Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 24 Nov 2012 (Saturday) 16:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Digitizing 120 medium format slides/film...DSLR

 
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 10, 2013 10:12 |  #16

This is a very timely thread. I just picked up a Mamiya 7, and have been looking for a 120 film scanner. The V700 was my first choice, but it's very pricey, and from what I've seen, doesn't produce markedly better scans than the 9000F.

I shoot mainly chromes, so I'm a bit concerned about the DMax of the 9000F, but I'm hoping that VueScan's multi-exposure will help dig out the detail from the shadows.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jan 10, 2013 14:21 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

edge100 wrote in post #15470384 (external link)
This is a very timely thread. I just picked up a Mamiya 7, and have been looking for a 120 film scanner. The V700 was my first choice, but it's very pricey, and from what I've seen, doesn't produce markedly better scans than the 9000F.

I shoot mainly chromes, so I'm a bit concerned about the DMax of the 9000F, but I'm hoping that VueScan's multi-exposure will help dig out the detail from the shadows.


The advantage with the v700 is that its native optical resolution is 2400 dpi. With the medium format negative, you can get all the available details somewhere in the 5000+ pixel. Any resolution above that, you would see no gains other than the file size. If you print large often, the v700 maybe a good option. With the Canon 9000f, I can get printable files around 1800 dpi (max native optical resolution). Roughly, with 6x6, around 4000+ pixel.

Here are something you should look out for, especially if you are looking at the Canon 9000f. After scanning over 10 rolls, more than 100 negatives, I can say that the scanner is the sharpest when the film emulsion side, the dull side, is facing and lying flat on the scanner bed. You need to put an anti newton ring glass, or non-glare glass, on top of the negatives. Turn off ALL sharpening, grain reductions, and FARE. Scan the negatives bared. With the VueScan, the software does not care about if you are using a holder or not. With the Canon software, it does matter. Since you are already sandwiching the negatives in between the scanner glass and the none-glare glass on top, you don't need the holder. However, the Canon software would require the holder to know which formats you are scanning. In this case, cut out a paper mask in the shape of the holder. Then, tape it ontop of the none-glare glass. The Canon software will function accordingly.

To get the none-glare glass, try your local picture frame shops. I just got one today for $8, 8x10 inches. And this place:
http://www.fpointinc.c​om/glass.htm (external link) charges you $88+ shipping of the same size and quality!!!!!


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 11, 2013 07:45 |  #18

TooManyShots wrote in post #15471394 (external link)
The advantage with the v700 is that its native optical resolution is 2400 dpi. With the medium format negative, you can get all the available details somewhere in the 5000+ pixel. Any resolution above that, you would see no gains other than the file size. If you print large often, the v700 maybe a good option. With the Canon 9000f, I can get printable files around 1800 dpi (max native optical resolution). Roughly, with 6x6, around 4000+ pixel.



The fact is that neither the V700 or the 9000F are going to bring out the best in any negative or (especially) chrome. A 4000 dpi CoolScan might get just about all the detail, but I suspect that you really need an Imacon or drum scan to get ALL the detail. The V700 might be a few hundred dpi better than the 9000F, and the DMax might be a bit better (though VueScan multi-exposure takes care of that issue for chromes, and it's a non-issue for negatives), but the difference just isn't worth the price differential for me.

However, it's clearly price-prohibitive to either buy a CoolScan for $3k or drum scan every frame. Thus, my decision was to buy the 9000F as a sort of digital contact sheet maker. The scans are more than enough for the web, and for the types of small prints I normally make. For larger prints, I'll send out individual frames. My local shop will give me a TIFF of a 4000 dpi scan for $5.00.

