Flatbed Scanner

>>3062349

A fullframe dslr scanning rig.

>>3062349
If you need the convenience of a flatbed, the best you can do is an Epson v750 or v850. Basically the same but the 850 is slightly modernized and warms up faster.

Alternatively, >>3062358 if you have a really nice digital camera like a D800, A7R or similar and a macro lens, taking a photo of the slide will actually produce results that in some ways may exceed a scan.

>>3062349
A dslr scanning rig will outperform the best drum scans.

Any ilc from the last 5 years will do fine of you don't already have one, sony nex 3 and 5 are nice and cheap. Then you need some m39 bellows and an enlarger lens,this will give you $800+ macro lens performance for under $100.

Then you need a white backlight - tablet screen on whitescreen or a flash and remote trigger
Some diffuse acrylic that sits a bit away from your light source, opal acrylic is how it's referred
A way to mask film and hold it flat, you could use the existing film holders from your scanner or your imagination.
A shroud from light table to lens, 2 pringles tuubes painted black, put a slit up one so they slide over each other.

Ignore the 2 posters that say it must be fullframe/good dslr, bellows will allow a crazy amount of magnification, if you want you could do an 8 shot stitch on a crop dslr, enlarger lenses tend to have zero vignette or distortion.

>>3062358
>>3062368
>>3062390


With a decent DSLR setup what would be the best macro lens to invest in? digital wise i literally have no kit apart from a nikon D7000 with the kit lens...

>>3062405
I'm unfamiliar with Nikon, but you basically want a lens designed for copy-work. Do they have any old 50mm Macro Nikkors? There's always that 60mm macro too.

>>3062430
>>3062405

55 2.8 AF, it's a bit rare but can be found on fleabay for about 175. It is Nikon's sharpest lens ever.

If you have the money, 200 Macro

>>3062390
Fundamentally incorrect. You can't just ignore the reality of optical physics because it makes you feel better. You are letting yourself get fooled by digital post-processing. You're just being a hipster. It would be easier if you just took digital images and added a "film grain" noise filter.

imacon flextight precision ii scanner is a really good affordable drum scan machine out there. Its fast in both scanning and process and can take 4x5 too. Its sharp on all corners with colors and up to 8000dpi max.

the nikon coolscan 9000 is pretty much a cult favourite and it does its job really well. The sharpness is great and if you look at samples online its possibly one of the best film scanners out there.

if you are patient and good at hunting for deals and if you are only using 35mm go look out for the kodak pakon. its rare and hard to find and its so much cheaper than the above i mentioned but it scans fast and the images are surprisingly sharper.

not sure about dslr scanning though..

I hate DSLRscan-fags. They're convinced that their expensive and convoluted setups are the best and only way, even though dedicated film scanners cost a fraction of the price, give you a better image with IR artefact removal, and are about ten times easier to use.

>>3062479
And then this retard shows up.

>>3062430
>>3062405
Literally any Micro-Nikkor would work, but look at the 55 AIS, 60 AF-D, 105 AIS/AF-D.

>>3064092
Shatbed IDF working like clockwork, around the clock.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 11.02.11 PM.png (52KB, 964x249px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 964x249px

>>3063931
Somehow I don't think OP is looking to jump from an old flatbed to one of the out of production, currently selling for more than they originally retailed, super cult scanners.


>>3062349
If you want a budget option, the reliable options seem to be the Epson V750 and the Plustek Opticfilm 8200.

Scanners fucking suck, but desu I'd still rather be feeding rolls through them and leaving the color inversion/correction and shit out of my workflow.

>>3062405
55mm 3.5

You can get then for less than 50 bucks, very sharp. It's a MF lens though.

>>3063878
Sorry, what's "fundamentally incorrect" about scanning to digital?

>>3064092
Lol, dedicated film scanners suck, I've had top of the line flatbeds and a coolscan and they both had massive issues.

>>3064097
>Colour inversion shit
You can run raws through vuescan, admittedly their raw processing engine is shit, but it's a good starting point especially if you don't have color profiling hardware.

>>3062405
Bellows and an enlarger lens, a $100 enlarger lens will out perform anything but the very best most recent macro lenses.

>>3064092
Well it's expensive but you get a free macro lens

>>3064099
MF is good, makes sure your shit is fucking in fucking fuckidity focus

>>3064092
Dedicated film scanners that can handle roll film and/or MF are NOT cheap.
However, the point of using DSLR scanning is that most people already have a DSLR. Buying a 40MP digital camera just to scan 35mm negs is pretty stupid.

>>3064145

then shoot with the DSLR then.

>>3064115
No, you idiot, your beliefs about scanning are fundamentally incorrect. Just because you can't properly operate a flatbed doesn't mean the scans are worse than a dslr, which literally can't create as good an image. Physically impossible. Defeats the entire purpose of film. Why would you take a 35mm photo, or god forbid a medium format, just to cast it onto an even smaller size before blowing it up?! Scanning already is a macro digital image, and it only has one (sometimes two) depth of field. It captures the negative at size, at greater resolution. The image also has to pass through less glass, which means you're getting less distortion. When you "scan" by dslr, you pretty much lose everything that was valuable about the film, except the him if grain. All the detail you think you're getting is digital noise masquerading as clarity. After all, that's what a digital sharpening mask literally is. And if you think that's not happening, guess again. Current digital cameras have certain features built into the image capture to try and hide the elements of digital imaging that everyone hates so much. But by all means, suck on the digital camera companies' cocks a little more. Sure the scanner companies aren't any better, but at least they have the actual science of light to support some of their claims.

>>3063931
>imacon
>affordable
What drugs are you on? Sure, just let me take out a car loan. One of my professors could barely convince the university one of those things was worth the money; took him years to get one.

>>3062390
>A dslr scanning rig will outperform the best drum scans

And Fro knows photo is the world greatest photographer.

I've scanned with both a DSLR setup and a shatbed, and personally I would choose the shatbed any day. DSLR scanning takes fucking ages especially if you want good results for printing, having to set the whole rig up, find perfect focus, taking multiple shots of one photo for stitching, then actually stitching them together in PS/LR etc.

I scored a v700 for a sweet deal but didn't have high hopes at first after seeing how many of you autists shit on flatbeds here, at 3200dpi it achieves results the same as stitching together 4 shots with a DSLR and takes a fraction of the time.

>>3062349
Try and find a good deal on a used v700/750/800, and if you have no luck then buy the macro lens for your DSLR like others suggest. It all comes down to how you value your time, effort and money

>>3064243
scanners still have to focus and suffer from all the same disadvantages you listed as a traditional dslr sensor.

All a scanner is, is a very long, very thin, camera sensor.

>>3064256
The focus is narrower, which means it's more precise. It's literally a larger image. You just disproved your own points. A traditional dslr sensor is tiny, and to get a lens that's not going to distort your image in some way costs as much as a flatbed or negative scanner. You can't argue with physics.

>>3064245
yeah. never trust a young gear head who has good social skills. I'm not being sarcastic. If you want the technical answer, go to an old autist who's been doing it for decades and seen every change. Then go see the actual professionals who get gigs on the quality of their portfolio, not the fanciness of their studio. They'll do what works. Fro Knows Photo is basically a trust fund kid masturbating for money.

