Digicam Film

[Azalee Rowling]

Likean old-school analog camera, there are no screens on the Paper Shoot. When you're taking pictures with it, you stay in the moment without feeling like you have to instantly check that the photos are good (and then probably retake them). Remember when we just had to have faith that it would turn out OK? Instead, you transfer the shots to your computer via the SD card later. The company recommends using a card with 32 gigabytes of storage.

Other than the little switch on the back that flips between those color settings, there's nothing else to mess with. The only other button on the Paper Shoot is the shutter, which is placed on the front of the camera, right where your pointer finger naturally wants to sit when holding it.

The number one comment I see on the company's TikTok page is a complaint about the $120 price. But I think that's perfectly reasonable for a solid and fun camera such as this, and I generally consider myself cheap. Even most of the Polaroids and other instant cameras we've tested cost more, and with those you have to factor in the cost of instant film, which is pricey.

The Paper Shoot comes with a basic lens, but other lenses can be swapped in to add special effects. You can get two-packs with a radial and six-prism effect lenses or micro and wide-angle lenses for just $25. Plus you can get any of the paper cases for the same price, so you can change up the look of your camera as often as you want or just whenever the shell is ready to be replaced. If you want to get fancy, the company also sells camera bundles that cost $150 to $250. They're all slightly different, but bundles might include lenses, multiple cases, frames, and leather straps. The more expensive models can handle larger SD cards.

One of the downsides of wanting to use a dedicated camera rather than your phone is that you have to carry it with you, and cameras can get bulky. The Paper Shoot, on the other hand, is so light and thin that you can put it in any bag or even your shirt pocket without really noticing it.

Paper Shoot puts a lot of emphasis on the eco-friendliness of its design. There's less plastic here than in a disposable camera, and less plastic overall ends up in landfills. Plus, the camera's guts are minimal and much better than some chunky plastic thing with a million little parts. But cameras use rare earth metals. They need sensors and circuit boards. No piece of personal technology is completely eco-friendly, but I can still applaud the company for trying to minimize the amount of e-waste it's generating. I just don't think that's the camera's most important feature.

I have only a few minor complaints after testing this camera. It takes a moment to actually snap the photo once you've pressed the shutter button, so this isn't for drive-by or sports photography. Also, since there's no screen, you lose the ability to see how much power is left in the batteries. To me, it's a worthwhile trade.

When you upload your photos to your computer or phone, you'll notice the dates they were taken aren't accurate. When I started taking shots, the camera marked the files as January 2000, and there's no way to set the camera's clock to the correct date. I can see where this could get annoying, but it doesn't seem like a deal breaker, especially because the actual photo isn't stamped with a date. Just the file is.

Despite these few flaws, I still consider the fun little camera to be an integral addition to my collection. Even though I love cameras, I am in no way an expert on the details of fine photography. And if you're like me, you really can't go wrong for $120. The Paper Shoot is a basic, easy-to-use camera that makes beautiful photos, and you don't need a ton of knowledge to use it.

The paper that was traditional used in darkroom prints of color negative film had narrow bands of receptivity to red, green and blue, that were clearly separated. This is particularly true of the red channel, where modern digital cameras sensors are sensitive across a broader spectrum of red wavelengths (including yellow/orangish light).

In my experience, it is very difficult to get perfectly even illumination if you are not using a professional LED light table solution (for example, a home-built led table, flash setup, old tungsten light table, etc)

The iphone 7 is a POOR light source with regards to CRI, R9 (deep red) and overall color rendering when measured with the i1Pro2 and Babelcolor CT&A program. CRI of 73, deep red rendering R9 of MINUS 19.

The Soraa Vivid series in PAR30L configuration. This is after a 3 minute warmup. Note that this is considered one of the BEST LEDs out there on the market, even better than the Kaiser LED panel. Still, check out the bottom 99 samples and the overall spectral graph. Not even close to the Solux 4700K, but when compared to other LEDs, Soraa is one of the best as of this writing. My money though is on the new Nichia Optisolus series.

Yes, of course Solux has been the gold standard. Kodak/Pakon adopted this for their terrific 235 scanner. Is it still? I have all these bulbs. Grand question: Solux puts out a lot of heat (50W) compared to LEDs and iPhones. Is there an advantage to this bulb? And, if so, it is big enough to be worth the bother of accommodating the heat?

