#DSLR-Scan

[kvetch19]

x

[philomena-famulok]

©Philomena Famulok

.

[ultralowoxygen]

Novembre tra le vigne by Michele Nicoletti Via Flickr: Analogica eseguita con Pentax MX obiettivo Pentax SMC 135 mm f 3.5. Pellicola kodak gold 200 sviluppata con kit Bellini c41 , scansionata con Canon EOS 60D e obiettivo canon ef-s 60mm macro. Elaborazione ed inversione del RAW con "negative lab pro".

[analog-kyle]

Untitled by Analog Kyle Via Flickr: Rolleiflex 2.8D | Kodak Portra 160

Website | Blog | Travel | Flickr | Prints

[maddiegoldbeck]

[simonh]

Untitled by Analog Kyle Via Flickr: Rolleiflex 2.8D | Kodak Gold 200 | Website | Blog | Tumblr | Memphis Film Lab |

[bcwhitetn]

Clark Iron & Metal Rollers by Bill White Via Flickr: Looking around in the Clark Iron & Metal "graveyard." One of my fist attempts at scanning negatives with camera. In this case using a cell phone.

[stochastique-blog]

Love me

[allthingsfern]

This amazed me and made me laugh.

For a generation that thinks it knows it all and especially among the new wave of analog photography lovers, to need a poster like this to inform them about what negatives are just blew me away.

And yeah, before I go on, unclench at least at one end, Boomers & Millennials, 'cuz we were just as know it all back in the day. (Boomers, remember how we thought we invented bell bottom pants? How we were the generation that would fix the world?)

I mean, I get why the newer generation of photographers need such posters, because to them film photography is new, but it just still blew me away that they (almost) worship at the altar of film photography and yet do not bother to delve in the facts of it. Well, truth be told, it is kinda like (Boomers, Millenials, or any of the new crop of Gens) buying a new product and not reading the instructions, which is something I never did or do...

Funny thing, though, the person behind the counter who laughed along with me at the need for the sign and who explained how often the younger photographers need to be told how negatives are part of the film print process and are needed for reproducing their images, unless the negatives were scanned, was young, by which I mean almost 50 years younger than me, as are most all the employees at Mike's Camera in Sacramento, with the one exception now being my camera guy, who is holding off retiring because, like me, he still enjoys his job, and also like me, he does not look his age, and bonus for him, unlike me, he is cool AF. And BTW, the young sales people who work with him all agree that he is cool AF.

So, just figured I'd share, because the poster made me laugh because I still recall I was young once, too, and thought I knew everything about how to be a famous photographer back when, over 40 years ago and then over 20 years ago, I tried my hand at photography with a DSLR. I also laughed because, as I told the person who gave me my prints of my digital photography, I recalled getting contact sheets back in my attempts at film photography, and I wondered out loud what the new crop of film photographers would think of contact sheets and how they would also need a lesson in how to use a film loupe, which is what you call the small contact sheet magnifier.

And if I'm not mistaken, such film loupes can also be used to view negatives.

Yeah, getting old can be fun and I can still learn stuff. I can also laugh at the young and I can laugh at the old, and I can even still laugh at old-ass myself.

Kinda cool, really.

[mcromwell]

I was wondering how you take good quality images of your traditional art? I've been wanting to up my game when it comes to online presentation of my work. Absolutely love ur art btw :3

Hello there. My answer is probably not indicative of most artists but I just do what works for me. 90% of the time I'm snapping pics of my work pre-varnish in diffused natural light with my Pixel 8 phone. Sometimes, if it's small, I'll use my scanner. (My sketchbook and Trash Book bundles are all scanned.) I use the basic on-board editing programs to tweak the contrast etc. to make the pieces resemble real life as much as possible. I use the open source program paint.net to adjust levels further after that if it needs it. This usually gets me qualities good enough for an 8"x10" print. For higher DPI and larger images, a scan is preferred, or a better photography setup... But I learned recently my smartphone camera has outpaced the quality of my Canon Rebel DSLR camera. So. That's kinda funny.