File: _DSC1745_00004.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

what's wrong with DSLR scanning? I do it all the time for my A3 size drawings. I already scanned slides once too. You just need a macro lens, tripod and a source of light. Once you set it up it's 1000x faster than scanning with a shitbed.
>click
next
>click
next
>click
next
...
>put SD card in computer
done

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3300
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	19660
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:26 15:27:43
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	100
Image Quality	RAW
White Balance	AUTO
Focus Mode	MANUAL
ISO Speed Requested	100
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	1994

>>3064380
This demonstrates the difference pretty well. If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can help you.

>>3064264
A dslr sensor has been made to the highest of standards, a flatbed has been done to the finest of cost efficiency. Flatbeds don't have nerds frantically comparing results.

>macro lenses are expensive
Yes they are, but bellows are £20 off ali express and the best enlarger lenses don't go over £100.
My minolta rokkor enlarger lens that set me back £32 massively out performs my cosina 90mm macro, pentax 50mm macro, sigma 50mm macro and nikon 55mm macro. It's perfectly sharp and flat with no distortion and has zero colour cast because you don't need coatings on an enlarger lens as it's always fully shrouded.

File: imacon comparoe.jpg (1MB, 2387x2927px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2387x2927px

>>3062368
>if you have a really nice digital camera like a
$200 EOS M?
Also, I should mention how very excited I am that this thread has been so thoroughly DSLRscancucked before I've even shown up.
>the fire rises

>>3064755

Nikon Coolscan 9000 can beat every single one of these test.. except the imacon.. that flextight are a godsend but expensive.

>>3064734
>more glass = better
>smaller image = better
It's all capitalism. Why do you think any if these companies is being honest about their sensors? Because of the "nerds"? I'm sorry, but the digital cameras were in a megapixel race for almost a decade. So much for the nerds. Have you actually tried digging into scanning? The nerds are the only ones there. They actually teach you the physics and science of the process, instead of touting marketing gimmicks. I mean, which do you really trust more-- a product designed to be sold to an ignorant mass audience, or a specialty product only bought by hardcore hobbyists and pros who have been working on photos since before the digital takeover? Who do you think knows more-- the kid who makes poorly lit, trendy YouTube videos with a whiny voice, or the geezer who actually had to learn the chemistry and had to learn the physics of light enlargement. Just because something is shiny and new doesn't make it better. Since you work with film, I'd expect you to know that already. But then again, why do you shoot film?

File: DSLRcuckscanunderexposed.jpg (419KB, 1797x800px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1797x800px

>>3064848
Nice rant, lil' buddy.
>dslrscan uber alles

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:28 08:23:01
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1797
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3065106
What exactly is that image supposed to be demonstrating?

>>3064755
>comparing two different images.

File: OlyInfinityMini-Superior100-DSLRcuckScan.jpg (832KB, 1080x1620px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1080x1620px

>>3065106
That the DSLR sensor produces a file with higher integrity than any CCD lab scan or shatbed/reboxed & remarketed shatbed(coolscan, dimage, imacon).
You can't push other files like this without being swamped by read noise or banding.
What's more, your exposure control is up to shit with these machines. Most of the detail in this image would not even exist on a shatbed scan.
And that's before we get to the detail at the other end of the scale, burning through roasted highlights.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:10 09:53:19
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1620
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3065106
Your neg is overexposed cuck.

File: 69RVP50andcrop.jpg (1003KB, 2235x900px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 2235x900px

>>3065140
Yeah, it was the only time a shatbedder has posted actual scans and crops, as far as I've been able to tell.
I happened to also have an MF shot of a similar subject, so I made that comparison.
Something that appears to be lost on a lot of people is that the red boxed area delineating his "100% crop" is much larger than mine. I posted it like that because I didn't want to introduce the variable of interpolation, or changing anything about the pixel-level integrity of the files, so I just made a crop at 100% that was the same pixel height, and drew the red boxes to show the difference in magnification.
My current rig uses a higher MP sensor with a weaker OLPF, so it's actually a lot crisper than this at 100% too. Pic related.

>>3065152
huh?

>>3062390
>m39 bellows and an enlarger lens

Fuck, other points aside, I hadn't thought of this. I have a nice Schneider lens that came with one of my enlargers, too. I should try this sometime.

>>3065145
How can you not tell that these are shit? How do you not see the incredible amount of digital noise you've introduced into these photos? I'm working on images far more underexposed than this, scanned through a flatbed, and have way more detail. And you've made them blurrier!

>>3065153
You probably shouldn't keep using this image. It's not as good an example as you think it is.

>>3065188
>he said, whilst not posting any examples
Do you also think HP5 is shiiiiiit, by any chance?

>>3062390
i've got a canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. can I just get something like this and use my lens? or should I just buy the 100mm macro lens non-usm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASAHI-PENTAX-AUTO-BELLOWS-and-SLIDE-COPIER-Near-mint-/322493852906?hash=item4b1621acea:g:CpYAAOSwuspY~oyv

>>3065195
Why would I blame the film? I mean, I mostly shoot delta, but each film has a different character; there is no best.

I don't have any examples because I lost all my files when I left school, and am literally learning wet mounting right now. That doesn't change the fact that the photos you posted are full of digital noise, and you've blurred the focus. I'm shocked you're using them as positive examples.

>>3065207
>I don't have any examples because
Yep, I've got a bridge to sell you too, buddy.
The focus is on the back wall in that photo, it was shot with an ir-focusing oly p&s, the couch and the wall texture are clearly in perfect focus. This is actually also a substantial crop, to keep people's faces out of it. Also, I raised the blacks, because I like doing that. Sue me.
In >>3065106, I'll grant you that there's some pretty visible jpeg artifacting, but I thought anyone with an appreciation of the technical aspects of image processing would be able t recognise that and discount it. The colour noise is film grain, m8. Look at the quality of the neg. Obviously to achieve the colour balance, contrast and saturation in the final image on the right, I've had to make truly ridiculous, beyond what would be regarded as extreme for a normal image, amounts of contrast and saturation adjustment. A contrast curve that steep would turn any normal image into a lithograph. Now you need to understand the structure of colour film, it's 3 layers (4 for Superior Superia) of B&W film, sensitised to each colour, and each layer is embedded with colour dye clouds that are activated in proportion to the size of the silver crystals grown near them. The dye's left behind when the silver is bleached out, leaving a colour image. But knowing that, you then know that each of the primary colours are represented discreetly on the film image. They aren't blended. They work like an LCD display, there's a big cyan cloud, and a smaller magenta cloud and a tiny yellow cloud, and when you invert that and look at it from far away it's an orangey red. With underexposed film, there are less clouds and they're spread further apart. So when you take that and amplify it, you get a lot of colour noise.
>>3065193
Sure if you say so. But as per usual this thread is me putting my DSLR cuck scans where my mouth is, and butthurt shatbedders posting nothing but salty tears.

