I have been using it for years as my light table, but the lights I was using were not very bright, so I installed some regular daylight balanced (5000k or better) LED light bulbs and it works great and look good!

I am using the copy stand with camera and lightbox with the film attached to metal film holders, I position the camera once, move the film negative around and photograph various sections of the negative, then using photoshop I stitch the photo files together to make the original negative or slide. It works very well and lines up perfectly square. The example I posted here (which has been downsized for the internet) was made with four separate images with my Nikon D300 (12 megapixels) in raw format, and a 60mm Macro lens. I then combined all the images to make one, which made for a 40 x 50 cm print @300 dpi. With a newer camera with more megapixels, I can make even bigger prints.

Lead photo: Copy stand and camera digitizing process.

1— Top photo: Gellatly Bay, West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, October 1994. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 8 x 10 slide (positive film) Tachihara 8 x 10 field camera, 300m lens. Fuji Velvia film.

2— Middle photo: Mt Rundle, Banff National Park, September 2017. Rolleiflex with 75mm lens. Kodark Ektar film. Two-stitch combination made with Nikon D7200, 20 inch wide print @300 dpi.

3— Bottom photo: three picture combo showing the camera capture process, using a Nikon D7200 camera and 60mm macro lens. From the left, the original 35mm negative made with a Leica III camera circa,1936 and an uncoated 50mm Summar lens. Middle frame shows the enhanced negative after removal of orange coloring. On the right is the completed digital file with final color corrections and dust removal, ready for printing. The photo was made at Royal Roads University Gardens, October 2011.

www.patreon.com/garynylander         www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

Update: (July 31, 2018) I have decided to go with a copy stand to photograph my negatives, follow this link: Film meets digital technology, version 2.0

Here is my idea that I have been working on recently to get as much detail from my 35mm and 120 negatives by using a DSLR camera and a macro lens to photograph my negatives instead of scanning. I have a flatbed scanner and it does a good job on my large format negatives (4"x 5" to 8" x 10"), but anything smaller and it quickly loses resolution. For this set up I am using a Nikkor 60mm ƒ2.8 macro lens with my Nikon D7200 (24 megapixels cropped sensor) camera, I then stitch the medium format negatives together using photoshop.

 I made a special bracket to hold the camera securely onto the front standard of my Tachihara 8 x 10 view camera and the negative is held in place where the film holder normally would be, in the back standard of the camera, I made a negative film holder and bracket to hold those pieces in place as flat possible. The bracket is made of ebony and aluminum with a clamp-like device that fits on the front stand of the view camera with the lens board removed. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

I use the front rise and fall of the view camera to help centre the negative. Since this camera has no side to side shift, I adapted an old Rollei sliding panoramic device so the camera and lens can slide from side to side also helps to centre the camera. To light the negative I pointed a flash at a white wall. I still have some issues to work out, the panoramic device doesn't slide that well, which was made for a lighter Rolleiflex so kind of panoramic device the slides from side to side (about 4 inches).

So far the results look promising, I scanned this same 120 negative with my flatbed and my camera and macro lens setup which a fair amount sharper, at least when I zoom in on the photo. All the parts I used are made from scratch with all raw material that I found around my home workshop.

Powers Creek (No. 7-16) West Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, April 2018. Copyright © Gary Nylander. Copied from 120 film negative. Rolleiflex camera, 75mm lens, Rollei ISO 25 film developed in HC-110.

Update: Posted below is a scan from one of my 35mm negatives, on the left is made with my Microtek F1 scanner on the right is the same negative copied with my Nikon D7200 with 60mm macro lens. The difference doesn't show quite as much because of the small jpeg size. Those interested can email me for a large size image. gary@garynylander.com

www.garynylander.com, www.patreon.com/garynylander, www.etsy.com/ca/shop/NylanderPhotography

This is why I shoot film

I use film for my fine art work because it inspires my imagination in ways that I don't get from shooting digital.

 I have been shooting film since I was 15 years of age, after more 40 years of film usage I still feel that film has value in today's digital world. Some back ground: I have been a newspaper photographer since I was 18 years of age, I started out shooting black and white film with my Nikon F2 camera. Today its all digital and I have to say that I love shooting digital for my newspaper work, back in November of 2001 the newspaper I currently work for, the Kelowna Daily Courier bought , Nikon D1H digital cameras for the photo staff.

 I would never want to go back to film for my day to day work assignments at the paper . Digital is a must in photojournalism, I wouldn't want to be with out it, as it's awfully convenient to use.

