Here’s a camera scanning rig that I built for “scanning” 35mm black & white negs very quickly with my digital camera. I picked up an old enlarger for $5.95 at a Goodwill store (different enlarger than I used for my 120 scanning setup) and utilized the neg carrier, bellows, and focusing mechanism to build this. It’s a big old Omega C760, and the bellows/focusing unit is a solidly-built piece of equipment. Laying on it’s side, it makes a great base for shooting negs. All I had to do was attach a couple of boards to it – one to hold the camera (with a simple bolt through the board to screw into the camera’s tripod mount), and another to hold the light box (same Logan light box that I use for the 120 setup – it slides in and out of this easily so I can use it for other things) – and build some kind of neg carrier (the tricky part).
My main objective was to create a fast way to slide negs through and shoot quickly without having to carefully line up every frame. With 120 film the speed is not such an issue, since you’re only shooting 12 frames or so per roll. Shooting 36 frames on a roll of 35mm film can add up to a lot of time if you have to spend time adjusting for each shot.
So the main thing that makes this work well is the film transport that I built by soldering together small pieces of brass. The rails are made of 1/8″ L-shapes bars which are paired to make a T track, and they’re spaced apart just enough to allow the film to slide through with a slight snugness. The pieces are soldered together so that when film is slid through, the image area of the film never comes in contact with any part of the mechanism.
You can see a bit of what it looks like, and how it loads in the video clip below.
A rig like this could be built without the bellows, but the advantage of bellow is that they provide an easy way to adjust the distance between camera and film plane. Simply turning the bellows focus knob moves the whole film plane unit (including lightbox) nearer or farther from the camera. This way I can get the negative to nearly fill the frame of the digital camera. The image is focused via the macro lens on the camera.
It takes just a couple of minutes to attach the camera to the base, slide a piece of film in, and set the focus on the camera (focusing is aided by the camera’s zoom feature and focus peaking). I focus with the lens wide open, then stop down to f/8 to add a bit more depth of field just in case there’s any bowing of the film. Exposure is set manually – in most instances I’ve shot at 1/15 sec, ISO 200, f/8. I set my camera to shoot black & white JPG images (see note below) at highest resolution. If I’m shooting a new roll of film that I just developed, I can shoot an entire roll in a few minutes. Working with film that’s already been cut into short strips takes longer, since you have to load each strip (and when scanning old film I spent a lot more time cleaning dust off each strip than actually shooting it).
The video below shows how it goes.
Note on JPG files and dynamic range: I’ve seen some online posts about camera-scanning, and people are concerned about the digital camera’s ability to capture the full dynamic range of the film, and think they need to shoot RAW instead of JPG to capture the full dynamic range. Here’s my take: Relax – it’s not an issue at all. The dynamic range of the scene was already captured and compressed in the film. When “scanning” the neg, the dynamic range you are capturing is only the difference between the blackest part of the film and the brightness of your light source. Unless your light pad is as bright as the sun, you’re not talking about much dynamic range here. I don’t get any clipping of highlights or shadows. I’ve shot negatives in RAW format and JPG to compare them, and could find no discernible difference.
I was holding my phone in one hand here, so in reality I can go a little faster than this, but you can see that it’s pretty quick. I sometimes set the camera to a 2-second self-timer delay to make sure there’s no camera movement, but I don’t think it’s really necessary.
I keep the camera set at a distance so that I pick up a little of the border, ensuring that I get the full image, then I usually crop a tiny bit in Lightroom to even out the borders (it’s very convenient that an ASP-C digital sensor is exactly the same proportion as a 35mm frame). Keeping a little of the border visible also makes it easier to align each frame, since you can see a little of each edge on the digital camera’s LCD as you slide the neg through. Being able to capture the entire image, including the natural edge of the 35mm frame, is a big advantage this has over some other scanning methods. I’ve never gotten a commercial scan that included the entire frame – they’re always cropped.
After shooting a roll or two, I move my SD card to my Mac; copy the images; drag the whole batch of images onto a Photoshop action droplet that I previously created to automatically invert all of the images from negatives to positives; then import to Lightroom and make some exposure and contrast adjustments.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Here are some photos of the setup:
I’m using the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 lens mounted to a Fuji X-mount adapter, along with a 10mm extension tube to allow closer focusing.
