I really hate camera scanning. I've sunk 2k USD into my setup and it's technically near perfect. The output is stunning. The scans are sharp. The colours are accurate. But I just HATE IT. I miss my dedicated 35mm scanner. I miss the old ewaste hunk of plastic with all the temperament of an 25+ years old technology.
I also hate scanning with border but EVERYONE loves it. It's all so fucking gay. I hate film fags and I hate people who only like a photo because of muh borders and muh tonez and muh sovl. But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
FUCK

>filmfags dropping thousands on a digital camera to take pictures of film
lmao

>>4426409 (OP)
This shit is why I sold all my MF film gear
>Oh boy I can finally get the whole 100mp out of this 6x9
>No one fucking cares
>No one can tell its film except for 10 photo gear nerds on the internet
>No one wants a print bigger than 8x10 of literally anything
>I can't even tell it's film if it's been too long and I didn't sort them between digital and film
>is this a d750 in the shade with daylight wb, or kodak gold? i can't tell, i must ZOOM

>>4426416
i love my b750
>>4426409 (OP)
well drop some of the pics, at least.

>>4426409 (OP)
>But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
this sounds like a problem of being an external validation faggot who is not shooting for yourself and your own satisfaction, but rather for likes and forr the opinions of others. you are no better than the teen girls who post selfies to bait engagement. you get what you deserve, scum.

>>4426409 (OP)
Wat. Why do you need to keep the border. If you don't want it, crop it.

Film is annoying to work with? So don't. Pick muh tonez.

>>4426409 (OP)
>>>technically perfect
>continuous lights source
>AA filter cam
>70mm lense
Last true scotsman here, 61mp sony and 105mm sigma, illuminated with (full-spectrum & instantaneous) flash are obviously superior setup for 35mm; I only switch back to the 70mm for MF stitching.

i have my eye on the valoi 360. how do you like it? do you think it would be usable without the advancer? i'm a little concerned about dust so the advancer + dusting attachment seems smart but it's so expensive

Reject scanning, embrace printing.

>>4426476
Based.

>>4426476
based anon

>>4426409 (OP)
> But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist

Maybe try having friends/family that appreciate your work. If you don’t… why even bother having this hobby

>>4426528
I love seeing big numbers.

>>4426443
but bitches love borders (only when it comes to film tho)
>>4426454
calm down, it's a random pic off of the internet
I use a pixel shift Pentax K-1 with the 100mm Pentax WR macro, self printed tonecarrier with the whole roll holders and an rgb narrowband light from that github project
I could dig even deeper as now film flatness is the most limiting factor but diminishing returns
>>4426464
it's shit. Buy or print the tone carrier (the tonecarrier is an half assed project made by a bong retard but it's still the best thing out there unless you wanna spend 3k € for that one bullshit autoadvance magnetic rig)
>>4426476
and do what? send my photos to hoes by mail?!
>>4426528
they are all normies who love doomscrolling and always bug me about my most recent rolls not being on insta yet

>digital camera scaning instead of flatbed
enjoy your low tonal range and shitty optical density

>>4426418
you gear collecting fags are so lame man seriously. photos are a medium. they are meant to share communication with other people. you are a funko collecting child. fuck off

>>4426562
>and do what? send my photos to hoes by mail?!
Yes?

>>4426562
>I use a pixel shift Pentax K-1 with the 100mm Pentax WR macro, self printed tonecarrier with the whole roll holders and an rgb narrowband light from that github project
Oh wow, your setup is trash. The sticks and rocks really deserve more from you.

>>4426409 (OP)
we get it anon you don't enjoy what you do and you are a little e-attention whore

>>4426454
Why is a flash preferable to a continuous light source?

>>4426443
to see the sprocket holes

I dunno I scan with an original Sony a7, a Canon FD 50mm macro, and Nikon es-2. It's quick, easy, and blows using a dedicated film scanner away. It's yer fault you blew $2k on a finnicky way to scan OP.

>>4426680
see
>>4426454
>(full-spectrum & instantaneous)
Vibration is the mind-killer, flash defeats it.

>>4426743
Isn’t it harder to control exposure with flash? You’d probably want to tweak it (or stack it) to get the most dynamic range. Might salvage underexposed negatives.

im so glad i went for the model that just screws into the lens

>>4426753
>Isn’t it harder to control exposure
No? Most flashes adjust in 1/3 stop increments.
Negs are far lower dynamic range than modern digicams, you want to do everything possible to maximise the dynamic range at capture to avoid the impact of digital noise in your final edited output.
Even velvia shot with a flash doesn't exceed the dynamic range of a decent camera when you scan it with one.

>>4426409 (OP)
seems like money doesn't buy you happiness after all heh

>>4426756
unrel but the 'carbon fiber' wrap on that camera is halarious

>>4426756
how well does this work, and do you need a separate light source? I have a Canon rebel I could use for this

>>4426409 (OP)
I have an old flatbed and the colors are great plus I get more shadow detail than lab scans but it's also super soft and grainy. I'm considering dropping hundreds on a dedicated 35mm scanner but I can't afford $700+ for something like the Primefilm XA

>40 euro cs lite
>100 euro 1:1 macro lens
>200 euro 18mp dslr (I already had this one)
>20 euro second hand tripod

What are you guys even doing? 35mm film is like 10 mp, dont get weird about it. 100% crop related

>>4427393
>35mm film is like 10 mp, dont get weird about it.