>>3065237
> I made my pictures ugly because I don't know what Im doing, but I figured anybody with any taste would be able to forgive my garbage because they'd clearly see I'm clueless


I understand how film works. That's how I know that's not film grain. It's digital noise, introduced from your scanning process and the torture you put your scans through. One way you can tell actually is the focus, which you're very wrong about. I wasn't saying your shot wasn't focused--it's your scan that does not maintain the fidelity of the film. When you look closely, the grain is blurred. That makes it really clear that the noise is not from the film, because it's "sharper" than the grain where you say the noise should be coming from. Maybe if you knew more about the science of light, you wouldn't need my examples.

File: IMG_8211mini.jpg (210KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 535x800px

>>3065262
>he thinks shatbeds achieve better focus than a rail mounted macro lense focusing on a backlit neg in magnified live view
>he thinks the digital noise from the highlights of a 100 ISO 24mp full frame ETTR RAW capture is to blame for the colour speckles in the shadows of an 800px jpeg of a massively underexposed 35mm colour neg scan, not film grain
>THE SCIENCE OF LIGHT!!!!11!
I think we've broken him.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	535
Image Height	800

File: 3.jpg (656KB, 2041x618px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 2041x618px

>>3064755
>>3064755
>>3065140
>>3065153
>Yeah, it was the only time a shatbedder has posted actual scans and crops, as far as I've been able to tell.
I guess I'll join in then

MF neg, both with the same sharpening applied, both at 100% crop. DSLR is a 4 image stitch, shatbed is an Epson V700 scanned at 3200dpi. The flatbed scanning takes a quarter of the time and IMO produces slightly better results.

These arguments always come down to performance, but never mention the time and money side. I got lucky and scored the epson for $300aud, they usually go for around $500-$600 , and my dslr scan setup also cost around $600, and if I wanted a dedicated macro lens it would cost even more. So you can achieve great results with BOTH, it just depends on how much time, effort and money you're willing to put in.

File: 4.jpg (628KB, 793x1000px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 793x1000px

>>3065344
Here's the crop area

>>3065282
I'm a 3rd party to this conversation as I'm really split between DSLR scanning and scanner scanning (I've only done DSLR scanning badly).

Your example looks a little fuzzy. Got anything 1mb at least in size?

>>3065344
>if I wanted a dedicated macro lens
Fucking disregarded, holy shit.

>>3065412
>disregards everything said about time and money
classic rebuttal, kill yourself cunt

>>3065421
>>disregards everything said about time and money
Yeah, because that was fucking stupid too.
I'd be surprised if it took me 5 minutes to 4-shot scan a roll of 120, and then maybe 2 minutes a frame to stitch them, tops? A roll of 35 mm is about 2-3 minutes?
I don't know how many times I've advised you plebs to use a remote flash to illuminate your scans, but for some retarded reason you're all wedded to the idea of dimly back lighting with your ipads and taking shakycam long exposures at marginal apertures with your kit zooms on extension tubes.
And then you come on here and bitch that DSLR scans are soft and take too long.
Well fuck me. It's as if you've been given a shovel and told to dig a hole, and I come back an hour later and there's a 6 inch divot in the ground and you're swinging the fucking handle at it.

>>3065446
Holy fuck, this is a perfect post.
I don't know how many times I've said get bellows and an enlarger lens only for people to reply to my comment and whinge that dedicated macro lenses cost too much.

As for speed, my epson 4990 takes 7 minutes from start to finish to scan one frame of 135 (preview scan, set levels, actual scan, ice, export) compared to one click on my dslr rig and one click in capture one.

>>3062349

Is there any automated negative inversion settings or something for lightroom?

I know it wont be perfect, I just want somewhere decent to start.

>>3065451
No, wet printing colour charts and using a print calibration device for references is the best way to get correct colours.

>>3065451
You can do that on gimp by saving a preset. I'm sure you can do that on PS too.

>>3065446
>Yeah, because that was fucking stupid too
You think it's stupid because you fucking autists are so set on the idea that only DLSR scanning can provide good results, even when proven that flatbeds hold up. I'm not arguing that flatbeds are better, I'm showing people like OP that there's fucking options available for different budgets that can achieve good results

>I'd be surprised if it took me 5 minutes to 4-shot scan a roll of 120, and then maybe 2 minutes a frame to stitch them, tops? A roll of 35 mm is about 2-3 minutes?
I'd be surprised too, because that's a huge underestimate

>I don't know how many times I've advised you plebs to use a remote flash to illuminate your scans, but for some retarded reason you're all wedded to the idea of dimly back lighting with your ipads and taking shakycam long exposures at marginal apertures with your kit zooms on extension tubes.
So what's your setup? Lets see the overall cost of your setup. Let's also see some results you've achieved from it

>>3065484
>OP says his current flatbed gives shit results
>patreon spells out how to do superior DSLR scans
>BUT FLATBEDS ARE FINE

Lol, spot the poorfag that can't afford a digital camera.

> because that's a huge underestimate
How long does it take you to pull film 36mm and click a button?

>Lets see the overall cost of your setup
Not him but
Sony A7 ii - already owned
Flash + triggers - already owned
enlarger lens - £32
bellows - £20
opal acrylic sheet - £3
anti-newton glass - free

If you can find a flatbed that out performs my rig for less than £55 new, i'll donate my whole rig to you.

>>3065490
>OP says his current flatbed gives shit results
He has a shit and outdated flatbed, yes

>patreon spells out how to do superior DSLR scans
Someone with the mindset of a 12 year old believes there's only one way of achieving good results, yes

>BUT FLATBEDS ARE FINE
There are good flatbeds that achieve good results which has been proven, yes

>Lol, spot the poorfag that can't afford a digital camera.
Spot the autist that can't read that I have both

>Sony A7 ii - already owned
>Flash + triggers - already owned
>enlarger lens - £32
>bellows - £20
>opal acrylic sheet - £3
>anti-newton glass - free
Oh wow, you already own a fullframe body and flash and triggers, the most expensive parts! So when someone is looking to scan photos, but doesn't own a FF body, lens/bellows, flash, triggers or anything, your genius suggestion is to spend over $1.5k used, instead of buying a flatbed for under $600 used. Not to mention you still avoided posting actual results, the one thing that would back up how "superior" your set up is.

If you can find a DSLR setup that outperforms my flatbed for less than $300 used, I'll donate my good genes to you, moopco, so maybe your future child won't turn out so fucking retarded

>>3065519
>hurrrr yyou already own a digital camera and flash

they are like, the absolute basics for this hobby, so, yeh, I'd guess 95% of people here have these items.

>triggers are expensive
mine were £4, a sync cable is also pennies.

>wahwahwah full frame
You don't need ff for good scans, 1:1 on crop looks identical to 1:1 on ff, except you need to stitch more shots. I'm actually waiting on some nikon bellows to show up so I can use the old CCD d70 and look at how they come out.

as for outperforming your flatbed.
d3100 body - £130 from london camera exchange
nikkor 50mm f4 enlarger lens - £50 from ebay
bellows - £18 from ebay
manual yongnuo flash - £30 from ebay

That puts me at 228, add on the acrylic, glass, sync cable and materials for a rig and it's maybe 250, which is $323 and you get a perfectly capable DSLR and excellent macro gear and flash, instead of a shonky old flatbed that can scan flat things.

