New light for film scanning

[@extremelydave]

My credit card just screamed "HASH! YOU"RE KILLING ME!!!!".

[@pushingfilm]

Always 😅

[@SlickLicksWithAlex]

Great video. I have a L116T, wondering what settings on the light I should use for scanning 35mm film?

[@hashemmcadam]

I usually use 100% brightness at 5600K

[@dirksparenberg294]

Thanks for the introduction of the new light source. I am using the Kaiser lightpad cri 95, 5000 kelvin and a diy printed mask for different formats. Works quite well if you are careful. I think the most advantage of neg supply masks and light source is that it might reduce mistakes caused by inattention. Thanks for your videos!!!!

[@dirksparenberg294]

Price of the Kaiser is about 90 EUR

[@c.augustin]

I use a Kaiser slimlite, and it has two downsides: 1. Uneven lighting for large format (4x5), but usable for 35 mm and 120 film. 2. A low-quality switch that leads to some flicker when touched. A minor problem, but annoying nonetheless.

[@clawdawg7248]

$250. Lol. Don’t get their pricing, on most things. Can’t wait for the Valoi Easy 365 to arrive. Will stick with EFH and Ralleno for 120.

[@GoogleAlvin]

First!! Can't wait to try it. My raleno is just too big

[@fujiwtr_]

Thank you so much for the insights ! Does this light fits well with Valoi film advancer, did you try this combo ?

[@martyfraijo1975]

I'm looking for a 120 negative scanner that will up load the positive to my photos.

[@peiyuliu2514]

Wondering if you have ever tried to scan negatives with an off camera flash.

[@pushingfilm]

Not yet!

[@sshadmani15]

Great video - as always! And damn boy, biceps looking ripped 😉

[@pushingfilm]

Haha 😄 Thank you 😊

[@Seth_S-G]

@Pushing Film I would be interested in you comparing this with the Cinestill CS Lite since that is way cheaper and it has a collimating sheet which should make your scans sharper and brighter. It also has different colour temperature modes to offset the orange film mask.

[@pushingfilm]

Yeah I just learnt about this unit recently, it does look quite nice, and has a great price as you mentioned.

[@norasanpo1145]

Curious do you develop and scan your own film? I've been putting together a Negative Supply and Negative Lab Pro based setup and every roll takes quite a bit of time. Would love to see a video from you on all the scanning tips you've learned over the years.

[@violonchaporov]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGWoqWtpmL50m9U

[@pushingfilm]

I develop all my own black and white, and just the occasional colour rolls. I have a playlist of videos related to film scanning, as well as others relating to development tips like remjet removal 🙂

[@paullee1582]

have you tried the cinestill's cs lite? would be interesting to compare

[@DrZylvon]

Thanks, very good overview

[@pushingfilm]

Thank you!

[@gamincurieux]

Does the EFH fit nicely on top of this light?

[@pushingfilm]

It sits and lines up well, but will slip around (unless you have the rubber/nonslip feet

[@violonchaporov]

Thanks for the interesting video! I wanted to know if you used Kaiser slimlite plano for scanning? What can you say about this? I am interested in comparing the color rendering with NS and Viltrox light. After all, the Kaiser is made specifically for film photography and it would be interesting to see a comparison. Thank you

[@c.augustin]

I'm using a Kaiser slimlite plano for scanning for some time now. Overall usable (and it does have CRI 95, if I'm not mistaken) - but it is uneven in lighting! Fine up to 6x9, but it needs some correction in post for 4x5 (it took me a while to realize that some of my conversion problems with NLP2 came from this uneven lighting). If you already have one, give it a try (unless you're into 4x5 or larger).

