Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR]

[@Scottpie47]

Finally! A camera scanning video that doesn't start with, "step 1: drop 600 bucks on accessories make this work."

[@NorbiWhitney]

Haha, word. It's exactly why I decided to make the video.

[@NAEVAN238]

I do appreciate that this doesn't require a lot of extra money for accessories but I wish more info on what camera and its cost was provided

[@esfleury]

@@NAEVAN238 I use a Canon 7D Mark II to do this. You can get these bodies in good shape used for like $200 these days. And it’s made to work with the exact lens used in this video

[@NorbiWhitney]

Shoutout to the sun for its impressive selection of lighting cues.

[@MKB0720]

By far the BEST video on this method of scanning negs....thank you so very much!!!!

[@NorbiWhitney]

It really makes me happy to read that. Thank YOU very much!

[@Kazbah007]

Thank you very much for making this video! This is the ultimate guide for scanning film with a DSLR camera on a budget! Very simple and down to the point - quite a rare quality among youtubers. Bravo!!!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Makes me really happy to read that! Glad you stopped by 🙏🏼

[@pogoprofilms]

I know I'm a few years late to this video but it's by far the best one I've seen for this topic. Thanks man.

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@pogoprofilms better late than never! Glad you like it.

[@danae.collins]

I was actually thinking on buying an extension tube, but I wasn’t sure if it was going to give me the a good result and suddenly your video popped out. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO

[@NorbiWhitney]

Amazing. I hope you can get some great results with it! In all honesty the edges may be soft, and even distorted, but if you don't 100% fill the frame with your negative, then you can easily crop those bits.

[@achimney29]

This deserves more attention, seriously great ideas and advice!

[@NorbiWhitney]

I really appreciate that… chimney

[@womankisserjermaluvr]

thank you !! this is the only video ive found that explained the process in detail without overcomplicating it and making me feel dumb lmao.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Don’t worry, I still feel dumb and I’ve been doing it for years…

[@notyourdad]

Man, you are a life saver. I recently got into film photography and bought everything I thought I needed to scan my photos only to realize my Canon kit lens wasn't going to cut it - and the prices of macro lenses are way above what I feel comfortable shelling out currently - but everyone told me I'll need a macro lens so I felt at a loss - without you I wouldn't have realized extension tubes work just as well - thanks - I just ordered a set!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Awesome, glad to hear that... totally not my dad. It's highly likely that you'll have a bit of distortion at the very edges - but if you place the camera a bit further away, and cover like 90% of the frame instead of 100%, then you won't notice any problems over the actual film frame.

[@notyourdad]

@@NorbiWhitney Great, thanks for the advice! My Canon 100D shoots 18MP frames so there should be some room to crop without loss of detail.

[@inkpinz]

This was the best camera scanning video I've ever seen. Your negative conversion using the curves is such a masters move!. Thank you for all the infos and best of luck!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thank you so much! I only scratched the surface of curves adjustments here, but if I at least interested you in the subject then I'm happy.

[@bnw_patrick]

Thank you very much Norbi, this is from far the best explanations on "how to scan a negative on an easy way". Well done !👏👏👏

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thank YOU very much Patrick, for your lovely comment.

[@ac1646]

Thanks for this simple explanation without too much jargon. I now how to use my camera but I find too many vids on this subject use way too much of it. Subscribed. 😁

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really glad to hear that. Best of luck scanning.

[@joekool5005]

Wow! Thank you for this. The best info out there! Been using a tripod and DSLR to scan photos for years but haven't worked out the best way to scan negs and slides. This is it. All neg scanners are crap unless you spend big bucks. Even then, they have limitations. Can't wait to try it.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Hey Joe thanks for the super nice comment! I've got another video reviewing Lomography's new Digitaliza Max. It's a well price negative holder with built in light source. for 35mm and 120. Maybe worth a look.

[@Talan744]

Thanks Norbi! Great information. A couple of years ago I broke the imaging layer on a three day old, new 42" TV. I was just sick. Later after I recovered, I took that imaging layer out and went to our glass supplier downtown and had a heavy glass inserted/glued on the front of it. Now I have a great light table / slide sorting table and back light for digitizing slides. (By the way, it ended up being less expensive than trying to buy a light table that size.)

[@NorbiWhitney]

Wow, very interesting! A 42" light table must be amazing to work with.

[@Kogacarlo]

Wow, this is a very helpful video. Thanks a lot!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Happy to hear that Carl!

[@WhiskyLock]

Great video. I was despairing at the price of 120 film scanners but you showed me that I actually have everything I need already!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Awesome, glad to hear it!