You can still save another 100 quid off that price if you're happy to go to one of the old 6MP bodies, they're CCD so colour reproduction is great and the dynamic range of shooting film is only a couple of stops, so you're not really held back by the sensor performance unless you NEED more than 10MP per 135 frame.

File: DSF2185-Fuji-100T-1.jpg (112KB, 810x610px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 810x610px

So I have an a7ii and SEL90M28.

What is the best way to set these up for scanning?

Just a compact tripod over a light pad w/ the film in some sort of holder?

Do I need a shade or anything to keep outside light out?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100T
Camera Software	Capture One 8 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:12 13:58:36
Image Created	2015:07:12 13:58:36
Exposure Time	1/140 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Image Width	810
Image Height	610
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3065535
if you don't want the faff of a flash, get some opal acrylic, space it half an inch off a tablet screen on white screen, concoct some sort of film holder to keep it flat and held marginally off the acrylic.

A shade is gonna help a lot, 2 pringles tubes can form a quick and dirty bellows like system.

And your camera has to be perfectly perpendicular to the film, your focus plane at 1:1 is crazy small.

Personally I knocked up a rig in solidworks and 3d printed it.

>>3065541

>if you don't want the faff of a flash, get some opal acrylic, space it half an inch off a tablet screen on white screen, concoct some sort of film holder to keep it flat and held marginally off the acrylic.

Using a light pad, so the pixels shouldn't shine through.

Ordered the lomography film holder, but had to import it so it will take awhile to arrive, figure that should keep the film flat.

>Personally I knocked up a rig in solidworks and 3d printed it.

Beyond my abilities.

I figured I'd could use a level and play with it a bit. If it is all in focus, the focus peaking should light up the entire negative I am thinking.

How are y'all so dense? Think through the actual mechanics of what you're thinking about. Everytime light passes through a lens, it loses clarity. There is always refraction, no matter how good the lens. Also, the deeper the focus area, the less sharp the focus. Ansel Adams almost killed himself when he realized this. Flatbeds have a much narrower focus. This is probably why you think your scans are shit--you keep missing the focus. This is why imicon scanners are so expensive. They are virtual drums that make the film flatter relative to the scanner, and don't use the minimum amount of glass. All of the images you all have posted are bad scans. The film grain is highly compromised, the dynamic range is compressed, and all the edges have been made soft by your process.

>>3065547
for focus, just use focus magnification at it's strongest setting and you can grain focus (focus by looking how sharp the edges of the grain are)

The focal plane is tiny, and it's gonna light up focus peaking like a christmas tree even when it's slightly out. For speed/efficiency this is where a REALLY solid setup comes in handy.

Lomo film holder should do the trick. I've yet to find the perfect film holder, so I'm designing one of those too.

>>3065549
>There is always refraction, no matter how good the lens.
So you're saying that you have no clue what refraction is....gotcha.

>>3065527
>all this text
>yet again still no scan results

>>3065552
Refraction is what makes photography work. No lens is perfect. All scanning is macro digital photography of light passing through film. After the light has passed through the film, what's best? Having it pass through another lens (which introduces new aberrations, compresses the image, and reduces clarity), pass through only one plane of thin glass (which keeps image at the same size, and only has a similar if not better maintenance of clarity from the lens), or passing through no glass at all? Physics is not on your side.

>>3062390
DSLR scanning rigs tend to have inaccurate color for one and will not even come close to a drum scanner in terms of replicating the grain patterns and accurately capturing all of the detail. Idiot

>>3065618
I'm kind of amazed all these people who ostensibly shoot film are getting fooled by the combination of sharpening and blurring effects built into their cameras to hide the flaws of cmos. How are they mistaking blobs of pixelated mess for film grain? Do they think Gregory Crewdson uses a dslr?

File: DSLRScanning.jpg (455KB, 2138x795px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2138x795px

>>3065556
Well to be clear, there are two A7 poster in this thread (at least).
You've been arguing with a person who hasn't posted results, but I posted >>3065282 >>3065153 >>3065145 >>3065106 >>3064755

My comments since then have been >>3065412 and >>3065446 .

>>3065484
>I'd be surprised too, because that's a huge underestimate
I charge $25 to dev and scan a roll of film, if it took me longer than 3 minutes to make the actual scans it simply wouldn't be worth my time of day.
>>3065484
>So what's your setup? Lets see the overall cost of your setup. Let's also see some results you've achieved from it
Pic related. I have posted this image to /p/ literally dozens of times. I now use an empty bedside dresser painted white inside instead of an esky, and an A7 on an enlarger column rather than a 550D on a tripod, but the principle is the same. Like I said above, an Eos M costs nothing and would do the same. Any large sensor interchangeable lense camera could achieve broadly similar results.
As the other guy is saying, and I have said many times, your lense doesn't need to be expensive, just appropriate.
A setup could cost $300. My current setup costs about $1200. If $10k showed up in my bank account tomorrow I might switch to a 5DSR and a 100mm Printing Nikkor, but I certainly wouldn't go buying an Imacon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:28 08:08:19
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	1.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2138
Image Height	795
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

DSLRscan
>camera, macro lens, tripod, lights
>most of /p/ already has

Shitbed scan
>300 bucks
>can only scan 2D things

Unless you're really concerned about the quality of the digital file of your analog neg which is stupid in the first place, a DSLRscan rig has multiple advantages.

>>3065705
If you don't care about the digital file of your analog neg, why are you shooting film? Are you really suggesting that you're making color analog enlargements?

File: OlyInfinityMini-Superior200-DSLRcuckScan.jpg (710KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1500x1000px

>>3065634
Posting some more examples because I love fighting with strangers on the internet, and having pictures when they don't makes them so angry.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:10 10:31:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

I thought the point of dslr scanning is that everyone (here at least) owns an entry level dslr, why even consider a flatbed?

>>3065863
Man, I'm totally in favour of dslr scanning but your examples suck balls.

Get a Pacific Image scanner like 3650 for about 30-40 €.

It will absolutely shit on every flatbed scanner.

>>3062390

Fuck off shit poster.

File: BinnaburraEOSITN00019.jpg (908KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 1500x1000px

>>3065921
Yeah, that Oly shot is pretty underexposed too. Got a shitload of likes though.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:19 13:55:33
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSLRcuckedReala.jpg (2MB, 2988x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2988x2000px

>>3065921
>but your examples suck balls.
Also, it's worth pointing out that good scanning also reveals the quality, or lack thereof, of the source material. I can publish what might be an unusable negative scanned another way, just because I can still get something out of it.
But also, if you use low quality lenses or poor technique, then that will show up in the scan too, as softness or blur. And given that I enjoy the use of meme lenses, and that I usually only shoot colour in full-auto compacts, and only want to post rejects to /p/ for the most part, it makes it hard for me to share "high technical quality" colour photos to prove my DSLRcuck superiority.
But for this shot I used a normal sharp film, and even though it was my meme crop sensor 30/1.4 Art, I stopped down for this shot, giving reasonable res across the frame. And it's a rank snapshit, on reflection.
So here you go.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2988
Image Height	2000

>>3065634
>he's a sonyfag
lmao how fucking typical, I should have known. All you braindead cunts are the fucking same, heads so far up your own asses and full to the brim with autism. You have the mindset of a child, when you hear or see something you don't like you'll close your eyes and cover you ears and scream "la la la la". Even when proven wrong, when shown that there are other options available, you're too much of a stubborn brat to admit it.

