I have an ancient 110 negative (Christmas 1983). I had it over a white back lit background (laptop screen actually with just a totally white image ie blank document) magnified with a lens from some binoculars and then got some pics with my mobile phone camera (no macro tho), got them on to pc and then inverted with MS Paint. That was first time Id seen pics since 1983 and it was a good result!
@aimoto does it really effect the quality of the image, really keen to try this out but concerned it will loose the detail that film cameras are so good at having!! plus is the normal procedure to get them developed into normal photographs then take those and scan those? thank you!
@traceur1099 I think depending on your intentions of the film, it wont matter much. If you want to do professional work with the film, you will loose resolution and the grain of the film that is so sought after slighty. It depends on your digital camera. I have a 12 megapixel camera, and I will loose some resolution but I'm guessing not enough to do much damage. Plus, since I'm just going to upload to the web, I'll loose resolution anyways so this works for web work.
With the quality of high-end digital cameras these days, it's possible to do as good of a job with your camera as with a sub-$1000 scanner. I'm using a Nikon D300 and micro lens with a copy stand setup and am getting better results than possible with ANY flatbed scanner that also does film. There's even a tutorial on the web from a museum that's using this method for their archives. In my camera "scans" the original grain is visible, and there's no way to get a scan sharper than that.
@SaypheZonE i disagree the point of film is not to avoid photoshop at all
sure you can use film to print from negative but some photographer do enjoy scan their film and digitalize them to do more important correction that cant be done without photoshop.
check my channel view a scanned image from a imacon scanner is the first video
@aimoto have you found a solution to photos that are too blue? I dont really want black and white all the time! Thanks for the idea of b&w anyway it helped.
READ. So after I inverted my film, I couldn't do the Auto-Levels thing. I'm using Photoshop CS5, and the option is like Levels...>Auto. So I clicked that and nothing happened to my interved image. ): Now what?
@MegaMo99 buy a scanner, this method is ugly, you will be losing every detail, and probably you'll have to put them black and white since you cannot get the correct colors, as he says...
The first song "Genki wo Dashite" is from the Beck anime! \(^o^)/
Anyways, very interesting! I've been wanting to get a film camera for a while, but have been put off by how expensive it gets to develop film. After watching this video, I want to get one even more now!
is there still available the roll of film sellin in shop coz back on 2002-2003 i still see the roll being sell right now i just dont they kinda never exist anymore
Hey! I was wondering what I should do if my camera has a wide angle lens? It's not an SLR so I can't replace it with another one, and I don't want to distort my negatives!! IS there some function in Photoshop that can correct that distortion?
Sigh...I get what you are trying to do here but seriously, if you have that kind of camera you can pick up an Epson really cheap these days. And they use less energy too. Those images will never produce good prints.
Oh Lord, I love you right now. Having negatives scanned in my country is a little steep. Thank you for giving my rolls of film another purpose apart from molding away in pockets. And thank you for saving my wallet!
i have cs5 and the 'auto' function in the 'level' does not give me the results like yours. I use a scanner to scan negatives and saved it jpeg, scanner is a canon led scanner.
@statquo112 Sometimes it won't, if you want true tones doing it this way, open "levels" and if the whole photo seems too blue, shift the blue slider lower, then go into curves and lower the greens, and then go to "image>auto tone" it should correct it
I found some really old B&W negatives and had already tried to scan them and invert, they were still very faint and were a pain to enhance. Many appeared to be taken by some agent during WW2 in China or? Too bad I never heard their history, like who the people were in the photos. Maybe I should ask a psychic? o_0 :P
Some genius will or has designed a simpler adapter for digital cameras and likely make more money. I really don't want another bulky flatbed scanner either. Whenever we can do this a greener way, the better. Who wants more bulky EXPENSIVE stuff to lose in fires, floods etc. I've seen a few small scanners for slides etc. but what's the best resolution if the negs etc. weren't in the first place? Software that cleans these up would also be ideal.
Thanks very much for this contribution. I've just got back into film, and going to develop my first B&W tomorrow, and I'm not sure if my scanner can do film, so thanks for this alternative method.
A good trick if you do not have the right scanner, but of course you need a good camera (a good lens really) to avoid image distortion. I do not if anyone else has suggested a couple of things about overcoming the colour problems.
1. Do not use a flourescent lamp, they always cause problems.
2. Before your try to auto-correct the image, try to rebalance the white, this will often remove most of the colour errors.
very nicely done.. and to all. it aint about money saving.
some of us even use expired films, not just because it's cheap. but it produces far more effects than what u digital photogs would spend on PP in front of ur pc.
i was a DSLR photog myself. and jumping on to the lomo train is definitely more leisurely.
Do you think this system could be used to transfer transparencies. Ihave quite a few, but don't want to go to the expense of buying a transparency scanner, or getting a shop to do it.
I have many pictures on APS negatives, can those be removed from the cases and processed the same way ? I guess the negatives are already developed, /pictures were printed already/, so they are OK to use. What do you think, did you try that kind of film ?