[@milkyway6080]

Thanks, this helped a lot. I think I'll try this as soon as I get my negative support and light. My setup will be an X-T10 + M42 adapter + Industar 61L/Z and macro tubes since I don't have a dedicated macro lens. Wish me good luck🤞

[@NorbiWhitney]

Great, I'm glad. All the best in your scanning journey.

[@adrongoddard7479]

Norbi, I have got to say that you had me hooked for 14 minutes and 4 seconds. Your presentation is so valuable to those of us who shoot film. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks Adron for a lovely comment! I really appreciate you sitting through it.

[@cowboyyoga]

Hi ))) It was your smile that made me open up your video out of the many DSLR scanning videos. And boy, did you give me that extra bit of confidence that I needed! Thank you for this slow and solid process of how to scan a negative. Really, I had everything but a program to turn my negatives into a positive. I had no idea that it could be so simple! But the thing is... your video supports the whole process being simple! And that's just wonderful! )))

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thank you so much for the lovely comment. I'm really happy to hear that it helped you!

[@royjf10]

First film scanning video I've seen that makes it look doable. Thank you 😊

[@NorbiWhitney]

Happy to hear that. For sure there's a little effort in set-up, but then it can become really smooth.

[@artemeelemann317]

The best guide I've seen, thanks a lot! Especially with the idea to use tablet as light source!

[@NorbiWhitney]

I really appreciate that. Glad it helped!

[@LautaroLopezVara]

I've been looking for a video like this for a while and haven't found anything like it. Thanks for explaining it so clearly

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really appreciate the comment Lautaro! Thanks for watching.

[@StanleyKubick1]

one of the best and most informative videos on the topic. thank you.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Makes me happy to read that Stanley. Thanks for watching.

[@dillimeinbilli]

Mate I just found this video and you’re seriously doing the lord’s work!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Makes me really happy to read that. Glad it helped!

[@howardchetwin9464]

A brilliant presentation, thanks a lot. Using a good quality camera to take the image makes a lot of sense, compared to a scanner which takes time to crawl across the slide. This helps to speed up the process, and if you have a lot of 35mm transparencies to convert to digital, this can make it feel possible.

[@NorbiWhitney]

And thank you for the comment. It can take a little while to set things up well, but once you’re well installed it can take only a few seconds per photo. Much faster than traditional scanning. Of course the post processing can take a little while, but generally you can copy-paste the settings from one photo onto that whole roll, then tweak from there if need be.

[@pirata00001]

Great video. I would use a different negative holder, and add that scanning should be done in the dark and any light not serving the negative should be blocked/covered (this applies to the light from the chosen light source).

[@NorbiWhitney]

Great point! (Much better than my reply speed anyway).

[@adamhymel2386]

Yeah I agree with this bc I'm trying it out right now and I keep getting shadow spots from the 2 canisters I'm using to raise my negative. Very frustrating lol

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@adamhymel2386 agreed it's an annoying thing. Because of the angle of the lens, if the risers are too close then they can easily obstruct the light. Having a wide negative holder, and being able to put the risers quite far each side of the frame, helps a lot too.

[@abhijeetdeolekar]

thanks a ton bro! you saved me a lot of money. do you have a video for scanning old photographs?

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@abhijeetdeolekar glad to hear it! I haven’t digitised old photos, but definitely removing glare is going to be your biggest challenge. A large soft box around the photo, like for shiny product photography, will probably be a good route.

[@datamonkey2450]

Norbi, there's some great info in this video (especially on the use of Snapseed) - thank-you. But.....I nearly didn't find it because the 'Intro' doesn't do the rest of the video justice and I'm just glad that I gave it a second look; there's some really helpful info in what you have taken the time to produce. I noticed you put Chapter headers in and split the video into sections - really useful, but you nearly 'lost' me because the Intro looked like it was heading into the usual "Scanner v DSLR' territory. A stand-alone Snapseed video would also be very useful - you obviously have the knowledge to produce a very useful guide. Thank-you....you earned a coffee!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the super in depth comment, I really appreciate the time taken (and that you stuck around after the intro!)

[@fuertenic]

This was the BEST video on low budget film scanning!

[@NorbiWhitney]

You’re too kind!

[@nausicaa__]

thanks dude, there's no one explains the situation this detail like you did.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I’m really glad to hear it helped. Good luck in your scanning quest.

[@agustinninoperez9460]

Thanks for not gatekeeping the curves adjustments tips.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I'm not even sure how one would.. but you're very welcome.

[@mrsmscuriositycabinet6925]

Very helpful, thank you! I was getting despondent at all the "easy negative scanning" videos that presume you already have a macro lens.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I'm glad you liked it. Of course a high quality macro lens is the best option, but as you can see it's possible to get good results with less than optimal equipment.

[@grantnewton5705]

Extension tubes can be soft in the corners, so leave a bit of space around the image and crop …. Should be sharp corner to corner, albeit at slightly lower resolution.