>>4427391
Works great, the light source is part of the attachment

>>4426409 (OP)
I think your setup is neat OP. And I like the black bordes :) especially if they say kodak or fujifil on it :)

>>4427424
>tfw compatible lenses are $200+

>>4427478
>short macro lenses are more than $200
>super sharp flat field lenses that are literally scanning optics are more expensive than ttartisan "character" lenses
yes?

>>4427478
basically any macro lens 50mm equiv or greater, several options under $200
same as you'd need for OP's setup anyways, this just takes up less space and lets you skip the alignment part of setup

>>4427482
the box on the JJC digitizer only lists a few specific lenses, at least for Canon cameras. I don't know if I could get away with a different macro lens because the kit might not have the adapters for it

>>4427486
it just attaches via filter thread, so any macro with an appropriately sized thread, or a different macro with a filter size adapter
the reason i mentioned 50mm equiv is that wider macros will be a bit too far away for good macro capture, even with the smallest tube part

>>4427487
I thought it just clipped on or something. I have a crop sensor DSLR, does that make a difference to what lens I'd need to get?

>>4426409 (OP)
Honestly film dslr/mirrorless digitisation is a shit show. Products in stock / out of stock / easy to find / hard to find.Spent 2K on my full setup including buying the cheapest high mp camera I could find. Can scan 35mm with / without borders, 645 up to 6x9.I would totally avoid negative supply, they are an absolute garbage company, their stand is wobbly, their first gen film holders are crudely made, their light developed a hot spot and had to be returned after only 2 months. If I was to do it again and cheaper I would have bought a used copy stand instead of a new copy stand.I would have bought a 5DS instead of a A7RIII as it’s cheaper and has more MP. Maybe I would try out the film holder from clifforth.co.uk as it’s more affordable and looks like it does the job better than the negative supply stuff.

>>4427393
You spend more money if you want to dslr/mirrorless scan medium format film as medium format film has a lot more resolution than 35mm. Thus medium format film requires a higher mp more expensive camera to get the resolution out of the film. But honestly you only need the extra resolution if you look to print quite large. If you're just posting stuff online, then don't bother with high high megapixel. I have printed some 70x70 prints, which is quite large and I would say that is the most I would want to print to with a 42mp direct mirroless scan from the negative. Any larger than 70x70 and I would do pixel shift but that would probably kill my 5 year old macbook. The whole process is a pain and frankly too expensive to be honest. You could do pixel shift from an 18 megapixel camera but that frankly will be awfully painful to do to get to 80MP having to stitch 5 photos together would be a nightmare.

>>4426409 (OP)
>I hate using modern equipment to work with an antiquated technology
Lmao
>>4426476
Wish my photos were good enough to justify printing. Any enlarger recommendations?
>>4426739
I think I'll pick up the ES-2, especially since I'm studying abroad
>>4426862
How do you suspend the film holder above your flash? Hard to believe you're getting good diffusion at such a short distance
>>4428881
I got Negative Supply's V1 film holders with the light source and honestly no complaints, got them second hand for a good price. The clamping system on the 120 holder works really well for ensuring emulsion flatness

>>4428884
> Thus medium format film requires a higher mp more expensive camera to get the resolution out of the film.

Idk if this is an unpopular opinion but with The Darkroom Lab in the US and Silbersalz in the EU there already is robust infrastructure for high resolution scanning of 35mm. Scanning yourself really is only worth it when you go for medium format

>>4428884
> I would do pixel shift but that would probably kill my 5 year old macbook
I don’t think so. A MacBook with an m1 should do fine. Even with a fuji gfx100 pixelshift which would turn out to 400mp - editing in PS would be cumbersome but i bet the macbook can do it

>>4428950
>Wish my photos were good enough to justify printing. Any enlarger recommendations?
Printing will help you take better photos. It forces you to get things right in camera that scanning allows you to cheat. As for enlargers, I use a Beseler 45MXII which works great but it's a gigantic beast of a thing. If you shoot 4x5 or think you ever will shoot 4x5, I would get one of the Beseler 45s or an Omega D series. If you shoot a lot of 35mm, the Beseler is compatible with the "negatrans" carrier which allows you to scroll through a roll of 35mm with a knob instead of having to open the negative carrier and manually move the film to the next frame, which is neat. The Beseler 45s also have a motorized elevation system and voltage regulator built in which is nice, and they can pivot back to project onto a wall which would theoretically allow some truly massive enlargements. On the other hand, the Omega is a little more compact, and they were more prevalent back in the day so it may be easier to find parts and accessories, although Beselers were very popular with schools and now that most schools are scrapping their analog photography programs they are a good source of Beseler parts and equipment.

If you don't ever plan to shoot 4x5 or panoramic 120, then a Beseler 23 is also a great option.