>>3066011
>here's a list of lame excuses for why my shit is trash

File: T70MelbHP500011.jpg (1MB, 2996x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2996x2000px

>>3066020
>when you hear or see something you don't like
I haven't SEEN anything from you, shatbedder.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:29 14:29:27
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2996
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3066027
>I haven't SEEN anything from you
>proving his mental disabilities further
I literally posted an example earlier when you were crying about how no one else posts crops >>3065344

File: Old DSLRcuckstitch.jpg (279KB, 1132x800px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1132x800px

>>3066029
Yes, and I said I disregarded it because it's obviously soft as shit, and you didn't use an actual lense.
Here, have a 4shot rabal stitch.

>>3066047
Yes I saw you disregarded it, because like I said you're a manchild, you completely ignore everything else I've said. I keep saying I'm not claiming flatbeds are superior, they hold up against DSLR scanning and both can provide excellent results. The example I posted was with my specific setup, obviously it doesn't stand for DLSR scanning as a fucking whole, and no shit you could get better results than I did with a more suitable setup.

If I were to keep my DSLR maybe I would have invested in a more suitable lens, flashes etc, but I don't use my digital shit anymore. Why keep it just for scanning when I could sell it, buy a scanner that is FOR ME easier and quicker to use and provides results as good if not better as the DSLR setup I had, then still have money left over for a ton of film, new lens or whatever. Like I've said multiple times now, there are options for people out there with different budgets and needs, you need to get off your high horse and stop claiming that DSLR scanning is the one and only option, because you're wrong and I guarantee you know it.

>>3065618
>inaccurate color
What is >>3065452
What makes you think flatbeds/drum scanners are more accurate for colour? They still use a digital image sensor and whatever colour processing it has built in.
What makes you think a dslr scanning rig, with infinite potential for resolution and the very latest sensor technology, can't beat a 10 year old wet plate scanner?
What makes you think comparing a dslr rig knocked up at home for a couple hundred £ is comparable to a service that charges £20 per frame of 135?

>>3065632
Pentax with pixel shift or sigma foveon based bodies are recommended if you want to take this really seriously.

>>3065963
Thanks valuable member of the community.

>>3066074
>hurrrrr shit dslr scanning rigs aren't as good as the best shatbeds

No fucking shit loser.

>>3066076
>>hurrrrr shit dslr scanning rigs aren't as good as the best shatbeds
>No fucking shit loser.
Either learn some reading comprehension or reply to the right post you dumb cunt, no where in that post did I mention anything along those lines

>>3066081
>my specific setup
>doesn't stand for all dslr scanning
>could be better
>scanner provides better results than dslr setup

So by that you didn't mean your shit dslr rig isn't as good as a good scanner?

Lol, get some writing comprehension sonny.

>>3066081
Lol
>>3066086
Rekt

File: fuji200_dslr_fullres.jpg (3MB, 2663x3994px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2663x3994px

tl;dr all the bitching ITT

I've been scanning lots of old film over the years and for 35mm I would absolutely recommend DSLR/MILC scans over anything else. Even the cheapest cameras are now 20+ MP, which is enough for anything short of technical film or the most carefully exposed Velvia. While there are some issues with color and lack of dust/scratch removal sometimes annoys me, it's faster, higher quality especially in case of badly exposed or faded film, and handles uncut rolls without the need for rare motorized attachments.
Uniform backlight was a problem 10 years ago, but now any smartphone or tablet with a quality screen (eg iPad) works great so no need to muck about with flashes, diffusers and matte glass.

I cannot comment on how it works for larger formats since stitching is a PITA and I've never done it, but I expect that high res modes in E-M5II or K-1 should be able to handle MF in one shot with quality comparable to a dedicated scanner.

>>3066160
>stitching

Really easy if you have a distortion/vignette free lens. Take your shots, edit one so it looks good, copy the settings to the other shots, export and either do a collage panorama merge in photoshop or use ms ice. Whilst lr's pano feature works 99% of the time, sometimes it does weird shit. If you're handy with a macro, you can do all of this in 2 clicks in ps.

Also, an ipad isn't ideal as a backlight as it's not as full spectrum as a flash. But is more than adequate for most people.

>>3066160
when i scan using my smartphone, the pixels are clearly visable through the photo. Is this not an issue with the high resolution ipad screen or what?

I've actually been using a kindle since it doesn't use pixels to produce an image, but i have some issues with the backlight not being strong enough and the screen not being flush with the body, which makes it hard to keep the film flat.

>>3066168
Don't rest the film on the screen.

>>3066164
The main issue is moving the film or the camera. Mounting film on glass reduces quality, so ideally you'd need some frame that moves on rails.

>an ipad isn't ideal as a backlight as it's not as full spectrum as a flash
A continuous spectrum is not important as film only has 3 monochromatic emulsion layers. (That's how film scanners can get away with using CCFLs)

>>3066168
Put the screen a few centimeters back from the film so the pixels are out of focus.
Even an old 320xwhatever pixel iPhone works fine.

>>3066168
dude, you needn't look further than earlier in this fucking thread as to how to correctly setup a tablet as a backlight.

fucking eejits.

>>3066171
I only mention it as I get better colours out of my flash than a screen.

>>3066175
>I only mention it as I get better colours out of my flash than a screen.
It probably saturates the sensor better than a weak LCD screen.
I'm with you though, I find that LCD screens tend to lean on the blues, plus a flash just makes things easier and sharp.

File: HDMHP500034.jpg (578KB, 1401x1000px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1401x1000px

Bumping 4 shatbedder tears

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:21 08:39:05
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1401
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3066020
>>3066029
>>3066074

Holy shit.
I don't even know where to start making fun of you. This is like when an elite hitter gets a fat BP fastball and he panics because he doesn't expect it.
Did you even read the post? Is your reading comprehension the lowest level possible? Clinically Retarded? Autistic? Drunk? Vision Impaired? Trolling? TDK? Distracted by your own small penis?
I am at a loss. It's like you read the first word of my post, made up your own idea of what the post was going to be, and then just posted what ever shit came out of your ass first. HURR. HURR. DURR.

You should stop posting. Forever. Turn off your computer, unplug it forever, and just walk away. Just walk away.

Dumbest post I've read all year. By far. I honestly believe you don't deserve to breathe anymore. You should be locked in a room, and hooked up to an oxygen machine. Except this machine hold out, giving you no oxygen until the last possible second and you wail and gasp in pain, and gives you a tiny amount, before starting the torturous process all over again. Don't worry, it won't effect your brain like it would normal people who aren't fucking retarded.

Please do us all a favor and take a knife or pen, whatever you can find with a point, and push it up into your jugular vein. You need to stick that so far into your neck that it comes out the top of your head. You are the stupidest fucking moronic retard I've ever seen post on here and the world would be a better place if you weren't in it. I wish I could go back in time and abort you by finding your mother and kicking her down the stairs, stomping on her stomach and making her drink bleach. Never, ever post here again you stupid cunt muscle.

>>3067162

Why do you fags bother getting the sharpest image out of your negatives? Everything posted in this thread sucks. Go outside more often.