[@mrsmscuriositycabinet6925]

@@grantnewton5705 Thank you

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@grantnewton5705 it’s true, that’s a great tip.

[@prabalsarmah328]

This is by far one of the most helpful videos I have come across. Thank you.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Super appreciated Prabal! Thank for taking the time.

[@terryross4207]

Great Vid ! Simple but full of info without all the crap. Thank you 👍🏻

[@NorbiWhitney]

Makes me happy to hear that. Thanks!

[@hankfoto]

Very well done and you showed me I'm on the right path. I have some old 4x5 Negs Plus 2 1/4 other so you just saved me spending money I can't afford.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Oh that's great news. With large negs you can also try the panorama method. There's so much detail in a 4x5, that you could try shooting the negative in 4 parts and stitching them together. You'll be blown away by the result.

[@Gustavo_Weckesser]

You made an outstanding tutorial video, my friend. Thank you very much for sharing!!!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Makes me very happy to read that!

[@thetinmansheart]

Great vid! Thanks. Only thing you forgot was getting a couple CHEAP bubble levels to make sure your mounted camera and negative plane are both perfectly level.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Good point I didn’t talk about at all. I use my phones level app to set everything. It’s pretty crazy accurate.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the comment!

[@toughkix]

Nice, I have to try this! Since I have a 3D printer I can even get the film holder and the extension tubes basically for free

[@NorbiWhitney]

Absolutely. I haven’t checked, but there’s a good chance someone already has a file online for a negative holder.

[@toughkix]

@@NorbiWhitney Alright, so I just tried it. There are indeed files online for the extension tube and the film folder. The problem with the extension tube is that you don't have the electrical contacts that are needed to set the aperture. So I attached my 50mm/1.8 normally to the camera, set it to video mode, and set the aperture to f5.6. Then I removed the lens while the camera was on, so the aperture would stay at 5.6. I only used two books to hold the film and my iPad as a light source. The image quality on this first try was worse than the images I got from the drug store. I think the biggest factors are that I had to manually focus at f5.6 and that my tripod is broken, which means I had to support my camera on the tripod while shooting at 1/30s. So I think it's worth investing in real extension tubes and getting a new tripod. 😅👍

[@johnbarben]

This is the best video that I’ve seen on this topic - great work thanks

[@NorbiWhitney]

I really appreciate that John! Thanks for stopping by.

[@andyvan5692]

nice video, but now we have the 'Budget' stuff done, can you Please review the Negative supply gear, and tell us what you think, about a Quality option.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for stopping by Andy. I recently reviewed Lomography’s new, more professional set up, in which negative supply makes a brief appearance. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWjQhmtjeauYbdU

[@isaisa27112]

It's a great video thank you very much. But one small thing. The boxes you use to keep away from the light source should be black. white or red, red reflect red. White reflect more white, black absovers, maybe it's best that it's the same all the way around?

[@NorbiWhitney]

I've never considered the reflection from the boxes, It's a very good point! Thanks for the note.

[@meezchef]

This is exactly the video I have been looking for. Thank you so much!

[@NorbiWhitney]

I’m really happy to hear that

[@ElliotShayle]

I seldom "like" videos, but this one truly warnt it! I'm new-ish to film photography, and I kept being astounded by the cost of DSLR scanner setups... Which don't even include the DSLR! I knew there had to be a sensible, cheaper way, and I'm glad you showed it to us!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Welcome to the community. I'm really glad I could have helped!

[@claverton]

Excellent vid. Sick to death of my Plustek Optifilm120 scanner never working so ditching it and going to use my DSLR to scan my 120 negs, and there's some super good tips in this vid so thank you

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really happy to hear that. It can be fiddly, and take a while to be happy with your set-up, but once it's installed you can get some incredible result with this method.

[@Smillii]

I tried to squish the film between two panes of glass that are very clear but what I've found is that it casts weird streaks on the film, probably due to curving in some way. I really need a film holder. Other than that, very good guide!

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@Smillii ah yeah those are called Newton Rings and they are indeed really annoying. Google how to avoid Newton Rings, for some help on the matter.

[@x4virom]

I did a little research and found out that Camera Scanning actually has some advantages over Flatbed when scanning 35mm film and not so noticable with 120 mm.

[@NorbiWhitney]

It’s true that flatbeds do a pretty good job at 120 (although sharp grain detail is still missing and replaced with digital sharpening). At the end of the day it also depends on your camera - if you have a modern 50mpx camera, it will blow traditional scanning out of the water even on 120. Even on a lower resolution sensor, I’ve seen people take multiple photos of a negative and stitch together for a very high quality scan (great for large format too). Finally I’d argue it’s better to have 1 setup for all your negative sizes, than scan different sizes with different things.