What are good light sources for camera-scan with NLP?

I have done experiments and posted on this over the past few months. Tonight I updated my conversions with NLP 2.0.0 of my Fuji 200 test box negatives with a range of light sources.

I can recommend these lights as giving the best colorful results, listed alphabetically:

First, the product is quite good; the web site is spotty. Communication with the guy in Taiwan is excellent. If you like the item, go ahead and order with confidence. Delivered to me in the US exactly one week after ordering.

Light from this panel is bright. For camera scan at 1:1, f/5.6 nominal aperture, exposure will be around 1/100th. Far brighter than a Kaiser panel. This box is designed for camera-copying, while the Kaiser is designed for judging transparencies. (In similar setup, I had exposures of about 1 sec with Kaiser.)

Negative holder for 35mm is nicely creafted aluminum. Care taken so that sliding the negative through cannot scratch the image area. I worried this might let the negative be not-flat, but it looks pretty good. Opening shows part of sproket holes and some rebate. (iPhone shot of the opening with a negative.)

I use a similar method. Just a tip if you are using a Canon DSLR, try installing the Magic Lantern firmware hack. It has a mode that allows you to invert the colors during live view so you see a positive image BEFORE you even scan. Makes the whole process of editing and scanning easier :)

Thanks very much for this article Adrien! I saw a few months ago that Cecil Williams has developed a macro duplicator pedestal called FilmToaster. It looks like it might be able to speed up the capture process a bit. His website is here:

Using a Point and Shoot camera with a sharp fixed lens, a good macro capability (it goes down to 1cm, 3cm and even 5cm is good enough) and a reasonable resolution (depends on where you need the scan). A 10Mp resolution is a good start and usually, Panasonic cameras are great. It is vital to have the posibility to do a custom White Balance directly on the light table, before placing the film.

@Piotr

I think there is a common misconception about what dynamic range is and what it means to film, this has nothing to do with the ability to overexpose. To estimate the DR of film, you need to refer to the density as a function of the log-exposure of the film. I have the one for the new Portra 400 in front of me and I can tell you it will boast about 10 EV of DR, which is already great. On the other hand, any modern entry-level DSLR can capture 13 EV of DR.

So yes, a digital camera is very adequate to scan film. To reply to the vinyl analogy, CDs have a far superior dynamic range too.

Try Vuescan. It will make the whole inversion process much more accurate. Vuescan is a very respected scanning software that allows a great degree of freedom, keeping it simple.

Instead of scanning, just import your negative DNG file, and select the film vendor. Vuescan will do the inversion for you. It has presets for nearly every film that was ever made. Let me know if need further info.

Cheers

I have tested VueScan and the results for color film were not satisfying / consistent. I even tried the expensive silverfast; after more than a year I stumbled across ColorPerfect (see my article /link above) and finally got consistent colors without performing advanced color correction in post processing. -> if VueScan is not right for you, give it a shot

I prefer the idea of scanning horizontally using an accurately machined piece of wood sliding within another. Mount the camera to a 2 or 4 way cheap mounting stage and this on the inner sliding wood.Your lightbox is mounted vertically to the outer wood and the camera can be slid forward easily to align the two.

You can accurately move the camera sideways with the mounting stage and with ingenuity vertically as well. You can adjust it forwards and back for perfect focus without disturbing the camera. What I have described is an incredibly simplified lathe, but also a horizontal enlarger with extra movements. Cost about 30 for the mounting stage and wood.

Why horizontal? Because the sensitive, awkward shaped easily vibrated recording instrument (camera) is mounted and held as stably as possible:gravity is on your side. You preferably have a camera with a 180deg. flip screen but alternately mount the whole apparatus on a rather high shelf: use shims if that is not quite flat. The whole apparatus can be demounted in almost seconds for installation in another room.

There are photographic and other L-brackets to ensure the lightbox is truly vertical, or it can be installed in an accurately square box. The problem of attaching negatives to a vertical surface is an ancient one but ideally a negative carrier taped to the surface. This apparatus will last you for ever, use it for any digital camera and your tripod can be kept for your actual photography.

I would imagine an cheap as chips enlarging lens could be used in this setup but I have not yet tried that myself.

3a8082e126