File: EOS300-40STM-Superior200-DSLRcuckScan.jpg (2MB, 2940x1960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2940x1960px

>>3067162
Why are you LARP-ing as me, anon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:08 10:39:57
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2940
Image Height	1960
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: HDMHP500028.jpg (839KB, 1200x1702px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1200x1702px

>>3067174
Why do something poorly when you could just as easily do it properly?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:01 15:39:19
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1702
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: calm your jimmies.gif (780KB, 325x203px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 325x203px

>>3067174
I scan film for archival, I don't even own a film camera.

>>3067227
How can you not see how shit your scans are?

File: BinnaburraElanReala00037.jpg (2MB, 1500x2054px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x2054px

>>3067503
How can you not describe effectively in words what you think the technical flaws in my scans are?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:02 07:41:09
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	2054
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: BinnaburraElanReala00020.jpg (2MB, 1693x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1693x1000px

>>3067503
I could literally do this all day, because I have literally thousands of film scans that are all of roughly equivalent quality.
Pic related I've even gone full honest john on you; no shred of sharpening has sullied this file, not even in the raw conversion, only colour and contrast adjustments. The zoomed out image has been cropped to remove the frame borders. I really can't wait to switch to a legit high-MP, non-AA sensor.

This is Reala, of unknown expiry date, metered at 100 for the darker park of the subject tree, shot with the EF 100mm non-L Macro wide open, with a remote release.
The scan was with an A7 and Canon FD 50/3.5 Macro on the Canon 1:1 extension tube.

>mfw scanning one roll of 35mm at """"6300dpi"""" on an Imacon would probably take more than a day
From the "Hasselblad" Flextight X1 spiel on B&H:
>The X1 can blaze along at up to 60MB per minute
>up to
>when making bloated 16-bit tiff's with a proprietary file extension from interpolated "scan data"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1693
Image Height	1000

>>3067633
>I have literally thousands of film scans that are all of roughly equivalent quality.

That's pretty painful to think about.

>>3067503
They look like good scans to me
Not the scanner's fault that the shots that are shit

>>3067644
>N O S C A N S
>O
>S
>C
>A
>N
>S

File: BinnaburraElanReala00020sharpened.jpg (2MB, 1693x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1693x1000px

>>3067633
And here's the same but with my normal amount of sharpening applied.
As you can see, it degrades pixel quality substantially, but makes for a much crisper image at 1000px.
I use a 9px high pass at 80% opacity, followed by a 1.2px, 60% 12 threshold Unsharp Mask at 40%, then downscale using SinC interpolation.
For very sharp film (ie Rollei Retro 80s, other tech films) I will scale back the high pass radius, and leave more USM opacity, for a very blurry or grainy shot I will go the other direction.
For massive files, ie any stitched MF past 645, I will use the same sharpening, but pay more attention to the downscaling, often I will go to 2x desired vertical resolution, gaussian blur between 0.5 to 1.5px, then scale to output res, to soften the jaggies.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1693
Image Height	1000

>>3064095

>calls me a retard
>recommends literally the same lens without autofocus

He is right, any Micro-Nikkor will work but the longer the better. I used the 55 AIS to do my scans back in the day

>>3067695

>cares about the sharpening
>brags about his full sick sharpening technique
>doesn't see that his scan has terrible fucking colors and looks like shit

classic. literally can't see the forest because he's too busy sharpening his tree.

>>3067795
Go away Sugar. I know children who shoot more film than you.
>>3067803
I literally can't see your film scans, because you haven't posted any.
Colour is a social contruct, all you're seeing is my artistic interpretation of the tree :^)

>>3067812

it's not like any photos i post will make what i said about your scans less true, fuckwit. they won't fix your color.

>>3067824
Well what you said amounts to little more than a subjective analysis, with no component that could be objectively determined to be "true" or otherwise.
Posting a film scan that you have processed to your own particular satisfaction, however, or simply adjusting the image I provided, might help us to contextualise that analysis in a way that clarifies your point.

>>3065490
Where did you anr glass for free?

>>3067888
Anti-newton glass is a meme, and unsuitable for most modern uses for film negatives.
It's just ordinary glass with a roughened surface, and while it does prevent visible newton's rings from showing up in your scans, it introduces the texture of the glass and massively reduces sharpness.
That wasn't a problem back in the day, producing 8x10's from tri-x, but now when we're working at magnifications which would have been unheard of 20 years ago, and when 50mp digital is the reference for quality, it robs an unacceptable amount of sharpness.

>>3067900
You're a special kind of stupid.

>>3067888
From a picture framing shop, it's just non reflective glass. This is done by lightly etching the surface, some brands can show a very slight texture, others don't.

I can't see a difference between shooting just film or film sandwiched between 2 layers of glass.

>>3067695
Sharpening is a fake ass digital "enhancement" that's ruining your images. And the only reason you feel like you need to do it is that your unedited scan is blurry from not having a narrow enough depth of field in your macro camera, that also has the light pass through a worse lens, and makes everything physically smaller. Good going.

>>3068158
no, sharpening is to offset the bayer filter.

>>3068158
Digital?

>>3068158
>he thinks that simply having a sharper source file will provide the edge contrast enhancement that actually makes photos look good
>he thinks that diffraction is killing my image at f/8 and 1:1 on a 24mp ff sensor
>he thinks the 4-element meopta enlarger lense in his imacon is doing a better job

>>3068302
>Thinks complexity is progress

>>3068310
>>3068302
>>3068163
Fucking-a y'all...this
>>3068164

This retard thinks sharpening is a digital only process and is so ignorant of darkroom technique he doesn't know that things like the unsharp mask are named after and mimic actual darkroom techniques.

>>3068163
Yes. A digital "enhancement", where a few algorithms make standardized value changes to pixels to try and correct for an inevitable flaw of your method of digitizing the light that passes through a random and chaotic pattern of silver and dye.

>>3068312

I don't think you've ever optically printed a photo my man.

>>3068312
Dude's talking about digital "sharpening". Analog sharpening, which the digital process attempts to emulate, but can't. They are fundamentally different, and just because Adobe tried to market their product to make it seem better (and to be fair, it was the best alternative at the time), doesn't make it equivalent. Pixels and grain do not mix well. This is an unavoidable fact of digital/analog processes. The only way to change this would be to image the grain at such a scale that the pixels can create a seemingly perfect matrix of the grain edges. Based on the nature of light, lenses, and current sensor technology, high-quality flatbed scanners do a better job of this, fundamentally, than dslr sensors. Drum scanners have the highest fidelity, which is why they are the archival choice for museum digitization. What you are all getting out of your dslr scans are approximations of your film, with various digital filters to hide the digital artifacts introduced. Much of these filters happen when the image is taken, before you yourself have done any editing. You are going through all this effort and expense to approximate the analog effect. The fact that you are trying to capture the film look at all shows that there is a non-quanta variable that drives the observed qualia of a photograph. The processes you are using are sacrificing what you actually care about, and these companies are banking on the fact that no-one knows and even fewer people care.

>>3068331
is that pasta or did you seriously waste time typing all that bullshit now

we're still waiting for any samples of "superior" flatbed scans.