The big question is (and sorry if this has been pointed out, I haven't read every single comment, before writing this)... if you have a DSLR, why would you shoot film, to begin with? And if you DO bother to shoot film, you probably care enough for the photos that you would want to take proper care to develop them in a way that they would look acceptable. Interesting trick, but certainly not practical.
@dharvell Just a note, I too own a Digital SLR as well as 35mm SLR. I find 35mm so much more rewarding and the exposures end up on hard copy with negatives that can be stored safely away in a box for future development. I have found with my digital, I have lost photos due to hard drive failure and corrupt (for some reason) discs. Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR! It's a lot of fun! But my first love is 35mm. Have a Happy New Year!
This is a great idea. I love the sprocket holes. I definitely get what you're doing and will definitely try this. Too bad a lot of "professional" photographers knock on what you're doing because they have no clue about lomography-type images. They're not supposed to be crystal clear or super high resolution, people! They're artsy, different pictures. I'm sure he has a dslr for the quality of that when he wants to take amazing pictures, and then for the artsy ones he does this, which I do, too.
You can get the film image with an old flatbet scanner too.
I see that the problem in your chain is the inverse step. If you inverse the image, you are using a linear function, when the film negative need something like a progressive curve.
If you want to try I can send you the curve presets.
I looked at your flickr profile and the pictures in the BBF second roll album look amazing. What kind of toy camera do you have? I have a Holga 120N and I use the 35mm adapter, but only the back cover and not the film slide. So, I get the whole film exposed. What would be the best software to edit these and Camera to take the pictures of the negatives.
I've done this with great results. Now, i've refined the process a bit though. Found an old enlarger in a second hand shop, which, when you remove the lens, gives you a perfectly even lit negative. Tilting the head and mounting my dslr next to it on a camera stand, i can align them pretty well. This gives me great pictures. All the B&W's on my flickr page are digitized this way. flickr.com / photos / troelsim
Honestly it isn't that bad...though I've found that it's easier with B&W film than with color film as the color film has a tint that requires a bit more work in photoshop than B&W.
It also works best with a macro lens because you can fill the frame of your digital camera with the one on your negative. It's a quick and dirty way of digitizing the film but works quite well actually. It's actually how scanners do it but instead of going line by line you do it in one click...
bla bla bla, *boring comment about how this is idiotic, and not as good as a film scanner*
I personally used a similar technique but just for 1 negative, doing the thousands of negatives that me and my family have accumilated over about 20 years would be insanity.
Thats cool. unlike all the "pro" photographers commenting here I recognise its not an efficient way of doing this, but its good enough for a bit of fun. I have hundreds of negatives lying around that I never printed. it will be fun to try this for a laugh. cheers
I keep trying to do this but mine aren't coming out so clear like yours on your flickr. I have a 10mp kodak easyshare. I just can't get a good picture of the negatives.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I used to scan film for a living, and this is the most idiotic way to save a buck I've ever heard of. You would be better off taking the film to have a 4x6 made, and then taking a picture of that. Better yet, pay someone $.50 to scan the negative.
@pinkyzoey I have to agree, getting and image from a to b is easy...but getting a QUALITY image from a to b is quite a different matter. This is as heath robinson as it gets.
Cool proof of concept dude. It would take a really really long time but it would work. Especially if you used a tripod mounted full frame like a 5D MK II Anyone who has shit to say is just an idiot.
"CanoScan 8800F" You can get nowhere near the resolution with a flatbed scanner that you can with a DSLR, a good macro lens, and a dedicated setup, such as a bellows/ slide copier, or a good tripod/ copy table and light box. This IS a legit approach, but it can be improved upon easily and vastly simply by using a macro lens and tripod.
@aimoto thanks for sharing your little video. I shoot many formats, It is nice to see people experimenting. Good for you. Piss on that other fellow! Keep haing fun that is what it is all about!
@aimoto actually saving a JPG 900 times will cause a corrupted image, this because JPGs are compressed every time you save it and that causes for data to be lost and after a couple of times you save the file you'll start getting distortions and artifacts in the image. Other than that...it's a quick and dirty way when you don't have a scanner.
@ViolentPassions not really...this regarding what you're saying about the blowing it up...still, if he wanted to print a large photo out of the negative he would just take the negative to get printed but if you just want to upload it to the web for sharing it's more than enough.
@ViolentPassions I don't get all the purists knocking this method? Aimoto wasn't showcasing this method as a proper alternative but more so as a unique approach.
can you please say what options did you click on photoshop. i have photoshop cs4 and this doesn't work for me. i tried clicking command + shift + L but it just got more saturated. can anyone who did this on cs4 please explain it to me? PLEASE!
@nianymue I guess I should add a note to the description because I've had to correct this comment several times, but this technique can be done with just about any digital camera. In fact, all of the shots at the end of the video were done using an old Canon PIXY. I only used my DSLR because it's easier to visualize than a tiny point and shoot.
I just tape the film to a glass window and shoot it. No bulb necessary. I guess it's a solution if you're where there's no light. I wouldn't do this with an incandescent bulb BTW! Major fire hazard using a paper bag if it's an incandescent bulb!
I did all of this, I brought a set of macro lenses from ebay for £12 and tryed it. The results weren't perfect by any means. What I did find was the grade of paper matters because you see marks in the background from it. Also it needs a bit of messing around in photoshop to get good results. Needless do say I've brought a scanner too..