Above, you can see the focus-peaking manual-focus assist (set to red) in action.
Below: At the ends of the brass L track, I bent the corners out to make film loading easier. Once the film is pushed in a bit though, the track holds the film straight and flat, and nothing ever touches either side of the image portion of the film.
Below is a view looking inside the bellows at the negative. The wood piece at the bottom is a spacer that holds the brass neg carrier at the proper height to line up with the center of the lens, and the areas above and to the sides of the neg are filled in with black matboard to minimize any extra light coming in. That circular opening is where the enlarger lens board would have originally been attached.
I’ve considered modifying the camera mount so that I could have the option of turning the camera sideways, moving the neg closer to the camera, and shooting three overlapping images of one neg to stitch together in Photoshop for a higher-resolution ‘scan’. But for now, the 16MP (4896 x 3264) images are plenty for me.
Another idea I have is to use the dichroic lamp housing that came with the enlarger as my light source. This would allow me to adjust the color output of the light to possibly compensate for the orange mask of color negative film. Not sure about that, but might have to give it a try.
Below are some images from a roll of film I developed a few nights ago. Those black borders are the actual frame edges captured in-camera. HCB would be proud.
Here’s a close-up of the leaf in the image above to show the amount of detail captured in the scan:
Detail above is from approx. this area outlined in red:
These were shot in my Yashica Electro 35 on Arista EDU 100 film, and developed in Arista Premium Liquid Developer.
The Yashica Electro 35 was again my camera of choice to carry this past fall while vacationing along Minnesota’s shoreline of Lake Superior.
In November of 1905 a single storm damaged 29 ships in this area, and prompted congress to appropriate $75,000 for a lighthouse. Split Rock Lighthouse began operation in 1910, and operated until 1969. The lighthouse was originally only reachable by water, and the lighthouse keepers lived in the houses built on-site. Their isolation made life difficult until the 1930’s, when a highway was built that allowed their families to come and stay with them.
The lamp was built by Barbier, Bernard and Turenne Company in Paris, and spins by the power of a weight that was hand-cranked to the top, much like a giant grandfather clock. The massive fresnel lens spins easily by floating on a bearing surface of mercury. Originally the lamp burned kerosene, but it was later converted to an incandescent bulb.
If you’re in the area, it’s worth stopping in for a tour.
Images shot on Fujicolor Superia 200 film.
The ‘Celebrate Northeast’ parade always makes me feel like Minneapolis is a small midwestern town. It’s classic Americana — marching bands, firetrucks, Shriners in go-carts, suburban beauty queens… the list goes on. It’s a fun celebration of the diverse population of Northeast Minneapolis (‘Nordeast’) and surrounding communities.
I shot these images with my trusty Yashica Electro 35 on Kodak Portra 160 film. Scans are from Dwayne’s photo, and are straight from their scanner except for resizing and adding the watermark.
This camera never ceases to please me. It is quick and easy enough to use that I can get fairly fast shots, even having to focus on moving subjects. I’ve used it enough that I can reach for the focus ring quickly and know which way it needs to turn. The rangefinder patch is big and bright enough to make focusing easy. And I’m always more than happy with the sharpness of images, great color and contrast, and nice natural feel to the images. And I love the 45mm focal length.
The fact that I’ve gotten to know this particular camera and am comfortable with it leads me to ponder one big problem that comes with collecting a lot of old cameras. It really takes time to get to know a camera, but when I’m always trying out some ‘new’ old camera that I picked up, I seldom really get comfortable with many of them. I have several cameras that I’ve only put one roll of film through, and when you shoot your first roll of film you spend a lot of time tinkering with the settings and dials and just figuring things out. It can sometimes be hard to focus on the actual images you’re shooting, when figuring out the functioning of the camera is taking so much of your attention. I think this is why many great photographers probably used a single camera almost all of the time. I’m sure when Cartier-Bresson picked up his Leica, he never had to waste a moment of thought on how to operate it. The camera likely became an extension of his eyes and his hands, and he could probably compose, focus and shoot an image nearly as quickly as someone today with an autofocus digital SLR (though he couldn’t fire off 12 photos per second, then pick the best image out of hundreds or thousands shot in one day). He never had to decide which lens to put on his Leica, because I think he always shot with the same lens. The images he captured and the compositions he created with such simple equipment stand up to anything created today, and I think some of that may actually be because of the simplicity of his equipment — he wasn’t weighed down with equipment to figure out, technical decisions to make. Many people today focus so much on having the latest, best, hot new camera and so many lenses and accessories and gizmos, that they probably don’t have much attention left to give to the images they’re creating. That’s certainly not true of everyone, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. I’m guilty of that when shooting my digital SLRs, and when I’m using so many different old film cameras I tend to have the same problem. I’m not going to stop collecting old cameras, because the cameras themselves are of such interest to me and I so enjoy fixing them, learning about them and using them. But it doesn’t at all help my image making — in fact, it hinders my image-making. This may merit further discussion in a later post.