[@violonchaporov]

@@c.augustin Thank you for sharing this! I have a small version of Kaiser, and I don't seem to have a problem with uneven lighting. Perhaps these problems are inherent in large versions. In any case, I'm going to use a diffuser, I think this should eliminate the problem of unevenness, if there is such a thing. It would be very interesting to see comparisons with other light sources, especially with regard to color rendering

[@c.augustin]

@@violonchaporov I think the color rendering should be comparable to other CRI95 light sources, as Hashim mentioned (I think in his old video, but he hinted at that in this video, too). I do have the A4 version, but there was (or still is) a smaller Kaiser slimlite version. Just go for it, and if results work for you, just stay with it. If at some point the Kaiser slimlite fails, look for a better option. I'm still undecided if I should go for the Negative Supply CRI95 lightsource for 4x5, or if I should "improvise" with a stronger videolight with CRI95 and a diffuser (which could be a problem, as I would need something sufficiently and even large for 4x5 …).

[@violonchaporov]

@@c.augustin I'm talking about a direct comparison of light sources, because there is such a thing as marketing. Sometimes the cri indicator does not correspond to reality. Therefore, I think that comparisons are more indicative. Yes, I'm staying with Kaiser for now anyway. I am satisfied, it is quite enough for my purposes. But it would still be interesting to see a comparison

[@pushingfilm]

I haven't used it personally. But have heard anecdotes from people who changed to different lights due to various reasons. As well as the fact that it's price/performance for scanning isn't too special these days.

[@du39104]

How about the RALENO 650Lux Studio Light? it claims to have CR>95 and adjustable 3200k to 5600k color temp, and has a built-in 4 layer diffuser.... the big pro is that it's only $CAD 98... seems to be a lot cheaper than a dedicated film scanning light source. thanks

[@pushingfilm]

Yeah that one would work fine! There are pros and cons to going each way as outlined in the video.

[@captaindebug]

Excellent video - but can I ask, does the Universal film holder and the Valoi holder sit squarely on this light source without any issues? I ask because this is just what I'm after and use both of the above. Thanks.

[@captaindebug]

Just seen the reply to the earlier question on the Universal - but still interested in knowing about the Valoi.

[@pushingfilm]

I tried it out with my beta Valoi 360 advancer unit, and it does sit fine over the light source. I havent done practical tests though.

[@hungdo7162]

Many thanks for your very instructive video. In your videos films are scanned with the emulsion side downwards (glossy side towards the camera). Is any difference compared to the other way, i.e. emulsion towards the camera? Cheers.

[@pushingfilm]

Not a big difference... but I find that there's less chance of reflections and a slightly sharper appearance of the grain (which I like!)

[@hungdo7162]

You're right. The grain is that makes the charm of films. Very many thanks.@@pushingfilm

[@Floppyrom]

What about using an Ipad Air M1 displaying a white background at max luminosity? Would this work? I plan to use it with Essential Film Holder

[@pushingfilm]

I don't have experience with that specific ipad, but there's no reason it wouldn't work.

[@Floppyrom]

@@pushingfilm Thanks :)

[@DMDCineAttic]

From my experience, the small “dedicated “ lights selling for crazy money are not worth it. They should not be more than $30-$50, CS-Lite works perfectly fine and it is in that price range. Those Raleno lights are great too and way more versatile. All produce great accurate color renditions. $279 for a very basic light makes zero sense to me.

[@caught_in_my_eye]

the cinestill cs-lite seems to be great value for money compared to these and i'm getting much higher shutter speeds compared to what you're seeing. At $35 you can't go wrong

[@qvarfoto]

Yeah I agree. Just ordered one last week in fact, should get here shortly. Can't wait to test it out.

[@pushingfilm]

That's a great price! I'd be interested to test one of those some time. Depending on the film/frame, I sometimes get 1/100 roughly.. but it's quite dependant on the density

[@caught_in_my_eye]

On Portra 400 120 i'm getting 1/200 underexposing 1 stop f8. Kodak 250D 1/100.

[@JanneRanta]

I think the speed of scanning difference is so small it's negligible. Unless each frame takes several seconds to expose :D And if that is the case then you have whole lot of different problems 😀

[@pushingfilm]

Fair enough. I find that it's not negligible. Because of more worry of vibrations at lower speeds, the time just before/after clicking is reduced too. And using IS (if a lens has it) can be counterproductive and reduce sharpness, in my tests.

