Film Photography / Part 2
Part 2: Scanning the film negatives at home
At the time when I was transitioning from film to digital photography - it was a gradual process - I had amassed quite a large number of film negatives as well as positives. For a number of years, negative film scanners were really expensive, but when the prices came down on the better ones, I bought a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400. By now it is about 20 years old.
You guessed it, I still have it, but haven’t used it in ages. At one point, the software wasn’t supported any more, but luckily there is a third-party scanner software that still is developed, it’s called Vuescan. Another issue with the scanner is that I may have lost the film / slide holders you needed. And the cables or the power adapter. In short, I don’t intend to use it anymore. I went to the basement to dig it up recently because I was wondering if I could sell it. Or at least parts, or better one part of it: the lens. This lens is now rated as one of the best lenses for micro-photography or ultra-macro photography, whatever you want to call it.
One reason why I am not bothering to revive the scanner is that the workflow was utterly slow. And that seems to be the case with other film scanners, too. Even those more modern ones that are out on the market. But here the better ones are still very expensive, and given that I don’t intend to get back into film photography big time, I was wondering if there are less expensive, simpler ways to do it at home.
And for sure, there is a way that the owner of a decent digital camera and a macro lens can do. Put simply, you take photos of your backlit film negatives and then convert those into digital images in, say, Adobe Lightroom.
But, as always, it is not just as simple:
You need to make sure that the film strip you take a photograph of is absolutely plain so that you get the whole image into focus. For anyone who has ever seen a developed negative film strip it is clear that this is difficult unless you have some device that helps you achieve that.
Once you have the film strip as plain as possible, you need to ensure that your camera’s sensor plane is as parallel as possible to your film plane. For that, you need a tripod or a copy stand.
You need a good, consistent light source to shoot the film negative with your camera.
Once done, you need to convert the negative image in your camera to a positive, which is actually easier said than done.
As for the camera setup, I have opted for the Canon EOS 90D, a DSLR with a 32 Megapixel APS-C sensor and a the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro lens. The choice is mostly based on my experience with this camera’s and lens’s macro capabilities and the high sensor pixel count. Given that I can adjust the power of the light source in this setup I am not worried about potential noise from the camera, which can be an issue with the 90D at higher ISO settings (from about ISO 640 upwards). Moreover, the new noise reduction capabilities of Lightroom are pretty impressive, but I do wonder how this works with film grain.
I also opted for a copy stand because I didn’t like the idea of having to set the camera level each and every time I want to digitize some negatives. The stand that I found was reasonably priced, but when it arrived I saw that it won’t last forever like a professional stand. Some parts were made of plastic. The most annoying bit was the quick-release plate used on this stand - it looked like a Manfrotto PL-200 plate, or, rather a cheap copy. After replacing the screw of that piece with one that I could tighten with a screwdriver I thought it could work.
As a light source I have chosen an inexpensive small RGB led video light that I had bought from Amazon some time ago but that might change once I have done some tests.
Lastly, for the negative holder, I needed to do some research but ended up with a recommendation by one of the Youtubers. The Essential Film Holder was in an affordable price range and seemed to do the job.
The ordering process was a bit slow as the company is a real small outfit and they were swamped with a lot of orders when I placed mine. Plus, the company is based in the UK which means that you may have to pay import taxes when you are based in the EU like me. In the end, I paid around 140 Euros (38 of which were import taxes and fees for the customs handling by UPS). If you are based in the EU, you may find EU-based stores that have slightly less expensive options to purchase the Essential Film Holder. On the other hand, the website provided a lot - I mean really a lot of useful information on negative film scanning with a camera.
After a first trial with the Essential Film Holder, I can say that it does work OK, and found it to have some minor design flaws that makes it a bit fiddly to work with. One - if you have short film strips, it can be sometimes hard to file the strip through the whole film holder as it may get stuck; two - again, mostly for shorter film strip cuts, films may end up in the entry funnel and are difficult to handle then, especially if you are working with cotton gloves like me. One last point I’d like to highlight here is that the Essential Film Holder works best if you have a light source of a decent size, meaning the entire film holder can be placed on top. The feet of the Essential Film Holder will work as spacers, which is, erm, essential. If you are using a smaller LED light panel like the Andoer W140RGB, which is really small, the Essential Film Holder may sit directly on top of the light source with no space between the light panel and the diffusor panel of the film holder. In that case, you won’t have even lighting on the film negatives as the individual LEDs will produce hot spots. Therefore, you have to elevate the film holder away from the light source. I have used camera batteries as spacers, which was a crappy solution.
Only later, I found that the guys at Lomography had developed a handy film holding tool, too, the DigitaLIZA+. This one even had a light source built in and a mechanism that helps you wind through. At about 80 Euros plus shipping from Austria, this may be a viable option for some people based in the EU. Lomography.de is usually also shipping quite fast if they have the goods in stock. They also have a slightly more expensive solution which allows you to use your smartphone to digitize the film strips, but it does seem to be a bit quirky.
Finally, I’d also like to mention that the pros at Kaiser Fototechnik have some options for film holders. These look as solid as Kaiser’s other equipment and they may good solutions for people who are looking for long-living equipment. They also offer a variety of accessories like anti-Newton glass panes for larger film negatives, and a kit with a light source which looks like good value for money.