You might ask, "why shoot MF film, if you're not going to get the maximum resolution from it?" The answer is that (a) I enjoy the process of shooting MF film, and (b) there is more to photography than resolution and sharpness. The gorgeous, straight-out-of-the-scanner colour of chromes and the huge dynamic range of negative film just cannot be had with any digital camera.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15471394 (external link)
Here are something you should look out for, especially if you are looking at the Canon 9000f. After scanning over 10 rolls, more than 100 negatives, I can say that the scanner is the sharpest when the film emulsion side, the dull side, is facing and lying flat on the scanner bed. You need to put an anti newton ring glass, or non-glare glass, on top of the negatives. Turn off ALL sharpening, grain reductions, and FARE. Scan the negatives bared. With the VueScan, the software does not care about if you are using a holder or not. With the Canon software, it does matter. Since you are already sandwiching the negatives in between the scanner glass and the none-glare glass on top, you don't need the holder. However, the Canon software would require the holder to know which formats you are scanning. In this case, cut out a paper mask in the shape of the holder. Then, tape it ontop of the none-glare glass. The Canon software will function accordingly.

To get the none-glare glass, try your local picture frame shops. I just got one today for $8, 8x10 inches. And this place:
http://www.fpointinc.c​om/glass.htm (external link) charges you $88+ shipping of the same size and quality!!!!!

Thanks for the tips. After some preliminary use, I can see that laying the chromes down on the glass will give far sharper results than the Canon holders. I'm going to check out some local framing shops for some non-reflective glass.

I already use VueScan with my Plustek for 35mm, so I'm familiar with it's basic operation. I'm satisfied enough with my preliminary MF scans, and they're only going to get better as I work on my scanning workflow.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jan 25, 2013 13:03 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

I don't want to start another thread but I have a chance to pickup the Epson 4990 for much less. Ken Rockwell praised it to no ends. :) Is it really the v700 in disguise? I am currently using the Canon 9000f. I like the results with the medium format scans. The print is good at 20x20. One visible flaw I find in the Canon is that I get lines or vertical patterns if the sky color is nothing but clear blue.

Forget I asked. I lost out the bid on Ebay.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ions
Goldmember
Avatar
1,825 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada
     
Feb 24, 2013 12:07 |  #20

Picked up a Hasselblad 500C/M recently. I came across this thread while looking for a scanning option before I start developing my own film.... flat bed scanner? 100L and 7D(yes yes I know a 5DII/III would be better blah blah blah)? While I don't mind investing a bit to get started so that I'm not paying for developing and scanning each each roll I also don't want it to turn into a money pit. A scanner in addition to the chemicals and tools for developing adds up. Especially after just dropping some money on a Hasselblad.

These posts, "Why you should digitize your film using a camera instead of a scanner" (external link) and "How to scan your film using a digital camera" (external link) at PetaPixel are quite compelling because of the results acheived. The problem is I can't find anyone else who has done this with the same results to corroborate. While the sled seen earlier in the thread looks cool I kind of want to buy myself into a more plug and play solution rather than build something - especially if I'm still left with the same scanner vs dslr question.


Gear: Canon EOS 5D3 | Canon EOS 7D | Canon 24-70L ƒ2.8 | Canon 100L ƒ2.8 | Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II | Canon 420 EX | Tamrac Evolution 9 | Crumpler 8 MDH | Manfrotto 190QC with 804RC2 head.
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Feb 24, 2013 12:17 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

ions wrote in post #15646874 (external link)
Picked up a Hasselblad 500C/M recently. I came across this thread while looking for a scanning option before I start developing my own film.... flat bed scanner? 100L and 7D(yes yes I know a 5DII/III would be better blah blah blah)? While I don't mind investing a bit to get started so that I'm not paying for developing and scanning each each roll I also don't want it to turn into a money pit. A scanner in addition to the chemicals and tools for developing adds up. Especially after just dropping some money on a Hasselblad.

These posts, "Why you should digitize your film using a camera instead of a scanner" (external link) and "How to scan your film using a digital camera" (external link) at PetaPixel are quite compelling because of the results acheived. The problem is I can't find anyone else who has done this with the same results to corroborate. While the sled seen earlier in the thread looks cool I kind of want to buy myself into a more plug and play solution rather than build something - especially if I'm still left with the same scanner vs dslr question.