Yashica Electro 35
Portra 400 film scan converted to black and white.
Another from the Yashica Electro 35 GS , on new Kodak Portra 400. This has become my go-to camera, it seems. It’s such a versatile, easy-to-use camera, that it has become the one I grab most of the time. Fast lens, great viewfinder, easy-to-focus rangefinder, and I love the aperture-priority auto-exposure.
The new Portra 400 film seems great, too. I had read about it’s amazing latitude, so on this roll of film I experimented (very unscientifically) a little bit by setting the camera to higher film speed than 400. The light was getting low on this shot, and I might have set the camera to 800 ASA instead of 400 to get a bit faster shutter speed, which just means it was underexposed by one stop, and it turned out great. I know I shot some with the camera set at 1600 ASA, but as I said it was a very unscientific experiment, and I don’t exactly remember which shots I had the camera set at what. It does seem like a great film, and the high exposure latitude could make it a great choice for some of my other old cameras that may not have terribly accurate shutter speeds.
Shot with the Yashica Electro 35 on Fujicolor 200, converted to black & white in Lightroom.
This latest shot of my favorite model was made on Fujifilm 200 with the Yashica Electro 35. I like the short depth-of-field provided by the f/1.7 lens in this low-angle shot (I don’t remember if it was wide open on this shot – probably had to stop down a little because of the brightness outdoors).
My quest for cheap (and good) scans continues…
I had several rolls of film developed and scanned by Dwayne’s photo, and I was pretty happy with them, considering the price – $4 develop + $3 scan per roll (same price for a roll of 35mm or 120). The 35mm film scans were 2376 x 3583 pixels, and ok quality. This compares to North Coast Photo’s budget scans at $5.75 develop + $6.95 scan per roll for 2000 x 3000 pixels. There is a difference in quality, though. With lower-quality scans you’ll see streaking or other oddities when you start to adjust colors or values in the image, and I see some of this in the scans I got from Dwayne’s. Not terrible, but maybe not any better than what you’d get from drug store processing and scanning (but the price is in that drug-store range, or even lower). Dwayne’s scans generally look good (the one above looks great, I think) right off the disk, but when you want to make adjustments you’ll start to find the scan’s shortcomings. The scans from North Coast were smoother and free of lines or streaks when I made adjustments. And of course, North Coast’s ‘enhanced scans’ were much higher resolution and great quality, but a little expensive ($11.95/roll for scanning, on top of the $5.75 develop).
The problems I see in lower-quality scans are usually most evident in the smooth color of the sky. The image at right is cropped from a dark evening sky in one of the Dwayne’s scans on the same roll of film as the photo above (click to see full-resolution). You can see vertical streaking, and this image had no edits done in Lightroom besides cropping. If you start making adjustments to the image, these faults usually become amplified. Adjustments as simple as adjusting exposure can emphasize some scanning faults. I like to use Lightroom’s selective HSL sliders to saturate certain color ranges, lighten or darken certain color ranges, etc, and this can wreak havok on a bad scan. But with a proper scan they work great. So I’ll continue my quest for great scans at a lower price, but I might just end up going back to North Coast.
Surprisingly, Dwayne’s scans of 120 film were lower-resolution than their 35mm scans. 6 x 6 images on 120 film were only about 2000 x 2000 pixels. Weird. But again, the price was good (same price as 35mm).
I’ll be posting my favorite shots from these rolls of 35mm and 120 over the coming weeks.
Looking through some scans from earlier this year, this shot jumped out at me from the very first roll of 120 film I shot in my Super Ricohflex. I like the composition and strong contrast. Funny how looking back later at a roll of shots can reveal ones that you didn’t pay much attention to at first.