[@atompotato]

Whoa! That was the most useful video on DSLR scanning! 🙌

[@NorbiWhitney]

Big praise Alexander. Thanks!

[@LonyBlack]

Thank you so much! You literally answered every single one of my questions!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Well let me finish off by answering your comment too!

[@tobil.5047]

Wow what a great video. Been shooting film for a while now but never developed a roll. 😅 Now thanks to your video, I'm giving this a try. Keep on doing, what you're doing!

[@NorbiWhitney]

That's great to hear! Good luck with it all

[@STGFilmmakers]

hey man i love this video, very down to earth and realistic

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really appreciate the kind words.

[@erikboon6549]

Did you try Darktable with the negadoctor module for conversion? If you have the USB cable for your camera you can also shoot tethered from within Darktable. And the software is free!

[@NorbiWhitney]

That's a great tip Erik! In all honesty I personally use Lightroom and the Negative Lab Pro plug-in, but of course wanted to show a different (cheaper) conversion method for the video. I just checked out some videos on negadoctor though and it looks really powerful!

[@olymoon2008]

Very good method and explanation. Thank you very much.

[@NorbiWhitney]

You're very welcome. Hope it helps.

[@michaeljenner1795]

This is the way I learned how to use PS to convert color negs into positives and to correct color using curves for the individual color channels. Might it be easier to use Negative Lab Pro? Probably, but if you want to try something without having to pay $100 for the software and you already have PS, this is a good way to go. I've been using a piece of ANR glass, a strip made for 120 on a flatbed. I tape it to my lightbox on the long side and made a tape flap to open it to move my film along. I have a Nikon Z7 with a macro lens on a copystand above. I've converted most of my collection, a lifetime's worth using this system with good results. I only need to change the height on the copystand for various sized negatives, 35mm-6x9. I was able to scan about 120-150 in a couple hours each evening. I keep my negs in locked archival binders, so they were flat and clean. The ANR glass would hold them very flat against the light table top. Camera and light table top had to be squared up but it wasn't that difficult. Good info here, thank you for doing this.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the in depth reply Michael. That's a great way to make a cheap negative holder. I personally do use Negative Lab Pro + Lightroom, but was specifically trying to show how to do the conversion for free this time around.

[@arneheeringa96]

With Photoscape conversion is much easier. Just push the negative/positive button. It's free too.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the suggestion Arne. I'll check it out.

[@jocelynr6532]

Thank you for sharing!! This is so helpful. 😊

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@jocelynr6532 you’re welcome. Glad I could help!

[@AleenaNiklaus]

Thank you for this video! If scanning prints (I don’t have the negatives in this case), what do you recommend for the light source and placement?

[@NorbiWhitney]

Hi Aleena, that's a great question! The hardest thing is having no glare on the photos, so if you can make a lightbox of some kind it will help you. Simply diffusioning the light by putting some blank white paper between the light and the photos, is a simple start. It seems like there are some good articles online when searching for "scanning photos with camera". Best of luck.

[@michaeljenner1795]

I also tried the Nikon slide copy outfit, the snoot attachment. I had good results IF I attached the camera to a copystand. If I tried it sideways with a tripod, it was almost impossible to keep the negatives aligned to the sensor in the camera.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Indeed a copy stand is the way to go, and keeping things perfectly flat with a tripod is tough. One nice method is to lay a mirror where your negatives will be - then focus until your lens is sharp, and move until it's perfectly centered in the mirror.

[@morrisbagnall2690]

Superb! Great ideas and explanations. Thanks Norbi.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks Morris! I hope it helps you.

[@jamesmoore9511]

Simple closeup magnifier lens set (like from amazon )added on to the front of the lens and your in business.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Also a good option. Either way, anything added to the lens (infront or behind) is going to reduce quality and possibly introduce distortion. So a dedicated macro lens is the best option, but at the end of the day we're watching this video because we're cheap 😉

[@benedictarmantanchauco6647]

Nice & informative video. Thank you very much!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thank YOU. I’m glad it helped.

[@karlminehart6246]

Good video with great information.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks Karl!

[@chriscard6544]

great solution

[@jjonestowne]

Sweet. Great info. Thanks, man.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Hope it helps. Best of luck with your film scanning journey!

[@kartnkrazy]

Fantastic video - thank you!! I have some old kodak disc negatives that I would like to scan taken with a cheap disc camera I bought whilst at university in the 1980's - of course I regret that now, but it was all I could afford at the time! Do you have any thoughts on how to best scan this really awkward format to get the maximum details out of the film? I don't really want to damage the discs by removing the plastic centre ring if I can help it.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the comment and support! Luckily the discs are already in there own little negative holders, so just find a way to hold them above the light source (alternatively diffuse the light with frosted plastic of some kind) and place the negatives directly on it. I’m actually going to do a video about Lomography‘s new digitalizamax, which I think would be perfect for it. Then use the same macro technique to get as much of the frame covered by the negative, and shoot away. Probably just go for 2 or 3 frames in your digital shot, and crop as necessary after, if that makes sense.