There is much easier way, instead your lamp you can use your monitor light, just open something with white background and when you take pictures with camera put it on some box and let it take the picture with timer on to avoid hand shake. Also select macro mode on camera for close up shots. You can get great negative pictures on this way.
So I can get my negatives onto my computer.... but it cost about 3x more (to buy the dSLR) where i could get a Canon CanoScan 8800F for $164 lmao. I want to scan my own negatives cuz rite-aid seems to be to incompetent for it. The scan the negative at a useless resolution of 1.8MP, wtf? And they even CUT on some of the negatives! I was kinda hoping for 10MP scans.
Some scanners are built for scanning film negatives, but a lot aren't. The problem with a regular scanner is that it lights and scans from the front, and film negatives need to be lit from the back, or lit all the way through in order for the negative to be read by the scanner.
so it could work if I put a thicker glass on film while scanning (so it's lit all the way through) or keep the lid open and put a thin sheet on film or a lamp and then illuminate it from the back.
I've tried sandwiching the film between two pieces of glass, making a cardboard holder so that the film floats between the bed and the lid, and trying to light the film from the back w/a flashlight. Nothing worked for me, but you're welcome to try it out for yourself :)
I should have been more specific. Floating, not floating, half-pressed, levitated lid, etc--I've tried everything and not once gotten a workable image. The problem isn't the method, it's most likely the scanner. Unless someone creates a device that will prop up over the film negative to direct enough light through so that the scanner can get a clean image, a regular non-film scanning scanner will probably not be able to do the job.
You can always try wand selecting all the sprocket holes and then reverse selecting so you just get the image. I haven't tried it myself, but I don't see why it wouldn't work :)
Select the magic wand tool and while holding down shift, click on all the black sprocket holes. Then right-click on the image and "select inverse." That'll let you adjust the levels of the image w/o the sprockets. I'm not sure if this'll work since I don't have any images on me to mess around with, but I don't see why it wouldn't.
i'm guessing you would need fairly good high end digital camera to take the pic. I have a 8mp cannon and can't get it to focus in that close...pic just come out blury.
i'm amazed at how easy that was. My attempts so far have included trying to cancel out the orange mask, but apparently this is not necessary (or even desirable). Colours look good and is more than good enough for getting stuff up on the web.
I'm very impressed. Thanks for sharing your amazing talent with us. I know I couldn't do it witha camera in each hand. I'll be saving your video in my favorites so i can refer back to it.
Further to my previous comment I suggest that you get a sheet of black card and cut a hole about the size of the negative. This will stop flare and give you a better image. Also raise the negative above the bag by at least four inches and lastly - USE A TRIPOD.
Thanks. This is just a demonstration and not a "do it this way or else" video. I obviously don't take photos while holding a video camera in one hand and an SLR in the other. I would also probably use a film scanner if I had one, but I don't, which is the point of the video. Also, common sense will direct most people to use trial & error to find the best way to get the best results.
absolute genius!!!
AGoggs 1 week ago
questionable music
AreaQNH870 2 weeks ago
Wet the negative with water, you should get better results.
atvheads 2 weeks ago
You sir, are a hero! Thanks for sharing this! :)
prakhere 3 weeks ago
Nice job man. Simple solution to a simple problem.
guitarded306 3 weeks ago
a real film scanner costs like what 80 dollars? youre a fucking monster
kkjelgaard 1 month ago
I have an ancient 110 negative (Christmas 1983). I had it over a white back lit background (laptop screen actually with just a totally white image ie blank document) magnified with a lens from some binoculars and then got some pics with my mobile phone camera (no macro tho), got them on to pc and then inverted with MS Paint. That was first time Id seen pics since 1983 and it was a good result!
seedubyu 1 month ago
@aimoto does it really effect the quality of the image, really keen to try this out but concerned it will loose the detail that film cameras are so good at having!! plus is the normal procedure to get them developed into normal photographs then take those and scan those? thank you!
traceur1099 1 month ago
@traceur1099 I think depending on your intentions of the film, it wont matter much. If you want to do professional work with the film, you will loose resolution and the grain of the film that is so sought after slighty. It depends on your digital camera. I have a 12 megapixel camera, and I will loose some resolution but I'm guessing not enough to do much damage. Plus, since I'm just going to upload to the web, I'll loose resolution anyways so this works for web work.
TheViolentColors 1 month ago
This is great! I have my degree in photography, and I think this is pretty clever! Well done!
vleek07 3 months ago
With the quality of high-end digital cameras these days, it's possible to do as good of a job with your camera as with a sub-$1000 scanner. I'm using a Nikon D300 and micro lens with a copy stand setup and am getting better results than possible with ANY flatbed scanner that also does film. There's even a tutorial on the web from a museum that's using this method for their archives. In my camera "scans" the original grain is visible, and there's no way to get a scan sharper than that.
mdarnton 4 months ago
interesting, thanks for sharing!