Shooting film on my time off is a whole different story, for one I have no deadlines to contend with, so it doesn't matter to me that I can see my pictures right away, I feel as an artist, I want to slow things down a bit so I'm okay with taking some time create my work. For more than twenty-five years I have been using a 4 x 5 view camera with black and white film, I have shot a number of different film types, Kodak Tri-X, Kodak T-Max and Ilford HP5. I totally love making images with my large format view cameras, using 4 x 5 inch film sometimes 8 x 10 inch film. Almost all the work you see on my website, my blog here and my Facebook page is done with view cameras.

 I am frequently asked, why film and why a view camera? some think its bulky, time consuming not easy to use which is probably true. One of the things that I have found that with shooting film is not so much that it makes me a better photographer but that it clearly makes me look at my subjects in a far different way than using digital, its hard to explain, I am much more selective in terms of how I photograph my chosen subject when shooting with film.

 I have not found a digital equivalent to the view camera, but to me there is nothing more beautiful than looking at my composed image even though it is upside down and backwards on the ground glass screen of my view camera.  It's really that beautiful and inspiring to look at, a direct 'pure' image coming through the lens, in some ways a truly 'raw' image.

These days I work with a hybrid system or a digital scan-workflow, I shoot sheet film and then scan the negatives with a flatbed scanner a Microtek F2 ( read my review here ). I also hope to do more contact sheet printing in the wet darkroom from my 8 x 10 negatives, I have always been inspired by the work of Edward Weston, what I love about Edward's work was the simplicity of his craft in making his wonderful images, his darkroom consisted of just a few trays, printing frame and darkroom lights, he was able to set up almost anywhere.

 I would say that shooting film may be a little crazy in this digital age, and may seem like the hard way to produce an end product when the easier route is to shoot digitally, but then so is running a marathon, there are a lot easier ways to cover the 26.2 miles by pounding the ground with your feet. Also I feel that there is a sense of accomplishment in that some film cameras are not easy to use, but then neither is playing a violin, it takes years to get good at playing such an instrument, but the effort is well worth it, in terms of one's personal satisfaction and knowing that you have worked hard for something and earned it.

Another analogy to music , some musicians might use a whole range of instruments to create their music,  for example Yo-Yo Ma plays with a 300 year old cello, or some musicians play with the latest electronic instruments while others might use a mixture older non-electric and electronic instruments. I think that that great photographs can be taken with a variety of cameras either film or digital with no camera or work flow better than the other, it comes down to what is best on a personal level for each and every artist.

Microtek's new ArtixScan F2 scanner

             Botany Bay, Vancouver Island, December 2012

This is a short mini review of Microtek's new F2 scanner, as I have probably said in some of my previous reviews, I am not a professional reviewer by any stretch of the imagination, I do scan a lot of negatives though, last year it was over five-hundred 4 x 5 black and white negatives ( T-Max 400 film ). 

Some background, I have owned the Mictotek series of flatbed scanners going back to the model ScanMaker i900 that I bought in 2004. I liked it because at the time it was one of the few scanners on the market that could scan my 8 x 10 negatives and something that I could afford in my price range, now of course there are other scanners on the market, like the Epson V700 and V750 scanners. In late 2007 I upgraded to the new M1 scanner, it featured auto focus, a while ago I did a scan comparison test between my M1 and an Epson V750, I thought that the Epson scans were a tad sharper than the Microtek M1, but not by a whole lot, I also thought that the M1 scans looked less "grainy" than the V750 scans, I thought that by the time I made prints in the 16 x 20 print range with a little extra sharpening that those differences would not be an issue at all. The M1 scanner has been a real work horse for me, after 2000 scans it needed some repairs to the autofocus system, so I sent it off to Microtek in California, they were able to fix it no problem.

I recently purchased Microtek's latest flatbed scanner the ArtixScan F2 model which is only compatible with Mac computers ( the M2 version is for PC computers ), you can read about the full technical details by clicking here: "Microtek ArtixSan F2" . First thing I would say about this F2 scanner is that It's quite heavy weighing in at 26.4 lbs ( 12kg ) and will take a sizeable footprint on your desk or table, 22.3" x 15.1" x 6.3"/ 567 x 385 x 158 mm, it features auto focus scan head, 4800-dpi optical CCD, twin scan-bed with patented Emulsion Direct Imaging Technology ( E.D.I.T. ). LED light source, ( new for the M2/F2 scanners ), it comes bundled with LaserSoft's SilverFast Studio 8 and ScanWizard Pro. Please note for the M2 there is only ScanWizard Pro available. Personally I prefer to use the SilverFast, I have used product with good results over the years.