*****
As a light source, I have chosen a 10-inch LED video light panel by Ulanzi. It is large enough but not too large, it is thin, and has a high light consistency. I’ve set mine to 5600 K to have daylight light color, and 75 percent of maximum output. I had this light anyway, so why changing? I’ve tried a smaller light, but that was too small for the Essential Film Holder to sit on top, so not an ideal solution.
One thing I am pondering about is whether to cut a paper or cardboard mask with a cutout the size of the Essential Film Holder to avoid any stray lights. However, so far, the panel works fine and I don’t see any issues with light leaks.
*****
Once I had decided which film scanning solution I would go for, I needed to do some research on the labs who could develop the films so that I could scan them. While I initially thought Fotoporto.de would become my go-to, I found another lab, easier to reach for me, cheaper, and with good reviews: Foto Kotti on Kottbuser Tor in Berlin-Kreuzberg. By the time of writing this, I had a number of color films developed and couldn’t be happier. The guys at the shop are super nice and helpful, and the negatives come back well-developed, without major scratches or blots, so they are good and easy to scan. As an additional bonus, I have a chance to get out of the house and get some exercise cycling there in about 15-20 mins. Their scanning options also look good and reasonably priced, and you can send in your films by post. What is not to like?
As I had little time to scan some of the films myself, I also gave Foto Kotti the chance to do the scans for me as well. For the first trial, I sent them a roll of Kodak Gold 35mm film by post. I thought I had told them to scan the film in TIFF quality, but they they did it in JPG only. The overall quality of the scans was very good though.
But neither TIFF nor JPG gives you the latitude to tweak the images in Lightroom like the RAW files I would get from my own scans with a camera.
Still, I think in the end I managed to squeeze out a bit more in Lightroom than the minor changes that I applied with the Squarespace image editor.
So, overall I was quite happy with the first tests with Foto Kotti, and the next rolls I handed over to them were scanned in the format I had asked for. I will present those in a separate post as they were part of a camera test that I am preparing.
The good part of having the photos scanned by a lab is that you get positives back from them, meaning that you can tweak them directly in your software or push them out to some social media as they are.
+++++
Now on to the question how to convert the scanned negatives into positives. One of the consistent recommendations I came across was a plug-in for Lightroom Classic called Negative Lab Pro, developed by Nate Johnson. The developer provides very good and extensive user guides and tutorials on how to scan and develop the negatives, which is helpful. I found the plug-in relatively easy to use but it has some quirks that I am still struggling with.
For instance, what I didn’t get when I first used it was that the normal development settings in Lightroom Classic don’t work as usual but are all inversed (increasing the contrast, say, means you have to move the slider in the opposite direction). Therefore, be advised to change the developed negative with the Negative Lab Pro interface rather than in the Lightroom settings. Once I have churned through more negatives, I hope I do get more consistent results. So, in short, it works alright, but needs some learning to get the hang of it.
The two pictures above were taken with the same camera on the same roll of Kodak Ultramax 400. I really did struggle with the white balance on the left picture and ultimately settled with the color range shown here. It’s certainly not ideal, and at some point I might revisit the edit. In fact, I had managed to extract a more neutral look but still stuck with the super warm yellow light. The picture on the right was not as problematic, but then again, the light on that day was very different.
As a side note - I am really happy with the Nikon L35 AF point-and-shoot camera that I picked up on Ebay recently. The lens of this camera lives up to its very good reputation. I am looking forward to shooting some more high-quality film with it and in particular low ISO black and white film with a yellow or orange filter.
The two images below show again some struggles with the white balance, but they meet the mood of the time of day (on the left, golden hour in the evening, on the right late morning in August).
You may wonder why all photos were shot on Kodak Ultramax 400… Well, I had bought some rolls for a good price, and since none of the cameras were proven to work properly, I didn’t want to waste a roll of, say, Portra 400 in them. In fact, it turned out that the Nikon FE2 was defective and didn’t transport the film properly, so out of the nominal 36 frames of the film, only like three or four were usable. Luckily, I was able to return the defective FE2 and get one that is working fine.
*****
Some final thoughts on my experiences with shooting, developing and scanning films, and I still have mixed feelings about analog photography, although I am really warming up to it again.
After that roughly 20-year hiatus, when I almost exclusively shot digitally, it is a refresher of memories that were long lost. Some of the things that turned me off many years ago still exist. The waiting times with the photo labs, the cost of the films, the quirks of some cameras.
But overall, I am enjoying the process. I am enjoying the different quality of the images I get out of the scanned pictures. I am enjoying using the old or aging cameras with their quirks. I am enjoying the slowing down. I am wallowing in nostalgia, so to say. At the same time cherishing modern technology for the scanning and processing of the images.
And yes, I did wonder if I should go back to to developing at the least the black & white films on my own, but so far, the answer is a clear no. And it is not so much about the hassle involved, which I don’t believe is so bad. It is more a consideration of environmental issues. In the old days of the 1980s and 1990s nobody (not me, anyway), cared about disposing the chemicals in the sink. I would not do this today. This means, that, unless I find a chemical process for black & white or even color films that is environmental friendly and also acceptable for my skin and lungs, I will not dabble in chemical processes at home any more. And rather leave the developing of the films to the professional labs.