Tuigwaachan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from aimoto
SO SICK! thanks aimoto! Tip.....shoot your film strips in RAW format. :D:D Way easier to color correct.
deebawt 4 months ago
Nice method to scan negative
i did a scan of one of my 120 medium format negative with a imacon scanner if someone is interred you can check on my channel its the first video
rephixphoto 5 months ago in playlist photography
The point of film is to avoid photoshop.
SaypheZonE 5 months ago
@SaypheZonE i disagree the point of film is not to avoid photoshop at all
sure you can use film to print from negative but some photographer do enjoy scan their film and digitalize them to do more important correction that cant be done without photoshop.
check my channel view a scanned image from a imacon scanner is the first video
rephixphoto 5 months ago in playlist photography
it completely defeated the purpose of taking pics in film...
Js3009 6 months ago
arent you worried about the quality sine your crop sensor in your nikon is smaller then the actual film?
k1eee 6 months ago
@aimoto have you found a solution to photos that are too blue? I dont really want black and white all the time! Thanks for the idea of b&w anyway it helped.
DarrenDiAntonio 6 months ago
READ. So after I inverted my film, I couldn't do the Auto-Levels thing. I'm using Photoshop CS5, and the option is like Levels...>Auto. So I clicked that and nothing happened to my interved image. ): Now what?
XxXdragurlifeXxX 6 months ago 2
now tell me can you take your undeveloped film right out of the camera and do this?
cause i remember something about light and un developed film not liking each other much.
KeithWasHere1 6 months ago
how do you take a picture at that range?
KeithWasHere1 6 months ago
I tried this method several times but it doesn't come good at all:
w w w dot flickr dot com /photos/64028467@N02/5830193580/
using 6MP SLR-Like Canon with "Super-Macro" feature it has..
it looks so messed up..
Help ! :\
MegaMo99 7 months ago
@MegaMo99 buy a scanner, this method is ugly, you will be losing every detail, and probably you'll have to put them black and white since you cannot get the correct colors, as he says...
rick92rr 7 months ago
film negatives without a film scanner,..... but with a 1500$ SLR digital camera...
great.......
Valca000 9 months ago
The first song "Genki wo Dashite" is from the Beck anime! \(^o^)/
Anyways, very interesting! I've been wanting to get a film camera for a while, but have been put off by how expensive it gets to develop film. After watching this video, I want to get one even more now!
TienTzuChan 10 months ago
is there still available the roll of film sellin in shop coz back on 2002-2003 i still see the roll being sell right now i just dont they kinda never exist anymore
tyreez10 10 months ago
Hey! I was wondering what I should do if my camera has a wide angle lens? It's not an SLR so I can't replace it with another one, and I don't want to distort my negatives!! IS there some function in Photoshop that can correct that distortion?
robinheil 11 months ago
TOP TIP
before you put the film on the paper, do a photo of the paper with the custom white balance so you'll have pure white as backlight
..and use a tripod.
delonge5000 11 months ago
hi! i´m an italian girl and i want to ask you how you do with photoshop, because i do "invert" but.. whats the next step? ohh, i´m sorry, tnx guy :)
pipiruvata 11 months ago
Sigh...I get what you are trying to do here but seriously, if you have that kind of camera you can pick up an Epson really cheap these days. And they use less energy too. Those images will never produce good prints.
sthomas68 11 months ago
so any digicam with good macro (1cm?) will do?
GarbageState 11 months ago
That's way too much work just to get a photo.
spareaxe 11 months ago
Oh Lord, I love you right now. Having negatives scanned in my country is a little steep. Thank you for giving my rolls of film another purpose apart from molding away in pockets. And thank you for saving my wallet!
AkoSiAynce 1 year ago
Pretty cool! Gives you some artsy options!
MassiveJetGrind 1 year ago
good idea
IdolsAndAnchorsX 1 year ago
i have cs5 and the 'auto' function in the 'level' does not give me the results like yours. I use a scanner to scan negatives and saved it jpeg, scanner is a canon led scanner.
statquo112 1 year ago
@statquo112 Sometimes it won't, if you want true tones doing it this way, open "levels" and if the whole photo seems too blue, shift the blue slider lower, then go into curves and lower the greens, and then go to "image>auto tone" it should correct it
xbabigurl08x 10 months ago
1. take loan
2. buy epson v750 pro
3. ????
4. profit
szpon8 1 year ago
I HAVE THE SAME TECHNIC ONTO MY VID CHECKIT OUT
gigiboxa 1 year ago
bravo, this actually worked better than anything I've tried before. Thank you.
grundik1 1 year ago
I found some really old B&W negatives and had already tried to scan them and invert, they were still very faint and were a pain to enhance. Many appeared to be taken by some agent during WW2 in China or? Too bad I never heard their history, like who the people were in the photos. Maybe I should ask a psychic? o_0 :P
aleon1018 1 year ago
Some genius will or has designed a simpler adapter for digital cameras and likely make more money. I really don't want another bulky flatbed scanner either. Whenever we can do this a greener way, the better. Who wants more bulky EXPENSIVE stuff to lose in fires, floods etc. I've seen a few small scanners for slides etc. but what's the best resolution if the negs etc. weren't in the first place? Software that cleans these up would also be ideal.
aleon1018 1 year ago
this technique will make yr photos look like crap guaranteed
Capeau 1 year ago
I do it the same way! LOL it is so awesome to find out that there are people who use this method too! You live in Japan?