Since you already have a 100L, give a try. For the light source, you can use your speedlite, lighting up the back of the negative. And the lens captures the front of it. Preferably, capturing the emulsion side. I didn't have a macro lens and didn't feel like buying one to try it out. In additions to that, I don't have a stable setup. I went with the scanner route. In fact, most people I know who are scanning their negatives are using flatbed scanner.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ions
Goldmember
Avatar
1,825 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada
     
Feb 24, 2013 17:45 |  #22

As per your helpful advice in the other thread and what I've got going on I think I'm going to go with a scanner, probably a V600. My combination of needs and environment right now say that's currently the best choice. Alongside of that later on I will try this method and accept that it can be an iterative process moving forward. Learning how to develop B&W at the same time as sorting this scanning stuff is more than enough to do at one time. So, simple for now.


Gear: Canon EOS 5D3 | Canon EOS 7D | Canon 24-70L ƒ2.8 | Canon 100L ƒ2.8 | Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II | Canon 420 EX | Tamrac Evolution 9 | Crumpler 8 MDH | Manfrotto 190QC with 804RC2 head.
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Feb 24, 2013 18:40 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

ions wrote in post #15647878 (external link)
As per your helpful advice in the other thread and what I've got going on I think I'm going to go with a scanner, probably a V600. My combination of needs and environment right now say that's currently the best choice. Alongside of that later on I will try this method and accept that it can be an iterative process moving forward. Learning how to develop B&W at the same time as sorting this scanning stuff is more than enough to do at one time. So, simple for now.


I hope you will get hooked and to get more out from shooting film. Glad you are doing this with a medium format camera, a Hassalbald no less. Even a low end flatbed scanner can produce good results with a larger negatives. With 35mm? I have to shoot with low speed films, with some L lens, in order to produce acceptable result in resolution no bigger than 1024. My first attempt shooting film was last year, in 35mm, and to scan them with the Epson v600. I was turned off by the scan results.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ions
Goldmember
Avatar
1,825 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada
     
Feb 24, 2013 20:08 |  #24

I'm old enough to have shot film for a while. I stopped about 12 years ago because the cost and hassle. I didn't get back into photography until a few years ago and really enjoy digital for several reasons. But, now I found myself in a position to get something I've wanted for a very long time and enjoy the results both nostalgically and for the quality of them. I've only had expired film processed and the look of the results is still great. Plus it's fun to shoot with. Neat camera. Even though I've only shot three rolls I see the need to get an economical process in place soon.


Gear: Canon EOS 5D3 | Canon EOS 7D | Canon 24-70L ƒ2.8 | Canon 100L ƒ2.8 | Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II | Canon 420 EX | Tamrac Evolution 9 | Crumpler 8 MDH | Manfrotto 190QC with 804RC2 head.
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Feb 24, 2013 20:26 |  #25

I tried the macro lens rig with a rebel and I like it. It's easy, it's fast to scan and the files are all in one place.

I've also had access to the medium format nikon scanner. The quality might be better in the end, but the sheer amount of time it took to scan was insane. I remember something in the order of 10-20 minutes per 35mm frame and the software on mac was really unstable.

Ideally I would want a scanner which can eat a whole roll at a time. But they don't make them of course. The canon 9000f looks just fine. I might pick it up.

For the people who used it, how do you feel it scans the highlights in BW negatives? That's my favorite part of BW experience and the hardest part to scan properly.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Feb 24, 2013 20:44 |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15648359 (external link)
I tried the macro lens rig with a rebel and I like it. It's easy, it's fast to scan and the files are all in one place.

I've also had access to the medium format nikon scanner. The quality might be better in the end, but the sheer amount of time it took to scan was insane. I remember something in the order of 10-20 minutes per 35mm frame and the software on mac was really unstable.

