Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thank you.Thank you for sharing this, appreciated! My own digitizing workflow looks very different using a drum scanner, but it's interesting to read about high quality captures using a digital camera.
Thank You for a great article!
Your equipment looks very similar to mine. It happend that I did make the copy stand from Durst 1200L and I do use Profoto studio flash with lightbox for lightning and Sony 7R ( II to IV) FF cameras as capturing sensors. But those are minimal differencies. I'm missing good film holders still.
I've got some questions, but did ask them at Your blog site.
Thanks for the two articles - very interesting.
One thing I've been curious about when comparing DSLR scanning to drum/flatbed scanning. On a drum/flatbed scanner, the image is fully scanned with three PMTs/sensor arrays reading all red, blue and green in the image. As we know, the bayer-filter sensor (being most common) on a DSLR/MF digital back can't do that (each pixel being seperately designated R, G, or B), and each pixel interpolates whichever colour it's not (it that makes sense).
Do you know if this makes much of a difference to the final scanned image?
I ask as I see differences in the way an image is recorded on film as opposed to a digital image sensor, out in the field. I find film is able to more accurately, or rather more fully, record small scale objects such as red berries on a distant bush.
Thanks for the reply Darr.Hi Duff,
Thank you for your reply.
I cannot comment about scanner results from equipment I have not used, but I can compare results from what I have used, a Microtek Artiscan 120tf film scanner and an Epson V700 (and a few others going years back). Whatever I have captured on film, be it negative or positive film, I can easily digitize with my digital tools. Using the scanners I could as well, but it is easier and with just as good or better results using my digital tools.
Good or sloppy technique can play into capturing success from my experience (I taught photography in the classroom and saw it first hand). As a photographer, whatever I can capture on film, I can capture on digital. To my eyes, film adds a tad of diffusion to the capture, and I always attributed that to the base material. And I like it!
While I appreciate my digital tools immensely, I do find its sharpness at times to be too much. I am probably in the minority of digital shooters that never sharpens files and more often than not, softens them. But for copy work like digitizing film, I find raw digital to be an excellent tool for my image files. They reproduce well for post processing into prints and jpgs for web use.