[@kartnkrazy]

@@NorbiWhitney Many thanks again for this advice. I recently bought an excellent flatbed scanner (Epson Perfection V850 Pro) to start archiving hundreds of old family photos many of which no longer have their original negatives. The scanner can produce excellent results on photos and 35mm negatives, but unfortunately it doesn't come with any "round" negative holders for my Kodak disc negatives. When I tried scanning these by placing them directly on the scanner flatbed glass the results were not great. I think too much backlight was escaping around the edges of the negative. I'll definitely try your method. I bought some 11mm and 16mm macro extension tubes for my Fujifilm X-T20 camera but as I only have the standard XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ lens it doesn't give enough macro magnification to get a full frame of the tiny disc negatives. I'll drop some hints to my wife that I'd like a decent macro lens for this camera for Christmas! 😉.

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@kartnkrazy you’re unlikely to get extremely good resolution from the tiny negatives anyway, so I’d zoom in to 45, put both tubes on, and just get as close as you can.

[@anandkulkarni75]

Loads of thanks for such an important information....

[@NorbiWhitney]

You’re very welcome Aanand

[@SigySergiu]

f8 results in a Dof that's too shallow for me, f22 gets more of the photo in focus and since My 20D is 8.2Mp diffraction doesn't really affect me

[@NorbiWhitney]

Fair enough. I would still suggest trying 𝑓/11 to maybe 𝑓/16, to maximise on sharpness especially at that lower resolution.

[@SigySergiu]

@@NorbiWhitney I'm using an extension tube as well, maybe that has to do with it? and does f/22 cause sharpness loss at that resolution?

[@thecameratherapychannel]

Thank you so much!!!

[@NorbiWhitney]

You're very welcome. I hope you get great results!

[@primuslicnl9290]

This is exactly the video I was looking for,

[@NorbiWhitney]

Great! Hope it helps.

[@BboyGraphicx]

Thank you, this was brilliant

[@NorbiWhitney]

Glad you liked it Tich

[@kdbarham]

Excellent. Thank you😊

[@NorbiWhitney]

Glad you liked it !

[@gwberger]

Great explanation, thanks

[@NorbiWhitney]

Glad I could help.

[@firoxlion]

Great video and seriously underrated!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really appreciate the comment!

[@RudolfWolph]

A lot of vintage standard focal length macro lenses are pretty cheap because nobody wants the slowest prime lenses you can get, and they will get better results out to the corners than a nifty fifty on a tube. (I've tried using the old FD mount Canon 50mm lenses on a macro bellows. Their f/3.5 macro smokes the f/1.8, and you can get it for 50 bucks.) Don't chase after the specific lens I mentioned if the price goes up though, any first party macro will do fine. (micro-nikkor lenses are even better.)

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the tip Rudolf, that’s a very good point!

[@mcb187]

use my enlarger’s neg carrier and my phone. It works OK, actually.

[@NorbiWhitney]

An absolutely ok option too. I’ve used my phone for a few quick snaps and was pleasantly surprised by the quality.

[@kevbomb]

Wow, amazing and useful video

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thank you so much !

[@LifeCenterLIVE]

Have you tried using the Raynox 150 or 250 add on macro lens?

[@NorbiWhitney]

I haven’t. I wonder what their edge sharpness is like, as clip-ons often have a lot of distortion and CA at the very edge.

[@markstephen2051]

Good video. Currently I try digitalizing the negative but is troubled by the pixel on the tablet. Searched many forums some ppl said adding a plastic, adding glasses on that will help, etc. I have thought of using a riser before but not yet do any testing on it. Anyway do you have a recommended height of the riser for avoiding the pixel? Thanks a lot.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Hi Mark, thanks for watching. I’ve also tried many “diffusers” with very limited success. For the height I didn’t do much experimentation. A deck of cards was too low and still showed pixels, but these film cases were perfect (about the height of a 35mm canister).

[@markstephen2051]

@@NorbiWhitney thank you for your reply. Just curious when the negative is put on the riser, the distance between the negative and the light source is getting bigger. The negative will be getting fewer back light. Will we still be able to get a good result?

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@markstephen2051 it’s important to use a cable trigger, or a timer, and shoot longer exposures (around a second). So if the light is less, just increase exposure time until it’s enough.