Ideally I would want a scanner which can eat a whole roll at a time. But they don't make them of course. The canon 9000f looks just fine. I might pick it up.

For the people who used it, how do you feel it scans the highlights in BW negatives? That's my favorite part of BW experience and the hardest part to scan properly.


You don't scan all photos....:) Just the ones that look promising. It isn't so much about scanning the highlights. Is more with if the highlights are properly exposed (not blown out) and if you manage to develop the negative long enough time to allow the developer to work the highlights. Obviously, if you meter the shadows at zone 5, your highlight would get blown out during development.

I used the VueScan software. I only use the Kodak Tmax profile. Under the Tmax profile, you can select the developer profile. Unfortunately, they only have 2...d76 or Tmax. Some users would just use the Generic BW film profile. I would just adjust black and white points until they aren't clipping. I would further tweak the brightness and mid point to get better contrast. Another method people would use is to set all tonal settings to ZERO. And to do a bare scan and making the adjustment in photoshop. The idea is to preserve the naturalness of film during the scan. But you end up making the contrast and tonal adjustments in photoshop later. It defeats the purpose anyway.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 25, 2013 08:27 |  #27

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15648359 (external link)
I tried the macro lens rig with a rebel and I like it. It's easy, it's fast to scan and the files are all in one place.

I've also had access to the medium format nikon scanner. The quality might be better in the end, but the sheer amount of time it took to scan was insane. I remember something in the order of 10-20 minutes per 35mm frame and the software on mac was really unstable.

Ideally I would want a scanner which can eat a whole roll at a time. But they don't make them of course. The canon 9000f looks just fine. I might pick it up.

For the people who used it, how do you feel it scans the highlights in BW negatives? That's my favorite part of BW experience and the hardest part to scan properly.

The 9000F is a terrific scanner for B&W negs, especially in 120 format. My standard workflow is to scan linear TIFFs, which I convert in CS6 using ColorPerfect (even for B&W negs). I have the Betterscanning.com ANR glass, and I place the negs directly on the scanner glass, with the emulsion down. I've found this gives sharper results that the film holder.

For 120, I scan at 3600dpi, and that's the end of it. This gives me more than enough resolution to print as large as my R3000 can handle. If I need/want to make larger prints, I have the frame drum scanned.

For 35mm, I scan strips of 6 frames and produce contact sheets, and then scan the keepers at 7200dpi on a Plustek 8100. I never send out 35mm for drum or Imacon scanning; I just never need to make enlargements that the Plustek/Epson combination can't handle.

I've never had any issue with the 9000F holding the highlights in B&W. The biggest DR issue I've seen is digging into the deepest blacks in a Velvia chrome, where the DMax just isn't high enough. But for B&W or colour negs, this has never been an issue.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,428 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Feb 25, 2013 10:26 |  #28

Thanks for sharing the info!
I'm using V500. Printed large b/w portrait from 120 6x6 scan one week ago. Very satisfied with results from 189CAD printer. But sometimes I need something to deal with arching of film in original Epson holder.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 25, 2013 13:37 |  #29

kf095 wrote in post #15649955 (external link)
Thanks for sharing the info!
I'm using V500. Printed large b/w portrait from 120 6x6 scan one week ago. Very satisfied with results from 189CAD printer. But sometimes I need something to deal with arching of film in original Epson holder.

I highly recommend the ANR glass from betterscanning.com for that purpose, either with or without the film holders.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Feb 25, 2013 13:47 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

edge100 wrote in post #15650577 (external link)
I highly recommend the ANR glass from betterscanning.com for that purpose, either with or without the film holders.


FYI, you can pick up the same glass, much bigger (mine is 8x10), for a lot less from your local picture frame stores. My is only $8. :)


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,209 views & 0 likes for this thread
Digitizing 120 medium format slides/film...DSLR
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is benjamin84
874 guests, 329 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.