In comparison to the M1 ( which I still own ) and the new ArtixScan F2, I would have to say that the key improvements  with the new ArtixScan F2 would be: 1). It's a lot quieter, I notice this when the machine goes through its focus stage during the scanning process, 2). It's much faster to starting up after turning the power button on and 3).The scan time is much faster, probably on average about 40% faster. Microtek claims the F2/M2 produces sharper scans, I did a few comparison tests, I used a 35mm colour Kodachrome slide, as far as I could the two scans looked the same, maybe very slight increase in detail with the F2 scanner.  4). I noticed that the most improvement in terms of sharpness was  with the overall edge to edge sharpness of my scans especially when scanning from my 4 x 5 negatives, I am happy to see this. Also these flat beds start to show their weakness when scanning medium format film or smaller, (35mm ) , from the tests that I have done I would say with  F2 scanner maximum enlargement size would be about 8X  or 800% from the original sized negative or slide, I would suggest that if anyone one has a lot of 35mm or medium format negatives to scan perhaps look at a dedicated scanner for those size of formats like the new Pustek OpticFilm 120.

Also back in March of 2008 I did mini-review of the then new M1 scanner, you can read about it "Here". As with other Microtek scanners in this model range ( i900, F1/M1 F2/M2 ) they are all about the same size and shape and look almost identical with the same grey/black colour scheme made of hard plastic, they have always been a very solid feeling to these machines,  things like film holders have gone unchanged for many years now, which should in theory should make it easier to find these parts. As with most scanners, the film holders are probably one of the weakest parts, most are made of plastic and will eventually break with time or they will bend out of shape or not hold the film flat. I almost exclusively scan large format negatives with this F2 scanner. I have been using some specially constructed film holders that I had custom made for me when I had a horizontal 8 x 10 enlarger that I made out of an old Century 8 x 10 view camera, very basic,  I had a local machine shop make me up some aluminium plates ( 1/8" in thickness ) with precision cut rectangular holes made with their milling machine, these were cut just a tad smaller for my three sizes of sheet film that I use, 4 x 5, 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 these plates are then attached to the standard open trays that comes supplied with the scanner, the important thing is that these plate are perfectly flat, hence getting them done with a milling machine, a little pricey too to get them made. I just use a little bit of light scotch tape to gently stretch the  negative across the opening, it works well for me.

A little about SilverFast 8 software: I posted back in August of last year about this new software, you can read about it "Here". I quite like SilverFast 8, as I have previously stated I prefer to use the "16 bit HDR " grayscale setting for almost all of my black and white scans, this is effectively a "raw" scan which I can then work on in Photoshop. Another really neat feature of SilverFast 8 is that the resolution bar indicates the maximum amount of "optical dpi" that the scanner can produce, it tells you when you are in the interpolated part of the scanner, the real optical scan resolution of the F2 scanner as far as I can tell is about 2400-dpi from what SilverFast 8 tells me on the adjustable resolution scale, very handy information. Also SilverFast has been very good with me in terms of their technical support, they always answer my emails promptly and have even worked with me step by step via telephone from Germany to resolve one issue.

In conclusion, I think for my purposes this ArtixScan F2 is a good scanner, it does the job ( for me ). Every scanner will have some kind of issues to work around, in the past my M1 has done a lot of scans and I hope that the new F2 will do likewise ( I now have the M1 as my back up ) I also really like the glassless scanning option which I originally liked with the i900 scanner, it almost seems like I am using a large format enlarger in my old darkroom!, for the most part the auto focus works well, how ever I will mention that every once and while it will mis-focus usually due to the focus spot being in an area of the negative where there is little or no detail. I'm sure there are others out there who will have their own opinions and preferences as to what scanner to use, although I would suggest when critical information is needed from negatives to produce the very best prints, the drum scanner and a properly trained operator is still the best way to go. If anyone has any questions, please post here or email me, I will try to answer as best as I can, I am no technical wizard, there are others out there with far more knowledge in that respect than I do, I just know the basics to get my negatives scanned in as best as possible using the best possible equipment that I can afford.

UPDATE ( August 29, 2014 ): Several readers have contacted me asking where can they get Microtek's new ArtixScan F2, I personally contacted Microtek myself, to purchase in North America:

Company: Iscantek Inc. 

Address: 14145 Proctor Ave Ste 10, La Puente CA 91746 

Tel: 626-269-9948 

FAX: 626-333-7240 

Contact: Mr. Loi Giai Han 

Email: loihan@iscantek.com 

Website: www.iscantek.com