>>3068331
What's worse, is you're completely oblivious to the forces at work. It used to be that there were Lens manufacturers, film manufacturers, and camera manufacturers, not to mention all of the manufacturers and labs involved in the printing of photographs. While some brands did make products in multiple (or all) categories, there were also many that operated in just one. The gulf between film and camera manufacturers was the largest. This is a better world for the consumer. Image size is standardized across all cameras based on what films are available. Film size is standardized based on what cameras are made. Film manufacturers would try to make the best film, and camera makers and lens makers would try and make the best camera. This gave the consumer--the photographer--more control over their pictures. The could use the film they wanted on the camera they wanted with the lens they wanted. With the advent of digital cameras, everything has started to change. Now, your "film" choice is fixed to your camera choice, because the camera is built around the sensor. (Worse, often the sensor is built to fit the camera.) Of course, what people want from the recording medium (the film or sensor) is constantly changing. Further, it is easier to use puffery, and create market differentiation on an element which is secondary, because the look is highly subjective, and impossible to really measure. This means whole cameras go obsolete, not just film stocks. And where film stocks, being a standard size, could still be printed even if they were no longer used, file types can be obsoleted too. Plus, digital cameras are more expensive than analog cameras, with more opportunity for tech "magic" marketing. Now, you have to buy a new, more expensive camera, every few years to keep up with the current "look" and "standards". It used to be, you could buy a good camera, and never have to buy another camera again. (1/2)

>SCIENCE-->RELIGION
>>3064755 >>3064092
>>3065106 >>3064243
>>3065145 >>3064251
>>3065153 >>3064264
>>3065446 >>3064848
>>3065634 >>3065188
>>3066047 >>3065207
>>3067239 >>3065262
>>3067633 >>3065344
>>3067695 >>3065484
>>3065527 >>3065549
>>3066011 >>3066074
>>3066027 >>3067824
>>3067843 >>3068158
>>3068302 >>3068331

>>3068346
And, before digital cameras, you could buy parts and fix a camera yourself if it broke, instead of having to send it in to the brand, or hell have to buy a new camera, because of a flaw in the software. Have you ever heard of a film stock that was so bad it forced people to buy a new camera? So this whole process has forced people to buy into a vertically integrated brand hierarchy to make photos. Can you see where this is going? Just look at what Adobe is trying to do. Your cameras run on proprietary software. At what point does your camera ownership become a licensing agreement? How far away are we from having to subscribe to Canon and Nikon in order for our lenses to work? After all, this is where the money is--vertical integration. And what will this all be based on? Technologoy advancements? Why are they advancements? Because they approximate better what film already does. And how is this measured? By arbitrary quanta that fanboys like you all eat up like dogs. But muh resolution. But muh sigma. So where do scanners fit into this? Why don't these companies dump money into scanners? As you all say, they're the chumps choice. Oh, that's right, they cannibalize the vertical integration. The way a scanner works already does a better job than the newest dslrs and mirrorless. Hell, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that there is far more potential, inherently, in a scanner, than a camera body. But why would they work on scanners, when they can get you lot buying dslr's all the time? Has it really taken you this long to notice how Hasselblad, the company whose reputation is most staked on image quality, still makes analog bodies, and has the best non-drum scanner? Stop being suckers, and think about the marketing. You can't get what you're looking for if you don't realize how companies see you.

>>3068347
TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW ARBITRARILY BELIEVING IN YOUTUBE HUCKSTERS AND CORPORATE MARKETING SCHEMES IS SCIENCE, BUT PHYSICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE IS RELGION

>>3068346
>>3068354
>>3068356
>>3068356
tl;dr: DSLR scanning is a jewish marketing conspiracy, a $15000 Hasselblad shatbed is the anti-consumerist redpill.
Pls note >>3065282
>I think we've broken him.

>>3068385
the fro knows

Y'all kids cruel for winding them up.

>>3068385
Notice how I didn't blame the noise of the camera, but simply said digital noise from the process (i.e. that terrible "sharpening"). Which is obviously there, and not at all an artifact of color film grain.

>>3068385
How many $2000 camera packages will you buy in your life? How much less would flatbeds cost if more people wanted them? What is the comparative profit margin when adjusted for customer base? If you don't understand economics, computers, or photography, what do you understand?

File: NewerScansForPFD.jpg (3MB, 5888x3936px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5888x3936px

>>3068403

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:03 09:24:51
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5888
Image Height	3936
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3068403
Oh, and to answer your question, I think Canon FD is the only system I've got $2k in. Really sucking that corpo-marketing dick, aren't I?

File: s-l1600.jpg (85KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x1000px

>>3062390
>>3064115

are these things enough to get good macro results? (+bellow)

I own a Canon EOS 1000D

>>3069233
>are these things enough to get good macro results? (+bellow)
dunno about "good", but, as good as the digicam scans posted in this thread.

>>3069233
All you need is bellows and an enlarger lens. No close up filters.

>>3069234
>>3069233
No.
You want any one of these.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371176-USA/Canon_0284B002_EF_S_60mm_f_2_8_Macro.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393445-REG/Tokina_ATXAF100PROC_100mm_f_2_8_AT_X_M100.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

I would avoid the new 35mm STM macro, as I think I would rather peel the skin off a live mangy dog and eat it than manually focus an STM lense at 1:1 magnification.
I you aren't a babby newfag (you are, but lets humour you) then adapting a quality vintage macro lense, such as a micro-nikkor, or an enlarger lense, via a bellows or extension tubes, will also give excellent results, but these will require that you understand what you're doing.

>>3069327
I mean, you can use a massively overpriced macro lens, that has coatings that skew colours and a non flat distortion profile. If you want. Just don't expect your stitches to look ok, or your colours to look ok.

>>3069332
My canon 100mm stitches came out just fine, it had no distortion that I could see. The only reason I switched to a 50mm is that it has "less than zero" lateral CA, in all other regards it's much easier to use than a 50mm; more working distance, easier to focus, easier to evenly backlight, less vignetting, flatter field, just as sharp.
I wouldn't say they're overpriced; they're brand new, and actually compatible with his camera.
Saying the coatings throw off your colours is straight up retarded.

>>3065344
You literally zoomed in further on the flatbad image. You had to zoom in further to make it seem like it got worse results by just a hair. In other words, its sharpness at a higher level of detail.

>>3069620
You literally zoomed in further on the flatbad image.
No. No resizing on either scan, both at 100% crop

>You had to zoom in further to make it seem like it got worse results by just a hair.
Lol what are you talking about, the flatbed scan is sharper

>In other words, its sharpness at a higher level of detail.
I know this, I literally said it produced better results than my dslr rig in that post. You seem to think I'm against the flatbed when I'm clearly not

>>3069620
flatbed is sharper and discerns tonality way better. camera scan looks flat and shitty.

>>3069628
Your post made it unclear which you were saying is better. But still, the reeds are larger in the flatbed select, meaning that you are more zoomed into the image. Because of this, the flatbed image seems to fall apart a little more than the dslr image, but as we both agree, the flatbed is sharper. Some of the people on this board won't see that though. They'll think the image falling apart is blurriness of the scan, not the "resolution" level of the film. The fact that the grain itself is more defined in the flatbed image demonstrates clearly that the flatbed scan is sharper, regardless of how blurry the image is.