JurgisTamulis 1 year ago
u can do the same, but use the scanner instead of the camera. face the light down on the bed
DJVayPo 1 year ago
When I use auto tune/levels it stays very blue, and when I mess around myself, I can't get the colors like they should be
Micha499 1 year ago
i would rather get a scanner if I use film, since its easier with a scanner and safer
cubeproduktion 1 year ago
Cool, thanks! :)
TheOn3LeftBehind 1 year ago
WHICKED
magix93 1 year ago
Thanks! I Appreciate it :)
BleachedStaticFilms 1 year ago
Thanks very much for this contribution. I've just got back into film, and going to develop my first B&W tomorrow, and I'm not sure if my scanner can do film, so thanks for this alternative method.
tepoortj 1 year ago
That's wrong on so many levels.
GalaticTG 1 year ago
A good trick if you do not have the right scanner, but of course you need a good camera (a good lens really) to avoid image distortion. I do not if anyone else has suggested a couple of things about overcoming the colour problems.
1. Do not use a flourescent lamp, they always cause problems.
2. Before your try to auto-correct the image, try to rebalance the white, this will often remove most of the colour errors.
Aydosh1991 1 year ago
very nicely done.. and to all. it aint about money saving.
some of us even use expired films, not just because it's cheap. but it produces far more effects than what u digital photogs would spend on PP in front of ur pc.
i was a DSLR photog myself. and jumping on to the lomo train is definitely more leisurely.
kkoge 1 year ago
this is so ghetto
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
not a bad idea, now i just need a digital camera in general.. how want indeed, how want indeed.
35mm, never give up.. never surrender!
quglins 1 year ago
Do you think this system could be used to transfer transparencies. Ihave quite a few, but don't want to go to the expense of buying a transparency scanner, or getting a shop to do it.
ludvan64 1 year ago
u're so coll!!!
iEEnAX 1 year ago
I have many pictures on APS negatives, can those be removed from the cases and processed the same way ? I guess the negatives are already developed, /pictures were printed already/, so they are OK to use. What do you think, did you try that kind of film ?
csicsman7 1 year ago
This is really cool! :D!
missladydean 1 year ago
i've just saving 1000 euro of scan machine!
thanks!
MrMafaldo 1 year ago
The big question is (and sorry if this has been pointed out, I haven't read every single comment, before writing this)... if you have a DSLR, why would you shoot film, to begin with? And if you DO bother to shoot film, you probably care enough for the photos that you would want to take proper care to develop them in a way that they would look acceptable. Interesting trick, but certainly not practical.
dharvell 1 year ago
@dharvell Just a note, I too own a Digital SLR as well as 35mm SLR. I find 35mm so much more rewarding and the exposures end up on hard copy with negatives that can be stored safely away in a box for future development. I have found with my digital, I have lost photos due to hard drive failure and corrupt (for some reason) discs. Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR! It's a lot of fun! But my first love is 35mm. Have a Happy New Year!
Railrodder 1 year ago
This is a great idea. I love the sprocket holes. I definitely get what you're doing and will definitely try this. Too bad a lot of "professional" photographers knock on what you're doing because they have no clue about lomography-type images. They're not supposed to be crystal clear or super high resolution, people! They're artsy, different pictures. I'm sure he has a dslr for the quality of that when he wants to take amazing pictures, and then for the artsy ones he does this, which I do, too.
rocksterize 1 year ago 2
well done refreshing
iyrdy 1 year ago
pft... auto levels -_-
noisebot1 1 year ago
This is such a unique way to get some degrading in the end result photo, fantastic!
meretricis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is such a unique way to get some degrading in the end result photo, fantastic! I'm sure it wasn't you're end goal but I'm loving it. Cheers.
meretricis 1 year ago
Comment removed
meretricis 1 year ago
You can get the film image with an old flatbet scanner too.
I see that the problem in your chain is the inverse step. If you inverse the image, you are using a linear function, when the film negative need something like a progressive curve.
If you want to try I can send you the curve presets.
Rizomantico 1 year ago
WOW
Marcotsu 1 year ago
i thin a scanner is cheaper than a DSLR camera....
ariobanana 1 year ago
I looked at your flickr profile and the pictures in the BBF second roll album look amazing. What kind of toy camera do you have? I have a Holga 120N and I use the 35mm adapter, but only the back cover and not the film slide. So, I get the whole film exposed. What would be the best software to edit these and Camera to take the pictures of the negatives.
ArmagideonMan2kXX 1 year ago
@ArmagideonMan2kXX
i use the blackbird, fly by superheadz.
superheadz . com / bbf
aimoto 1 year ago
I've done this with great results. Now, i've refined the process a bit though. Found an old enlarger in a second hand shop, which, when you remove the lens, gives you a perfectly even lit negative. Tilting the head and mounting my dslr next to it on a camera stand, i can align them pretty well. This gives me great pictures. All the B&W's on my flickr page are digitized this way. flickr.com / photos / troelsim
troelsim 1 year ago
Honestly it isn't that bad...though I've found that it's easier with B&W film than with color film as the color film has a tint that requires a bit more work in photoshop than B&W.