[@markstephen2051]

@@NorbiWhitney many thanks

[@markstephen2051]

@@NorbiWhitney Started the scan work for 3 days and getting some good result. I used an extension tube. I have something not quite understand, if I put the extension tube on my xf18-55, the magnification rate at wide is 0,97x while at tele is 0.47x. That means the less zoom I made the better quality the image I can get? If I zoom the lens, I still can get a larger image on the negative. In the meantime if I place sth under the riser and light source (making it closer to the lens while keeping the strength of the light source), I still can get a larger image on the negative without zooming the lens. It seems the same. I am quite confused and not sure which is a better solution. Currently I make a few zoom (at around 36mm) on the negative and found that only around half a sensor is used. Just not sure how to fully utilize the sensor. Do we also need to consider the lens barrel distortion (but the file will be cropped anyway). Million thanks.

[@mrbilllollar]

So here's a question…should we even call it "SCANNING" or would another term be more appropriate? Without a scanner, how can you scan?

[@NorbiWhitney]

It's a good question Bill. There are also many "scanning" apps for phones which just take photos of a document, bump up the contrast, and save as a PDF. So I think the word has changed meaning slightly. For this case, masses have agreed on "DSLR Scanning", which is also funny because a lot of people aren't using DSLRs either these days, but language is a weird thing.

[@WTABallers]

Typically whar shutter speed do you use and what zoom mm do you take picture from?

[@NorbiWhitney]

The shutter speed is normally a second or 2, which is why a tripod and trigger cable (or a countdown timer) are essential. The focal length can vary greatly. Somewhere 50-100mm is pretty standard - but the main goal is to fill as much of your frame with the negative, as possible. So if you go much above 100mm then your camera will be really far from the negatives, and if you go any wider than 50mm then you will start to get distortion in the image. I hope that made sense/helps.

[@smkunder1]

Being new to all this, why would you not have the lab do your scans when film is processed?

[@NorbiWhitney]

It’s a good question. There are a number of factors. - Quality. A cheap lab scan is normally around 3 megapixel, and a standard might be 10ish. With DSLR scanning you can easily get 15+ with a relatively cheap camera. If you want that kind of quality from a lab then it’s point 2.. - Price. A cheap lab scan is maybe €5/roll, and going up to around €15 for a high quality scan (varies wildly depending on the lab though). If you’re shooting 2 or 3 rolls a month then that’s €500+ per year on scans alone. Investing in a cheap DSLR setup will pay that off quickly. - control. Different labs, and different film scanners, will render different results (in colour casts, contrast, even exposure) from the same roll of film, and once this is exported there isn’t much you can do about it. With DSLR scanning you have a RAW digital file, and can process it exactly how you’d like. So in short - if you just want to get some images back, and not think about it (and have the budget) then lab scans are fine. But if you want full creative control, as well as the highest possible resolution final image, DSLR scanning is the way.

[@PatrickHobley]

Can i use my telephoto? 70 200mm

[@NorbiWhitney]

Absolutely. You can use anything Patrick, even a fisheye if you’re feeling funky. You’ll still need extension tubes though, as 70-200 don’t focus very close (except the Tamron 70-200 macro… but it’s not a good macro)

[@PatrickHobley]

@@NorbiWhitney why they essential can’t I just move back more

[@NikolajFreiesleben]

Thx😊

[@AI3JeWelz]

So good

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks Julian!

[@Barry-mp1zz]

Really very good excellent

[@NorbiWhitney]

Really appreciate your comment Barry!

[@pipe117]

Great tip using Snapseed :)

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks Pipe!

[@vinnybroderick]

Great video, thanks so much, great tips here.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the comment Vincent. Glad it could help.

[@BartRos1980]

Nice. I have the epson 600. Would you day using my A7R4 would give me more Range and pixels?

[@NorbiWhitney]

Absolutely! With that incredible dynamic range and huge pixel count, you'll get some wildly good results. It'll blow the V600 out the water.

[@BartRos1980]

@@NorbiWhitney I figured as much. I never feel I get good results scanning. Time to order those lomography holders

[@BenjaminKanarek]

Thank You!

[@NorbiWhitney]

No problem

[@TristanKeener]

What camera do you use for scanning?

[@NorbiWhitney]

Hi Tristan, I'm using a Canon 80D.

[@vc6218]

I understand this for 35mm film. But how and why are people scanning 120 negatives with sensors that are smaller? Doesn't this defeat the purpose??

[@NorbiWhitney]

It’s a fair point. If you get scans from your lab anyway, they will normally not be bigger in dimensions than 35mm scans (and some labs actually scan 120 at a lower res because of how old Fuji Frontier scanners work). So even on a full frame sensor at 18MP, you’ll get a significant upgrade versus lab scans. Of course versus dedicated film scanners, it’s a different question. However - if you want to get a huge scan, stitching is the way to go. Like if I set it up to scan only a quarter of my 120 negative, took 4 shots, and stitched them together, the result would be great. Maybe the sensor shift tech on new cameras could help get a wild scan size too.

