Scan for 120 medium format!

<p>Hi!<br>

I recently bought a Contax 645 and I intend to use it to shoot weddings and portraits professionally. <br>

I want to be able to scan my own color negative film (mostly fuji 400h) and I have no idea what scanner to buy! <br>

I don't have a specific budget, but under 3500 dollars would be great!</p>

<p>I want to both be able to use the pictures online in my portfolio, as well as in prints and in albums!</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

/Emma</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

this all depends on how large you want to print! For that kind of budget a second hand Nikon Coolscan 9000 would dispel any worries you might have where quality is concerned for very large prints. Up to ~20" something like an epson v750 would suffice, and would also be significantly easier on your wallet. As always, it is in the eye of the beholder with regards to your expectations!</p>

 

<p>Exactly, so if you do not print very large even a V500 or V700 (Epson) will be fine. To improve some quality you can use the betterscanning.com holders .<br>

Best quality you will get by a regular enlarger, even an Imacon or Nikon Coolscan will not reach that level of quality.<br>

Going that way I can recommend the Heiland Split Grade system on a professional enlarger. For Contax 645 negatives you can use a good 6x7cm enlarger system like: Dunco II 67, M670, M805 (Durst), Kienzle and some more.<br>

But a scanner is easier and very compact in size.</p>

<p>For 1/10 of the price of a Nikon Coolscan 9000, how would the Canon Canoscan 9000F perform, relative to the Epson 700, 750? All on MF film, that is? Does anyone use the Canoscan seriously?</p>

<p>Unless you're processing your own film you might check to see if the lab offers high resolution scans at a reasonable price. I use Pro Photo and they also keep scans on file for a few months so I can go online and order extra prints. </p>

<p>The Nikon Coolscan 9000 is fantastic, an Epson v750 with a glass film holder is close, and anything else will just frustrate ya:)</p>

<p>One route, I've started to use more frequently, is to have an 8x10'ish size print made, and then scan the print. When the print is sharp, it produces slightly better results than scanning off the film directly, using an Epson scanner.</p>

<p>Emma,<br>

Anything other than a Nikon 9000 makes little sense if you can afford it. It's not just about resolution or sharpness. Having used both Nikon and Epson, there are two other considerations:<br>

The Epson tends to blow out highlight details, and with color negative films, the Epson doesn't produce consistently accurate colors, regardless of software. You may think the Epson colors are ok, but then you use a Nikon and say "now I see...."</p>

<p>Emma, right now the 9000 is the best option if you wish to scan film yourself. I use an Epson V700 and I prefer the scans I get from the Fuji SP2500 and Sp3000 Frontier series scanhead modules.<br>

Send your film off to Richard Photo Lab and don't waste your time scanning your own film. That's one of the benefits of using film....shoot it, drop it off, download the scans. More time behind the camera and less in front of the computer. I make money behind the camera....I lose money behind the computer.</p>

<p>If you want to scan your own, be prepared for countless hours behind the computer. Trust me, you wont save any money scanning yourself.</p>

<p>Yeah! I would love to be able to send my film to Richard Photo Lab, but the problem is that I live in Sweden so that's not a option! </p>

<p>The Labs here in Sweden charges around 100 dollars per film for develop and scanning!!!</p>

<p>The Nikon 9000 isn't made anymore. There are used ones on e-bay, but often the seller is asking far above what they originally sold for. But you can probably get one for under $3,500. Here is something to consider: Reflecta, a German company, will be coming out with a medium format film scanner this summer. They sell in the USA under their Pacific Image brand. I don't know what brand they sell under in Europe. See https://reflecta.de/. Their scanners are supposed to work very well with SilverFast, but the scanners may not come with SilverFast installed. You may have to buy that separately. But I highly recommend SilverFast Archive Suite. Scan negatives once into SilverFast's "raw" 64bit HDRi format, then process later as many time as you wish. And even if you shoot only C-41 film, still profile your scanner with a transparency target (I believe the tramsparency icc profile is used inside the algorithms for C-41 film scanning.) There is a learning curve that goes with scanning your own negative film. Once learned, it is easy. You may wish to have your negatives professional scanned at first as you go up the learning curve. And the new Kodak Portra 160 and 400 scan amazingly well.<br>

And of course....all this is fun when done with a MAC :).</p>

<p>Good Luck</p>

<p>This is a bad time for scanners. Until/if a suitable replacement of the CS 9000 comes out, you either have to buy a second hand 9000 at a premium or send out.</p>

<p>Flatbeds not only through away detail, they take away sharpness, add digital noise and distort colors but are not convenient to use.</p>

<p>Send out and keep you fingers cross for better alternatives to come.</p>

IMHO there is no best solution. I use a v750 and get acceptable results for what I need it for provided I take a little time to

sharpen. You can use it to print up to a 40x40 if you take the time to sharpen. I don't like to play with things in Photoshop

so I use the scanner to get the closest match to my photographic print proof. Which is the one pro to doing your own

scanning. Other than that I don't like scanning. Good luck! And I hope you have a fast computer because it takes a lot of

processing power to work with a high resolution medium format scan.

<p>Especially for color print film, my favorite (of several brands) is Epson.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>