[@coreymagz3145]

I will never understand why Negative Supply prices their products at the level of pricing they do. Their pricing in a way feels like it's gatekeeping beginners in film photography out of the process of self developing and scanning their own work. I understand it's a one-time buy for everything, but this one-time purchase of maybe 2-3 of their things could get you ONE flatbed. Or hell, just buy the new Cinestill CS-Lite, chemicals, and even FILM for the price of one of these lights. It's ridiculous and pretentious.

[@c.augustin]

Negative supply is "pro-grade" (very robust and well engineered, AFAIK), therefor the price; Valoi is much cheaper and beginner friendly (still of better quality than some other low-price options). With 35 mm film a flatbed scanner won't give you the resolution and image quality of "camera-scanning", so it wouldn't be an option. A flatbed scanner is a good choice for medium format and especially large format (4x5 and larger), but I would still prefer camera scanning for the greater flexibility.

[@coreymagz3145]

@@c.augustinI agree that a flatbed isn't good for 35MM but they make dedicated 35mm scanners that do wonders and only cost $400 and if you're only shooting 35 that is by in large a far better option that buying all the gear required, esp with Neg Supplies prices in required. And if you're serious about getting prints, you'd be sending your stuff off to be scanned, anyways.

[@NegativeSupply]

Hey there! Pricing is often a talking point with our products and I'm more than happy to chat about that. running a business is often more than just the cost of materials (which continue to go up for us, which requires more R&D to find new production methods and materials to save costs without compromising). We are a business of about 15 people, we pay liveable wages in Southern California including benefits, then there’s operational costs like a building lease, our machines and maintenance, electric bills, taxes, permits, etc. We build everything in our facility and outsource nothing. Our film carriers are original designs that require R&D and lots of beta testing. I could go on but in order to maintain a sustainable business, we have to price things at appropriate levels. We're constantly working on ways to improve our production workflow in an effort to reduce costs. All that being said, we do have a kit for 35mm that are priced at $449. So if you've got a mirrorless camera and a lighter weight macro then you're good to go. Digital cameras are pretty much ubiquitous at this point and you can pick up an older macro for under $150.

[@coreymagz3145]

@@NegativeSupply I will say I don't underestimate the quality of your product by any means. I guess I was just turned off by the price of part of a multi-part process and admittedly should have been nicer in expressing that. How much would a 35mm and 120 kit be?

[@NegativeSupply]

@@coreymagz3145 With our kits you can scan 35mm and 120 starting around $600. We're hoping to lower that in the near-ish future. Obviously, we have kits that vary greatly in price but our average order for kits with 35mm and 120 scanning tools is around $800.

[@reddevil211287]

Looks like you've been pushing some weights too 💪 all kinds of gains

[@Darkslide99]

I get that there’s a cost of doing business, but this light source and their negative holder like the plastic frame negative holders. The price of their stuff is ridiculous!

[@coreymagz3145]

yeah the price of their stuff is the most insane pricing I've seen for DSLR SCANNING.

[@Gravitys-NOT-a-force]

Great video! Thank you. I have, like you, the Leica M-A, a film camera. I think my simple, flat-bed scanner (Epson Perfection V600) has been giving both my M-A and film a big black eye. In my scanner the film negatives are NOT pressed flat against the glass. For me to assume that an 8x10 print made from a "scanned" image - even a very high-resolution image (e.g. 9600 dpi) - would be of equal quality to an 8x10 image made directly from my film negative is my mistake. I think it's probably a given that a scanned, digitized image from a film negative CANNOT be as high quality as an image made directly from the negative itself. I think you could do "film" a big favor by making this point in a video.

[@pushingfilm]

Thanks, glad you liked it. The negative isn't meant to pressed against the flatbed glass anyway, since the focus point is somewhere above that. I don't really agree with your point about the printing potential from a digital scan (in my experience) So, I won't likely make that point in the future.

[@Gravitys-NOT-a-force]

@@pushingfilm , thanks for your thoughtful response. I take your response to mean that - from the same negative - a print from the digitized negative could easily (?) be of higher quality (?) than a print from the negative itself?

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

Valoi will eat their lunch