Doing my best with what I got. 👍

If I had the resources, I'd get a much better camera and set up a photography corner with natural, diffused light and neutral colored backdrop. I'd like to be able to get shots of stuff to reproduce on a large scale, like tapestries and larger prints. Goals!

Thank you!

[jadeseadragon]

📷 @sascha.fonseca / @venueearth

"The frowning snow leopard posted earlier is actually a cute character. He spent quite some time in front of the lens. Scanning the valley for prey, while at the same time investigating the DSLR. As if it was all for his entertainment."

[stochastique-blog]

Why ?!

[rainedragon]

do you have any tips for scanning old magazines/catalogs? i'd like to help archive some of the publications i have, but i don't really know where to start ʕ⁠´⁠•⁠ᴥ⁠•⁠`⁠ʔ

i'm mostly concerned about binding (especially on glbs) and what scanner specifications to look at, but any other advice or resources would be appreciated too!

So, I'm not actually an archivist, I'm a web developer by trade. I own a relatively inexpensive flatbed printer/scanner, mostly because it was what I could go out to a physical store and buy for relatively cheap when I started out scanning old magazines and catalogs.

For anything that is staple bound, like a magazine, and can be put flat on a table while open, scanning is relatively easy. You just need a flatbed scanner that is bigger than the pages, and a book to put on top of the lid to keep it flat (don't use too heavy of a book or you will damage the scanner 1-2 magazines is usually good. Also, don't forget they are there, open the lid and fling them across the room). Line up a corner of the page on the corner of the scanner and you should be golden. Scan in photo mode if your scanner software has options. Ideally, for things like the GLB, you would either want a copy you can destroy (which I kind of think is what some of the 'latest magazines' scanning farms were doing in the 2010s) and to carefully unbind the whole thing and scan the pages flat (which I have no personal interest in doing because destroying books pains me and I'm not trying to digitize "clean" digital copies for any professional reason). OR, my understanding is you want something with a V-shaped cradle of some type that is specialized for scanning books, either as an actual scanner or a camera setup with software. The problem is last time I looked those were like 10K and up if you get a piece of specialized equipment.

I've vaguely dabbled with the idea of doing a very hacky version of a DIY build with boxes cut down to the right angle and some panes of glass and my DSLR for my pink house catalogs because they are too big but I never really got it fully figured out. I will admit, I haven't tried super hard. I kept getting reflections, and I had to worry about the glass scratching the pages, and I didn't feel like getting a proper light.... I know I should really try again, and try a little harder, but it's a lot and I have a lot of other stuff I need to do so it just keeps getting kicked down the road.

That said, if you want to get into trying a DIY build, there is a whole community of people who were doing that in the 2010s that have posted good info on types of glass and way more detailed suggestions than I can make here: https://diybookscanner.org/forum/index.php This box scanner is essentially what I was trying to set up and it theoretically should work, I'm pretty sure my whole issue is that I was trying to do it all quickly at like midnight one day and did not have the right lighting and didn't try too hard to fix that. Like... I could have tried a lot harder than I did https://www.instructables.com/Bargain-Price-Book-Scanner-From-A-Cardboard-Box/ (good pictures of one here: https://diybookscanner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1202)

And then I needed to take it apart because I needed the table back...

But yeah, if you don't want to invest thousands or destroy them, I would say try a cardboard box scanner for things like the GLB, see if you can get it to work for you?

And then for things that can go flat, a combo scanner/printer that is good enough for photographs will be more than good enough for the print resolution of most magazines and the scanner/printer combos are way cheaper than dedicated scanners because they think you are going to become an ink customer and buy printer ink, so they make it cheaper. But the joke is on them. My combo scanner printer has never had ink in it before. (Note: do read reviews and make sure it's not stupid enough to require it's ink to be full to scan. I wouldn't put it past some companies to add that to their software). If you are really passionate about this, there are a lot of people who are way more dedicated to archival book scanning who have developed all sorts of DIY solutions for speeding up the process, automating parts of it, etc, and searching for terms like DIY book scanner should get you in the right place on the internet.