>>4429051
>Beseler 23
you mean Brenizer

this is a screenshot of two 100% crops. one is a dslr scan with a d810 bought used for 500$, a durst colorcopy 350 slide copier for $50, and an apo rodagon d 1x for 200$.

the other is with a flextight x5. you can find one on ebay for 23000
> 4-16s, vs 2 min per image
> 50mb vs 300mb file
> flexible raw file vs tiff

>>4429160
in my experience tiff is absolutely fine and gives a similar latitude to RAW files (probably depends on the settings for the tiff file)

>>4426409 (OP)
I dropped thousands on Coolscan, Plustek, a Sorny A47xyz3 and a pile of macro lenses & enlarger rigs, dupe rigs, and building me own linear rail focusing rig, and you know what? My best fucking results have come from a Nikon Z7, cheap ass FTZ adapter without AF, and a 1990’s 55mm Macro lens & cheap plastic ES2 slide & net holder. All that effort wasted, for this fucking rig to mop the floor with them. Shot at its sharpest f11, simple 3 exposure bracket, one centered histogram, +/- 2 exp, merged as hdr in Lightroom. Consistently better images than I’ve ever gotten with any single camera. And no they’re not gaudy over saturated hdr shit like the early days of hdr, you just get everything & no noise. And it’s pretty fucking speedy too.

>>4428958
I don’t on a 2011 17” MacBook Pro. If you have an M1 your machine is about 48 times more powerful than that.

>>4429272
“do it” not “don’t” ffs

>>4429244
mostly, tiffs have a gamma curve applied, giving me color shifts in the shadows and highlights when editing.
also using the flexcolor software is so clunky and finicky to use and you have to do alot of adjustment in it to get tiffs with any good latitude

>>4429270
Why would you do exposure bracketing, are your negatives that high contrast? Otherwise you'd get better multi-exposure noise reduction results by only using ettr images

>>4429553
I never had a histogram from a film scan be too wide for my old dslr. I think anon is just deep into the hifi gold plated audio cables style mumbo jumbo about film

>>4428950
>How do you suspend the film holder above your flash? Hard to believe you're getting good diffusion at such a short distance
What short distance are you talking about?
Cut a hole in a box m8, paint the inside of the box white, ziptie flashes inside; it's not rocket science.

>>4429288
does your scanning software not have an option for linear TIFFs?

>>4426476
Based evil lair

>>4426739
Gorgeous anon

I already develop but I'm looking at attempting scanning myself at home. I have a Fuji x-t20 but no macro lens or film holders yet. Any recommendations for an apsc sensor? It always looks like a shitloads of attachments are needed for this

>Macro lens (that isn't 1:1 for apsc)
>Extension tubes
>Film holder/es-2

Anybody try the lobster holder or EFH?

>>4426409 (OP)
this setup looks retarded, i'm sorry you wasted your money

>>4434418
Fuji's an exception to the norm because their dedicated X-mount macros aren't very good, but if you can get one very cheap secondhand it would still be fine.
Easy camera to adapt to though, so any micro-nikkor, fd 50/3.5 etc will work great.
A 12mm extension tube will be plenty to fill the frame with a 35mm neg.
I scanned for years without any actual film holder, I just used a piece of picture frame glass with sticky tape to build up a guide to slide the film through.
A LCD screen showing a blank Word document was my backlight.
Still better than any lab scan.

>>4434541
That is not "better than any lab scan". If you want to dslr scan, get a modern macro lens at least. Dslr scanning can beat flatbeds but against Coolscans, Frontiers or Plusteks, dslrs lose. Not to mention Drum scanners.
There's just too many variables with dslr scanning. LCD Backlights are inconsistent in brightness and any vibration in your setup will reduce sharpness.
Dslrs are fast and easy, but they can't compete with a competent lab.

>>4434562
A D810 can equal a drum scan's detail. They're overrated unless you're after the unique color rendition. Competent labs use medium format digital cameras as their highest end scanning option now/

>>4434541
im not sure if its your skill, your lens, or the scan but this looks terrible

>>4426409 (OP)
>But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
>shooting for external validation and not himself like some kind of woman
Yeah buddy sorry, no amount of money, gear, or “muh technique” is going to fix that bitchboy need for external validation. Sucks to suck.

>>4426409 (OP)
Call me a jackass, because I AM one, but if you're shooting film without your process being analog from end to end you shouldn't be shooting film.

>>4435623
you're such a jackass omg

>>4434562
>That is not "better than any lab scan"
>>4434568
>im not sure if its your skill, your lens, or the scan but this looks terrible
Maybe it's the 800px you dummy, or that the tap handle is literally the only part of the photo in focus, or that it was taken on a 1950's leaf-shutter rangefinder at minimum focus distance in full sun on tri-x and developed in rodinal.
Have you ever seen B&W scanned on a minilab in autopilot? It really is below any acceptable standard.
Here's the raw re-edited a little bigger for you.

>>4434589
>fix that bitchboy need for external validation
He could always turn gay.

>>4426538
Does it matter if they're arbitrary?

>>4426415
fpbp

>>4426415
Yeah, so?

>>4426415
>nooooooooooooo don't show your photos to people
retard