[@leniehulse1621]

How do you get a white screen on an ipad

[@NorbiWhitney]

I just googled “white” and downloaded an image of white. Just to be sure it was, I then used the built in iOS photo editing options to max exposure, and completely desaturate the image.

[@filmdad24]

Filmmaker here, learning marketing..... Change the title to: Scanning without a Scanner: Digitizing Your Film [with a DSLR] Get rid of your tags and use: ""film scanning" "film camera scanning" "film photography" "35mm film" "dslr scanning film" "dslr scanning" "dslr scanning negatives" "dslr scanning vs flatbed" "dslr scanning 120" "dslr scanning setup" "dslr scanning 4x5" "dslr scanning medium format" "dslr scanning kit" "dslr scanning film holder" "dslr scanning light source" "dslr scanning lens" Just want to help everyone to be seen ! Take it or leave it! Update me in a month if you get really amazing results!

[@serpentinemedia5571]

Add "Negative Lab Pro" That's the last one lol (I know it's a old video, but I bet you can get a boost!"

[@serpentinemedia5571]

You can test it and reupload the video to see what happens ;) You can always delete it!

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the tips guys. I won't reupload, but I'll give it a change and see.

[@filmdad24]

@@NorbiWhitney didn’t you have like 3.7 views like 9 days ago? Any progress so far?

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@filmdad24 views in the last 7 days were 6% more than the previous week. Maybe too early to to say if that's simply down to an organic increase in popularity, but I very much appreciate the input! Let's see how it goes from here.

[@TechnikMeister2]

Yes, but you still need a DSLR and a decent lens to scan, right? So the image that results is digital output from the scanning camera. So whats the point? It's only valid analogue of you develop the film and make prints in the darkroom.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I understand that’s it’s not for everyone, and there is a weird irony to taking a digital photo of a negative. But for the very large community of people who want to digitize their negatives, DSLR scanning is a very good method for it (increased colour control, sharper than cheap lab scans, and much faster than flatbed scanners). What I tried to point out in this video is that even with the cheapest DSLR set up which you may even already have lying around at home, you can get the job done.

[@vytautasslenderis2702]

I tried using a tablet. No good. The CRI of those devices is not up to the task, unless the film is black and white. For color films, light from a tablet is no good. Colors ;especially reds) come out bland/distorted and correction of color balance does not help.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I think it depends a lot on the tablet. Negative Lab Pro's creator Nate, made a long post comparing various technical aspects of different light sources. iPad specifically was listed among the good options. The full article is here forums.negativelabpro.com/t/suggested-backlight-sources-for-scanning-film-with-dslr/130

[@vytautasslenderis2702]

@@NorbiWhitney Nope. A post in the very link you directed shows the CRI of iPad 7 (and 8 as it has the same screen) is only 73 and the rendering especially of reds is no good.

[@NorbiWhitney]

@@vytautasslenderis2702 You're right. I was referring specifically to this comment by nate: "iPhone or iPad, especially newer models with OLED (must elevate film off surface!). While the reported CRI is not high, it has spectral sensitivity curves more similar to film paper, resulting in less color interference from the orange mask. It is also a more “collimated” source of light, meaning it will produce sharper results than diffuse light sources." Which essentially comes back to the point of this video. Sure you could splash out on a high quality light source, but if you're saving money (and already own an iPad) then the iPad screen does a surprisingly good job.

[@spacemansabs]

holy crap

[@NorbiWhitney]

Like, in a good way?

[@spacemansabs]

@@NorbiWhitney yes

[@scotthullinger4684]

Digital cameras don't "scan" an image. The technology is similar, but far from identical to that of a film scanner. Film can of course be digitized with a digital camera. But the real truth is that there is simply NO substitute for a real film scanner. An old Minolta Dimage 5400 film scanner has proven this to me.

[@NorbiWhitney]

I agree with the technicality, but languages changes over time and "DSLR Scanning" is the name that's been widely adopted for this process. I think the REAL truth is that the Minolta 5400 is an incredible dedicated film scanner, with a price point to match it at release. But DSLR scanning yields considerably better results (in sharpness, and dynamic range) than flatbed scanners like Epson V600 or most lab scanners like Fuji SP3000, while being very affordable depending on how you set it up.

