I want to scan a few thousand 35mm negatives from back in the day. I already own a Sony a7R II with the Kolari Ultra Thin (UT) mod. I’ll need to buy the lens, the Valoi kit, and Negative Lab Pro.
Is this the easiest and most effective way to get the job done?
Here’s the setup I’m considering:
Sony a7R II (Kolari Ultra Thin sensor mod)
Laowa 90mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO (Sony E mount) (from B&H @ $499)
My suggestion is get a used FE90 2.8 Macro. I started camera scanning in 2019 using a 55 2.8 Micro-Nikkor and a battered A5100. I continued to use the Nikkor with a A7II until I added the FE90, . Manual focus works but autofocus works much faster and reliably focuses on the grain. I like that the FE90 focuses internally and there’s no breathing as the barrel moves in and out. Hope this helps.
I want to scan a few thousand 35mm negatives from back in the day. I already own a Sony a7R II with the Kolari Ultra Thin (UT) mod. I’ll need to buy the lens, the Valoi kit, and Negative Lab Pro.
Is this the easiest and most effective way to get the job done?
Here’s the setup I’m considering:
Sony a7R II (Kolari Ultra Thin sensor mod)
Laowa 90mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO (Sony E mount) (from B&H @ $499)
Valoi easy35 kit
RAW capture in Lightroom
White balance set using unexposed film base
Negative Lab Pro for inversion
Any thoughts, gotchas, or better alternatives?...Show more →
I did lots of testing various dslr scanning setups, and most were good. EFH a good cri 95+ light source, a good copy stand, bracket the exposures, and the constant babysitting and up and down from the chair to the camera screen drove me crazy. Then I added Helicon Remote so I could compose and shoot from the computer. Still far to labor intensive and too much babysitting.
Initially I scanned tens of thousands of negatives using an Epson V700, and a Nikon LS-1000, but back then I didn't know as much as I do now. I got Vuescan and got a newer version of Silverfast for the V700. I bought a broken then fixed a Nikon LS-2000, and LS-4000 - also built vintage computers to run a couple of scanners.
What did I learn? I could never match the dynamic range of a dedicated scanner with a dslr. From the Canon 5ds-r , to the Nikon D850 (supposedly 14.8 EV) The dedicated scanner could get more highlight and shadow detail. I could operate at 48 or 64bit, save to DNG then go Lr NLP. It takes longer, but with the LS-4000 and V700 I can set up batches then go do something else. On Nikon some of the attachments cost more than the scanner, But the V700 will do 24 35mm frames, 8-4.5x6, 6-6x6, 4-6x9.
You have a very specific list of hardware. For me, a dedicated film scanner is the easiest and best method.
James Markus wrote:
I did lots of testing various dslr scanning setups, and most were good. EFH a good cri 95+ light source, a good copy stand, bracket the exposures, and the constant babysitting and up and down from the chair to the camera screen drove me crazy. Then I added Helicon Remote so I could compose and shoot from the computer. Still far to labor intensive and too much babysitting.
Initially I scanned tens of thousands of negatives using an Epson V700, and a Nikon LS-1000, but back then I didn't know as much as I do now. I got Vuescan and got a newer version of Silverfast for the V700. I bought a broken then fixed a Nikon LS-2000, and LS-4000 - also built vintage computers to run a couple of scanners.
What did I learn? I could never match the dynamic range of a dedicated scanner with a dslr. From the Canon 5ds-r , to the Nikon D850 (supposedly 14.8 EV) The dedicated scanner could get more highlight and shadow detail. I could operate at 48 or 64bit, save to DNG then go Lr NLP. It takes longer, but with the LS-4000 and V700 I can set up batches then go do something else. On Nikon some of the attachments cost more than the scanner, But the V700 will do 24 35mm frames, 8-4.5x6, 6-6x6, 4-6x9.
You have a very specific list of hardware. For me, a dedicated film scanner is the easiest and best method. ...Show more →
I can’t counter what you are saying regarding the results with the Coolscans. I have a LS-9000 and haven’t unpacked it from storage because I thought that copying was a faster/more efficient approach. That said, I’m using an A7CR and the new Tamron 90mm Macro. I tether the camera to Lightroom and do everything remotely. I’m using a light stand Negative Supply setup. Personality defects result in some pretty bizarre behavior and I’m owning up to this. I use 16 shot/electronic shutter pixelshift to capture the images and when done, I use PixelShift2DNG to combine the sixteen images. At this point each file is 600MB or more. I import into Lightroom, convert using NLP then adjust and lastly downsize and sharpen in Photoshop. I batch delete all but these last files and keep all completed work stored on a very large NAS. The amount I downsize is based on the theoretical maximum resolution of a given film. Of course, nothing reaches the theoretical limit, but this approach was sufficient for me to consider shooting 35mm vs just MF. I’ve yet to scan B&W. For now, concentrating on E200, Portra 160 & 400 and Ektar.
Thanks — your points are well taken. I'll definitely look more closely at dedicated scanners before deciding.
One reason I was leaning toward a camera setup is that it gets a lot of positive coverage from 'influencers'. For example, Kyle McDougall reviewed the Easy35 and seemed impressed. Others too, so I don't want to single him out. But perhaps this says more about YouTube promotion of products
My understanding is that on 35 mm negatives, a scanner will not resolve as much detail as a camera-based scanner. But I agree that for 35 mm, batch scanning makes sense, so a scanner is of value. Digital ICE is another killer scanner feature.
So perhaps it makes sense to scan all the negatives with a scanner, identify the "wall hangers", and rescan those with a camera?
theHUN wrote:
My understanding is that on 35 mm negatives, a scanner will not resolve as much detail as a camera-based scanner. But I agree that for 35 mm, batch scanning makes sense, so a scanner is of value. Digital ICE is another killer scanner feature.
So perhaps it makes sense to scan all the negatives with a scanner, identify the "wall hangers", and rescan those with a camera?
+1 - this! Especially for larger amount of negatives, batch scan is a must. I would in this case recommend a Epson V800 flatbed series scanner with adjustable negative holder height (the sharpest focus point sits 1-2 mm above the glass scanner surface - main user error why many think that flatbed scanners make less sharp scans!), and vesting into Vuescan scanner software which is much better both for installation and user friendliness than the SilverFast software (I vested too much time with the latter because it came free with the scanner, but it is very cumbersome to do correct white balances for color negatives with this software!).
My negatives/positives are kept in plastic storage pages and contact sheets can be copied. This is shot through a glass holding down the contact sheet illuminated by a Kaiser LED light box. Here is a full contact sheet of slides produced in 2001. These were shot using the compact Contax T2.
Thanks — your points are well taken. I'll definitely look more closely at dedicated scanners before deciding.
One reason I was leaning toward a camera setup is that it gets a lot of positive coverage from 'influencers'. For example, Kyle McDougall reviewed the Easy35 and seemed impressed. Others too, so I don't want to single him out. But perhaps this says more about YouTube promotion of products
I wouldn't worry about equipment or brands or what others say - just get to it, and you will figure it out.
