Scanning 120 film.

So I recently picked up a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16 shooting 6×6 on 1200 film. I'm planning to shoot Ilford B&W film through it, probably Pan F and maybe FP4, given the limited shutter speeds. I'm fine with getting a tank and processing the film, been a while, but It's like riding a bike isn't it. I currently don't really have the space for a full darkroom. Also secondhand darkroom kit seems to have got really quite expensive lately. Especially an enlarger that will handle medium format.

So then I though just scan the film and do the rest digitally. But again options for scanning 120 film also seem really expensive. Being disabled, and on benefits, cost is a big issue for me. The camera was pretty cheap, and was a Christmas present. So any suggestions for cost effective transfer of 120 film to digital?

Thanks

Alan

I shoot, develop and scan 120 b&w film, but only a few times a year. I use Ilford HP5 film, Kodak HC-110 developer, a water stop bath, and Ilford Rapid Fixer. I use a Patterson developing tank, which seems to me the easiest to load. The HC-110 I use was purchased at least five years ago, is highly concentrated (I use 10ml diluted in 17oz of water per roll) and has a pretty much unlimited shelf life, but I understand the formula was changed a couple of years ago, and I don't know how it compares to what I'm using. The fixer, on the other hand, has a fairly short shelf life, and I end up having to discard a lot of it, wasting money.

My scanner is an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, at least 15 years old. I use Silverfast scanning software. I experimented quite a bit using tape to shim the negative holder up off the scanner glass to more or less focus it, and found that three layers of tape gave me the clearest scans. A newer scanner would probably be easier to work with. I process the scans using Photoshop and Lightroom, and have gotten some results I'm really happy with. My cameras produce 6x6 and 6x9 negatives, and I've made really nice 12 x 16 prints from them. By the way, if you've not done this before, you'll probably be horrified at how bad you scans look compared to digital images, but you just have to process them as best you can and see how they look under normal viewing conditions (in my case prints), which have often been much better than I would have thought.

As I said I do this fairly infrequently, and while I've developed a workflow that (usually) works for me, I still go at it somewhat blindly - every time I do it it seems like I'm still experimenting.

I have also used a lab (thedarkroom.com) with good results, and in fact am considering doing this in the future rather than processing myself. Considering the frequency I do this it may actually be cheaper, and the scans seem a bit better than I can do at home.

A good resource for you would be the forum on photrio.com. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the info, I'll have a look at the forum you suggested.

My one issue with using a lab is the cost. For a roll of 120 at the lab I use for digital printing is £18 including a high resolution scan, with no prints.

£24 for twelve digital images and a roll of negatives seems really expensive to me. So I think diy is the way to go for me.

Alan.

Use your DSLR as a scanner. It does a much better job than any flatbed and is pretty easy to set up, as in not much equipment is needed. I did some side by side testing a while back and the quality improvement of the SLR vs a flatbed is very noticeable. Take a look at THIS sample. My setup had since improved but basically still doing the same thing. THIS is the set up used. About as DIY as you can get.