It also works best with a macro lens because you can fill the frame of your digital camera with the one on your negative. It's a quick and dirty way of digitizing the film but works quite well actually. It's actually how scanners do it but instead of going line by line you do it in one click...
luiscmm 1 year ago
bla bla bla, *boring comment about how this is idiotic, and not as good as a film scanner*
I personally used a similar technique but just for 1 negative, doing the thousands of negatives that me and my family have accumilated over about 20 years would be insanity.
rorrt 1 year ago
a square format with large space inbetwen shots,
my guess is, you using Diana mini, right?
Nice video BTW.
chaweemek 1 year ago
Thats cool. unlike all the "pro" photographers commenting here I recognise its not an efficient way of doing this, but its good enough for a bit of fun. I have hundreds of negatives lying around that I never printed. it will be fun to try this for a laugh. cheers
boddahdidit 1 year ago
I keep trying to do this but mine aren't coming out so clear like yours on your flickr. I have a 10mp kodak easyshare. I just can't get a good picture of the negatives.
garrettprada 1 year ago
I've tried... and it worked like magic! Thanks a million!
jalak 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I used to scan film for a living, and this is the most idiotic way to save a buck I've ever heard of. You would be better off taking the film to have a 4x6 made, and then taking a picture of that. Better yet, pay someone $.50 to scan the negative.
pinkyzoey 1 year ago
@pinkyzoey It's not about saving money, but thanks for trying.
aimoto 1 year ago 14
@pinkyzoey I have to agree, getting and image from a to b is easy...but getting a QUALITY image from a to b is quite a different matter. This is as heath robinson as it gets.
RetroSpectreUK 1 year ago
GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!!! LOL THANKS FOR THE TIP!!
southernprince706 1 year ago
hmmm interesting way to do it !
unconventional but looks interesting there are easier ways though
but this will do !
Sungkawa 1 year ago
Interesting. But with that paper bag over the light you will eventually set in on fire and burn down your house. LOL.
fullmetaljacket30 1 year ago
Thats so clever!! And the photos come out looking really vintagey!! Thanks for that
EekBinSoozy 1 year ago
great idea! don't listen to all these arrogant fagoots x__X
i'll try this, but i guess my camera and its macro might be too bad- this could be your only problem by using this method for diditalising.
thanks dude! =)
toetemich 1 year ago
Cool proof of concept dude. It would take a really really long time but it would work. Especially if you used a tripod mounted full frame like a 5D MK II Anyone who has shit to say is just an idiot.
Tennekis 1 year ago
very helpful video. photography has too many arrogant pricks
treadmillkitten 1 year ago
"CanoScan 8800F" You can get nowhere near the resolution with a flatbed scanner that you can with a DSLR, a good macro lens, and a dedicated setup, such as a bellows/ slide copier, or a good tripod/ copy table and light box. This IS a legit approach, but it can be improved upon easily and vastly simply by using a macro lens and tripod.
fourfortyroadrunner 1 year ago
Comment removed
ViolentPassions 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions
I don't care if you're a troll. Your comment is too stupid to let slide by.
#1 If you actually thought this vid was posted to completely do away with film scanners, you're either gullible or stupid.
#2 Saving the same data 900 times will give you the same data 900 times unless you're optimizing over and over again. Irrelevant.
#3 You're obviously unfamiliar with toy cameras or just having fun with film. I feel sorry for anyone you take pictures for.
aimoto 1 year ago 30
@aimoto thanks for sharing your little video. I shoot many formats, It is nice to see people experimenting. Good for you. Piss on that other fellow! Keep haing fun that is what it is all about!
healthpimp 1 year ago
@aimoto actually saving a JPG 900 times will cause a corrupted image, this because JPGs are compressed every time you save it and that causes for data to be lost and after a couple of times you save the file you'll start getting distortions and artifacts in the image. Other than that...it's a quick and dirty way when you don't have a scanner.
luiscmm 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions not really...this regarding what you're saying about the blowing it up...still, if he wanted to print a large photo out of the negative he would just take the negative to get printed but if you just want to upload it to the web for sharing it's more than enough.
luiscmm 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions I agree with Airmoto. It's not about being professional. It's more about experimenting and sharing your ideas.
ArmagideonMan2kXX 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions I don't get all the purists knocking this method? Aimoto wasn't showcasing this method as a proper alternative but more so as a unique approach.
Sorry you can't see the art in what you do.
meretricis 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions BAAWWW!
TheShawMaestro 1 year ago
@ViolentPassions Frankly, my 5dmkii and 100macro lens work really well thanks to this tutorial. You're no photographer.
Epsilon5th 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can you please say what options did you click on photoshop. i have photoshop cs4 and this doesn't work for me. i tried clicking command + shift + L but it just got more saturated. can anyone who did this on cs4 please explain it to me? PLEASE!
mlaksii 1 year ago
woow haha, thanks dude!!!