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@NorbiWhitney - I own that Minolta scanner, and I've scanned every one of my hundreds of transparencies. It's phenomenal. I don't remember how much I paid for it, but I'm sure it was worth every penny. Hey, and since film forms a part of this discussion, I'll just say that I've discovered that the virtues of film are vastly overlooked. As much as I love my 24 megapixel digital camera, if I had the cash to continue with film, then I would still be using my trusty old Mamiya 6 medium format film camera which I unfortunately sold 6 or 7 years ago. I sure didn't need to see a video to convince me of the virtues of film. But I've seen a handful of videos done by extremely articulate people who demonstrate their profound comprehension of the subject matter when comparing film to digital cameras, or to any scanner which captures film. For example, when people actually know how to use the correct vocabulary on the topic, then they demonstrate their knowledge and intelligence. There is, after all, a profound difference between buzz words and real words. And if we compare film directly to digital, then I believe it's accurate to say that digital has far more dynamic range than the average transparency film. However, the transparency possesses a sort of magic which digital always lacks. There really is just NO substitute for seeing a transparency projected on a very large reflective screen which was specifically made for the purpose. Before my scanning days ... I once made medium format size inter-negatives of my favorite transparencies and had a print made with more than satisfactory results. I also printed at least one transparency using the old Cibachrome method. It's looks quite good, but it lacks shadow detail and is NO comparison to the prints made from a large inter-negative. Hmm, and I don't know if such a device exists, but I'd sure love to see a few of my digital images projected onto a large screen. One thing which I have for sure taken notice of is that digital lacks a full range of the depth of colors we see. You can see quite a lot on a computer monitor, but it really does not translate very well to an actual photograph print made on photographic paper. NOT so true of film, however. A largish print, maybe 20 by 24 inches, made from a low ISO medium format film, really has no comparison. I even have a sunset picture which I printed to that size from a 35 mm negative using that fabulous old Ektar 25 Kodak film. Even from inches away, NO film grain is noticeable. Or maybe it was Ektar 100, because I'm not sure if an ISO 25 actually existed of that film. I noticed that the tech in the lab made a small print just for himself without asking me. Oh well, who cares?

[@milesian1]

This was great and very helpful until you sent us to editing on our smartphones. No way I'm going to put all my film scans on my phone, only to have to AirDrop them all back to my computer.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that it's a long workaround, but I was simply trying to show a free and simple option. I think a large majority of people will be scanning their negs to post on instagram anyway, so not such a big deal. If they are more serious about it than that, they probably also have a budget for a better workflow.

[@parahandy07]

sorry for being the dumb guy but why not just take a digital photo in the first place

[@NorbiWhitney]

Not dumb, and don't worry I do see the irony of taking a digital photo of a negative. I've covered it a lot before, so I'm just going to paste in a reply I wrote somewhere else recently. I have a mirroless I use for work, and I take photos on my phone. But there’s something very boring about getting back from a photowalk with 500 shots to sift through. Obviously I could give self-imposed limits when shooting digital, but I genuinely enjoy the process of knowing I have limited shots and no instant visual feedback. Just take photos, and then see how they come out later. I've also noticed that Considering the lighting and framing more meticulously, thanks to each shot being more expensive, has lead me to significantly more keepers when shooting digital too. There's also the fact that the analog community (in general, of course there are some less cool people) is a lovely supportive community of likeminded nerds. I feel a strong connection to that community, and it drives me to experiment more with film photography. Then when coming to digitise it, most labs offer subpar scans for too much money. Negatives has such a ridiculous amount of detail in them, which is often lost when digitising. "Scanning" with a digital camera is a very good method for it (increased colour control, sharper than cheap lab scans, and much faster than flatbed scanners, and RAW files can properly capture the massive dynamic range of film). What I tried to point out in this video is that even with the cheapest DSLR set up which you may even already have lying around at home, you can get the job done better than spending $10 on some crappy scans which will arrive in 2 weeks. Hope that answers the question.

[@SteSeed]

Or you could bypass all the faffing, screaming, fighting and unpredictability that is commonly known as "the home film photography development process", and send your film to a professional lab, where you will receive back quality scans, while you get on with your life and leave all the stress and hard work to somebody else. And if you don't shoot film everyday like me it actually works out cheaper too.

[@NorbiWhitney]

Thanks for stopping by Ste. I’ll be honest I’m not 100% sure I understand the point of your comment. DSLR scanning is superior to flatbeds and noritsu/frontier style scans (the predominant lab scanners) in terms of sharpness, dynamic range, and fine colour control. Except if you’re paying €50 per frame for a drum scan. Labs will even admit to this. Quality aside, the cost of scanning at home rapidly pays for itself. A high quality scan from a lab is likely to cost you €10, so if you spend €100 on a home setup, then all scans are free after the first 10 rolls. You also seem to be complaining about the pain of the home development process… but a lot of people, myself included, get the development done at a professional lab and then just wish to have full high quality control over the scans at home. Finally - weird that the comment even needs to exist. There are thousands of people who have made a conscious choice to try DSLR scanning, if you’re not one of them (as noted by “like me” at the end of your comment), then this video is clearly not catered to you.