[ultralowoxygen]

L'uomo, il sogno, il mare (e il flare). by Michele Nicoletti Via Flickr: Analogica eseguita con Nikon F e obiettivo Nikkor-s 50mm f1.4. Pellicola kodak Colorplus 200 sviluppata con Bellini kit C41 (scaduto da 5 mesi...), scansionata con Canon EOS 60D e obiettivo canon ef-s 60mm macro. Elaborazione del RAW ed inversione con "negative lab pro".

[analog-kyle]

Untitled by Analog Kyle Via Flickr: Rolleiflex 2.8D | Kodak Portra 160

Website | Blog | Travel | Flickr | Prints

[lewiswhatshisname]

I suppose I ought to introduce myself

I like taking photos with odd cameras. I am by no means a professional. I just have loads of cameras I've picked up second hand from various places, and like mucking about with them in different ways.

Right off the bat, I don't care about taking the perfect shot. That's boring to me. While I don't go out with the goal of intentionally taking wonky shots – I do actually try to make sure each shot is focused and exposed properly – quite a lot of my cameras are broken or weird in some way. My main film camera technically works, in that the lens attached to it is in good nick, and when I push the shutter button, it goes click. But the shutter fires inconsistently, and will often misfire at the lightest touch, it doesn't really fire at the speeds it's set to, the ISO dial is loose as hell and is always changing itself, and even if it wasn't doing that, the light meter really has no idea what light is in the first place.

It really only gets better from here. All of my cameras have some sort of physical malady by dint of being second hand, and in many cases, straight up antique, or because they're Holgas and have a deliberately imperfect design. I've got a couple of "toy cameras" as well, with cheap plastic lenses that make any given shot look a bit weird. None of these categories are mutually exclusive either.

But I also just like to do terrible things to both my cameras and the film I shoot on. My favourite thing to do is shove the wrong format film into the cameras. Sometimes I don't feel like cutting down film to fit into my 127 cameras, so I'll cram a 35mm roll in there. Or I'll stick one into one of my 120 or 620 cameras just for the hell of it. I like to redscale film, soup it, and just generally fuck it up before and after shooting. When I develop the film here at home, I don't put a lot of attention into making sure everything is perfect down to the tenth of a degree and to the second. I am not that fussed about any of it, frankly. As long as the roll comes out of the tank with photos on it, I'm happy. If they're messed up, whatever. That's part of the fun.

Right now, I'm slowly working through uploading my backlog over here. I've got even more photos on deviantART, and I post them to Patreon a month before I put them anywhere else. I also try to remember to put prints up, but that's a whole process on its own. In addition to uploading my backlog, I've been spending much of my time just working on scanning and editing a whole other backlog of negatives.

And according to Lightroom, right now that comes down to nearly 400 photos that I've yet to post, and a further 5,000-odd that I've not even looked at for editing. Plus the five or six rolls sitting on my printer waiting to be scanned.

You'll find a mix of birdwatching and urban photography, along with some random other things. I have favourite subjects I like to go back to again and again, and you'll get used to seeing them through a variety of lenses.

TL;DR, I take a lot of photos, many of them odd or wonky, and I'm never going to be done with this backlog. And the photos I have in Lightroom are only from the last few years. Multiple hard drive crashes have caused me to lose all of my digital photos a few times over.

Current Gear:

Canon EOS Elan II E (35mm)

Canon EOS Rebel XT (dSLR)

Fujifilm Instax Mini 90 (instant film)

Holga 135BC (35mm)

Holga 120 WPC Panoramic Pinhole (120)

Kodak Jiffy Six-20 (620)

Kodak Brownie Target Six-20 (620)

Kodak Brownie Starmatic II (127)

Kodak Brownie Starflex (127)

Kodak Ektar H35 (35mm)

Kodak Ektar H35N (35mm)

Minolta Maxxum 3000i (35mm)

Minolta Maxxum 8000i (35mm)

Pentax MG (35mm)

Ricoh KR-5 Super II (35mm)

Sawyer's Nomad 620 (120/620)

Super Ricohflex (120/127/35mm)

Plus photos from a variety of iPhones