ThePXNDX77 1 year ago
awesome job dude thank you!!
murderGR 1 year ago
this is great!!!!!!!!Thank you!This is exactly what i was looking for!
iulya20008 1 year ago
This works only if you have both film and digital cameras.. I doubt hardcore film purists will buy a DSLR only to scan their film.. lol
nianymue 1 year ago
@nianymue I guess I should add a note to the description because I've had to correct this comment several times, but this technique can be done with just about any digital camera. In fact, all of the shots at the end of the video were done using an old Canon PIXY. I only used my DSLR because it's easier to visualize than a tiny point and shoot.
aimoto 1 year ago 7
I love the background sounds
I will have to try that.
selca14 1 year ago
any idea how to do it on cs4, it doesnt have an auto levels option.
=|
patricksab 1 year ago
@patricksab command + shift + L :)
gregponchak 1 year ago
@patricksab just use levels, you'll have to maually do it though.
photoshop is for professionals not amateurs hence why it doesn't have auto levels =]
ViolentPassions 1 year ago
good minitehnology
delanoman2 1 year ago
I tried a normal scanner for some slides and it doesnt work.
You get a sort of shadow effect.
You need a light source ,something like a light box face down on the scanner might work with a black cloth around all the rest of it.
I havent tried it though yet.
zenoist2 1 year ago
I tried this and got some crazy effects using different textures of papers. Thanks for sharing.
stee1face 1 year ago
pretty ingenious method man. good stuff. haha.
chunkychon 1 year ago
Great alternative thanks.
stee1face 1 year ago
Hey this is pretty good! Very innovative. Just don't forget the paper bag on that lamp.
thomasbranconier 1 year ago
Hi there just wondering how the editing on photoshop would work with black and white film?
mellypantz89 1 year ago
THANX For the Idea ,You Just saved Me a couple of Grand !
pveg65 1 year ago
just scan it on a regular scanner n use photoshop adobe
pind4life 1 year ago
if you have a phone with an app w the flashlight feature (i.e. the whole screen brightens) - you can use that too.
dyyhard 1 year ago
I just tape the film to a glass window and shoot it. No bulb necessary. I guess it's a solution if you're where there's no light. I wouldn't do this with an incandescent bulb BTW! Major fire hazard using a paper bag if it's an incandescent bulb!
184186 1 year ago
cant wait to try this out when i go back to my apartment. does it matter what kind of lightbulb i use?
whoopiedoo 1 year ago
Very clever and good incase your scanner craps out when you're in a pinch.
pswallace 2 years ago
I did all of this, I brought a set of macro lenses from ebay for £12 and tryed it. The results weren't perfect by any means. What I did find was the grade of paper matters because you see marks in the background from it. Also it needs a bit of messing around in photoshop to get good results. Needless do say I've brought a scanner too..
aarondkeogh 2 years ago
nice. i must try this after i get my bbf. thanks. except now i have to get myself another sweet camera xD
28monkeyking28 2 years ago
Has ANYONE on youtube heard of preparation? LOL Think of the TRILLIONS of bytes that could be saved! LOL
Nice work tho! Thank you!
AJest
Jestiron222 2 years ago
Not exactly the best method, but a great simple way if you don't have any other available at the time.
Thanks for sharing your discovery.
ozzirt 2 years ago
nice one mcgruber
NoMatch2Me 2 years ago
Lol. That looks like a fire waiting to happen. Great idea though to get a fast scan of a negative.
tylerwarren 2 years ago
Theoretically, with a cup (as a white like mirror) it's possible to do in conjuntion with the scanner.
I tried time ago now, but I hadn't luck. I wasn't conscientious, anyway.
avidlurkviewer 2 years ago
Clever! I'm going to test this out as soon as I get my digital camera back.
essjane 2 years ago
There is much easier way, instead your lamp you can use your monitor light, just open something with white background and when you take pictures with camera put it on some box and let it take the picture with timer on to avoid hand shake. Also select macro mode on camera for close up shots. You can get great negative pictures on this way.
davorsite 2 years ago
@davorsite wouldn't the macro pick up the pixels too, behind the photo?
chocomental 1 year ago
@chocomental No it wouldn't because it is focused on negative image only.
davorsite 1 year ago
@davorsite ah, it did for me, but holding it a little further away from the screen did the trick perfectly. :)
chocomental 1 year ago
LOL!
So I can get my negatives onto my computer.... but it cost about 3x more (to buy the dSLR) where i could get a Canon CanoScan 8800F for $164 lmao. I want to scan my own negatives cuz rite-aid seems to be to incompetent for it. The scan the negative at a useless resolution of 1.8MP, wtf? And they even CUT on some of the negatives! I was kinda hoping for 10MP scans.
BarricadeSlade 2 years ago
From the info:
"...by using any digital camera."
So you can either save the $164 and use a digital camera you have laying around, or you can use the $164 and get the CanoScan.
aimoto 2 years ago
My Cano Scan takes about 5+ minutes per shot with final editing.
Taken with a camera they take about 5 seconds each,... A huge difference if you have any number of shots to do.
ozzirt 2 years ago
your background music is my favorite. it's actually my ringtone right now. =) genki wo dashite
mikhailah 2 years ago
woudn't it be possible to scan film on a regular scanner and do the photoshop magic afterwards too?