>>3069620
>>3069628
>>3069670
>>3069671
>tards tarding tards
Look at any of the other scans posted by the person who obviously is getting DSLR scanning right (me). Except for >>3066047 , >>3064755 and >>3065153 , they're all one shot 35mm.
Not one of my scans shows anything like the softness of >>3065344 's example.
The reason being that he didn't even bother using an actual macro lense to scan with, and isn't even close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio. Additionally, given that it's a 4 shot stitch, this sample is from the intersection of at least two images, meaning it contains both frame edges overlapped, for maximum shittiness.
Just because it's the same neg does not mean it's a valid comparison.
Similarly, I don't have any shatbed scans to provide A-B comparisons, because I don't fucking use one.
But I think looking at >>3068412 , a one shot scan of a 35mm negative, and >>3065345 , medium format on one of the best shatbeds out, should tell you all you need to know.

>>3069735
t. mad.

>>3066047
>that disgusting and obvious edge sharpening in the 100% crop
why would you apply one of the worst shortcomings of digital photography to a film photo? oh i know, because you are literally visually illiterate. when closely inspected film has a relaxed look, no matter what format or neg size. it has depth. that shit looks flat, contrived and tonality was blown the fuck out.

File: 1456373752676.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>3069735
lmao you're so fucking butthurt, how sad

I'm too emotionally invested in this thread to let it die yet.

>>3071763
Scanner threads are always a riot.

>>3069735
It does tell me everything I need to know. That dslr scanning is shit.

I've got a 50mm lens on my girlfriends DSLR, what length macro tube should I need to get a good enough performance for scanning?

>>3072349
Somewhere between 25 and 50mm of extension. Buy a stackable kit if possible.

>>3071777
yes

File: May 09 2017 03.jpg (226KB, 1400x933px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1400x933px

A different dslrscancuck checking in. I've used flatbeds, dedicateds and now only scan with a digicam because I am happy with the results.

There was a lot of talk upthread about grain vs noise. I thought I'd do a little test and let y'all decide the results. Seems to me that grain is a fixed property of the negative, and noise should be random on any given scan. So I scanned the same negative twice and slightly moved the negative holder in between shots.

Film is TMax100 35mm, Rodinal 1+50. Shot with a mediocre Maxxum 50/1.7 @ 2.8 (not the sharpest lens in the box)

Scan is a6000, Nikkor 55/3.5 @ 5.6, near 1:1 mag. RAW conversion by Capture One. Sharpening zero in both capture and output. The only adjustment whatsoever is levels to stretch the histogram to the ends.

Here is the full scan (which is about 75% of the negative)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:10 23:14:11
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: GrainorNoise.png (243KB, 1358x731px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1358x731px

>>3073935
And here is a 200% crop of an already cropped negative.

I see the same grain pattern in both samples. I have a hard time believing there is any significant noise in these images.

File: 1494474065735.png (85KB, 639x639px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 639x639px

>>3073939
There is some noise but grain is more significant.

Here is the difference between the images (level-adjusted and aligned) boosted 1000%

>>3074390
jpeg compression was a mistake.

>>3074397
You're looking at artifacts zoomed in 200%, boosted up to 200% due to difference blending, and boosted 1000% again. Although >>3073939 really should've used lossless images for comparison purposes.

>>3074409
image quality comparisons are fucking dumb and useless if you use anything thats not lossless.

File: May 09 2017 02.jpg (324KB, 765x765px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 765x765px

>>3074390
>>3074397
>>3074409
>>3074417
Ok, here are full rez crops of each scan with jpg setting at 100. If there is a better way for me to post this on a chan, let me know.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:11 18:40:37
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: May 09 2017 03.jpg (326KB, 765x765px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 765x765px

>>3074431

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:11 18:40:51
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3074431
>jpg
thats a lossy format my man. use PNG in the future.

>>3074455
I think we are splitting hairs here. I mean, I don't know how else to present this on a chan that is going to satisfy the crowd. Tell me how we can have this debate on a chan. I'll be happy to give you the tiff originals. I guess my question is: "How can I present this such that we can have a discussion on whether my scans produce sharp grain rather than digital noise."? I'd also LOVE to have my flatbed and dedicated scanners post up some similar samples.

>>3074484
m8, if they had the technical knowledge to even understand what you're doing here, they wouldn't be using their deprecated 90's toasters to scan film in 2017.

>>3074484
Use dropbox/some similar service

>>3076744
Trying to post filedropper links to tiffs and raws and fucking 4chan thinks its fucking spam.

Tiffs:
/may09201701
/may09201702

RAW's:
/tmax2017-05-0901
/tmax2017-05-0902

cont.

File: May 15 2017 03.jpg (112KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1200x800px

>>3076827
filedropper com plus the above suffixes

Also, here is the whole negative for exposure judgement.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Come on guise, can't we do more fighting about scanners? These are my favorite threads!

my v500 can (and has) rape yall asses.

>>3064099
>55 3.5
I absofuckinglutely second this. One of the biggest used bargains in photographic history.

It's a GODLY lens if flat field sharpness is your goal...and stellar in most other situations other than extreme low light.

>>3079558

Can I use this with my canon ae-1?

>>3079567
It's a Nikon lens, so no.

>>3079581
Wrong
>>3079567
Get a glassless F to FD adapter. You won't be able to focus to infinity, but that really doesn't matter if macro shots are your goal.

>tfw you develop your own film
>tfw you print on an enlarger and can burn and dodge all you want
>tfw no dust all over your clean ass prints after they come out of the trays

Most of /ftg/ is literally bitching about bad photos being printed onto shitty scanners that leave their prints covered in dust. You can't even edit your photos, they just come out like shit.

>>3080570
>tfw dust is >>>>literally<<<< the biggest issue to deal with when optically printing your images
Either you've never actually printed, or your quality standards are through the goddamned floor...

So for someone who doesn't have a dslr, what is the general consensus of scanners from this board?
Google search says Epson V550 or V600 for <~$200

>>3080921
Good choices, especially if you're shooting medium format. They won't resolve 35mm grain to the level of a dedicated film scanner, but they'll do okay.

>>3074431
The grain here is soft and out of focus.

>>3080940
Do better options exists for 35mm that are around a similar price??

>>3080982
Yeah, a 2nd hand digi body, enlarger lens and bellows.

>>3081185
I could get a decent dslr body sub $200?
Sorry I'm a noob, and I don't know jack shit about digital cameras or using them for scans. I'll go watch some yt tutorials and come back

>>3080954
Please provide an example comparison to illustrate . It should be tabular grain medium speed film without any amount of sharpening whatsoever. If you are unable to do this, I will have to assume you are a troll.

File: 30939889971_d6e8a51f6d_b[1].jpg (121KB, 1024x551px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x551px

You know you want one of these

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151076

File: 33964380433_f46dbe16ba_b[1].jpg (135KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 768x1024px

>>3081922

File: 28015019754_650a928779_o[1].jpg (461KB, 1169x3583px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1169x3583px

>>3081922

outresolves film - which allows downsampling in software to ge

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1169
Image Height	3583

>>3081924
that grain looks comfy.