HyBrIdEnS 2 years ago
Some scanners are built for scanning film negatives, but a lot aren't. The problem with a regular scanner is that it lights and scans from the front, and film negatives need to be lit from the back, or lit all the way through in order for the negative to be read by the scanner.
aimoto 2 years ago
so it could work if I put a thicker glass on film while scanning (so it's lit all the way through) or keep the lid open and put a thin sheet on film or a lamp and then illuminate it from the back.
HyBrIdEnS 2 years ago
I've tried sandwiching the film between two pieces of glass, making a cardboard holder so that the film floats between the bed and the lid, and trying to light the film from the back w/a flashlight. Nothing worked for me, but you're welcome to try it out for yourself :)
aimoto 2 years ago
the problem probably was that the film wasn't pressed against the bet but "floating" above it. tho one question: did you get any image at all
HyBrIdEnS 2 years ago
I should have been more specific. Floating, not floating, half-pressed, levitated lid, etc--I've tried everything and not once gotten a workable image. The problem isn't the method, it's most likely the scanner. Unless someone creates a device that will prop up over the film negative to direct enough light through so that the scanner can get a clean image, a regular non-film scanning scanner will probably not be able to do the job.
aimoto 2 years ago
this works amazing!
but how do you get the sprocket things in the picture if you have to crop the sprockets out before you do the auto levels thing?
thebonfireofvanities 2 years ago
You can always try wand selecting all the sprocket holes and then reverse selecting so you just get the image. I haven't tried it myself, but I don't see why it wouldn't work :)
aimoto 2 years ago
i'll try it, but i'm not really that great at photoshop... how do you do the wand selecting? thanks again :)
thebonfireofvanities 2 years ago
Select the magic wand tool and while holding down shift, click on all the black sprocket holes. Then right-click on the image and "select inverse." That'll let you adjust the levels of the image w/o the sprockets. I'm not sure if this'll work since I don't have any images on me to mess around with, but I don't see why it wouldn't.
aimoto 2 years ago
thank you! that's great. I will try today.
floflorence 2 years ago
wow i really like this method haha this means i dont have to drop $200 on a scaner haha
DHland 2 years ago
no but you should cuz you can get unlimited quality from a decent film scanner
theroden 2 years ago
au by kddi is a phone company
rikuwillkillu 2 years ago
wowee nice idea!
ourbacks 2 years ago
Do I hear a Japanese game show in the background?
dongor94 2 years ago
But can you actually just scan the film with a scanner and then do the same on photoshop?
withpants 2 years ago
I tried scanning, and then tried this method. I had better results taking the picture of the slide, and NOT scanning it.
ChemicalTaint 2 years ago
hehe.... you are weird, but clever... good idea :-)
superjoergi 2 years ago
i don't have photoshop, so do you know how to do it with corel paint shop x2?
zizzymichi 2 years ago
Aha, really handy I must say, for getting fast photo's. But the way of getting this idea is really great
Pinguing1 2 years ago
aimato is the way, aimato is the way :) that's from a Dilbert vid called the Shroud of Wally
I shall give this a try...thanks a lot !
granskare 2 years ago
amazing, absolutely amazing. many thanks, 5 stars and fave'd. XD.
kiddyf91 2 years ago
interesting
kevkonk 2 years ago
when i hit "AUTO LEVELS" it doesnt give me any colors... am i missing something?
macupausini 2 years ago
sorry NEVER MIND,,, i found a comment that said to crop the image living the filmy things out... cool vid btw
macupausini 2 years ago
i'm guessing you would need fairly good high end digital camera to take the pic. I have a 8mp cannon and can't get it to focus in that close...pic just come out blury.
Dodin7 2 years ago
I use a canon point & shoot camera for these shots as well. I just put the camera in macro mode and crop in Photoshop.
aimoto 2 years ago
ok..i'll have to try that.
Dodin7 2 years ago
Are you a photoshop god!?
saxz99 2 years ago 2
i'm amazed at how easy that was. My attempts so far have included trying to cancel out the orange mask, but apparently this is not necessary (or even desirable). Colours look good and is more than good enough for getting stuff up on the web.
firehandszarb 2 years ago
I'm very impressed. Thanks for sharing your amazing talent with us. I know I couldn't do it witha camera in each hand. I'll be saving your video in my favorites so i can refer back to it.
AriaAnne 2 years ago
can we do the same for a 120 film format?
jlionking 2 years ago
whoooooooa!
smart,smart
mikakostar 2 years ago
ooh the holy cow, that's very cool
sonay1986 2 years ago
Great creative thinking!
superdaveXtreme 2 years ago
thank you so much for being my life saverrr!
rnrnrnaa 2 years ago
Further to my previous comment I suggest that you get a sheet of black card and cut a hole about the size of the negative. This will stop flare and give you a better image. Also raise the negative above the bag by at least four inches and lastly - USE A TRIPOD.
JimTBell 2 years ago
Thanks. This is just a demonstration and not a "do it this way or else" video. I obviously don't take photos while holding a video camera in one hand and an SLR in the other. I would also probably use a film scanner if I had one, but I don't, which is the point of the video. Also, common sense will direct most people to use trial & error to find the best way to get the best results.