Digitizing 120: Opinions regarding DSLR vs flatbed vs film scanner?

Of course, if you own a 'blad you just have to scan the margin to include those notches.

 

'Pretentious? Moi?'

lol, I don't think lukpac's dad had a Hasselblad, he might have snatched the page from the art school

A 75 or 80mm lens would be bang in the middle of your estimated focal lengths. And using a zoom lens is going to both introduce some distortion and only give you an approximate indication of true focal length.

 

BTW, 6x6cm negatives aren't 60mm wide/tall. They vary between 54 and 56mm square. So you probably need to factor a multiplier of 3.5 into your calculations. Giving you equivalent focal lengths of 77 and 63mm for those shots above.

 

A 75mm TLR lens would be closest to those two estimates.

 

I think your modern pictures only confirm that a TLR was used. Whether it had a 75mm or 80mm lens could help narrow down the model, or maybe not.

 

Revisiting the photos, and using 56mm for the negative size instead of 60mm, 75-80mm seems correct. It still seems like the focal length may have varied slightly from shot to shot, but I haven't had the chance to experiment any more yet. If I end up doing more shooting on 35mm, I may just go with a 28mm lens and crop as appropriate in post, rather than be a little too tight with a 35mm lens.

 

As a side note, last night I started going through more negatives that were not part of this set. At least some were taken with a different camera. The shots I posted above had the film moving up through the camera, while some of these other negs have it moving down. A quick search suggests most/all TLRs moved the film from bottom to top, while box cameras moved it from top to bottom.

Most zooms don't record their true focal length very accurately in the EXIF data. Some jump in increments of 2mm or even 5mm, due to having a limited number of electrical contact sections on the internal sleeve that 'measures' focal length.

 

Even assuming the signalling of focal-length is accurate (big assumption), there's going to to be a tolerance of at least a large fraction of 1mm. Equal to +/- 3.5mm when scaled up to 120 film.

 

There's also a tolerance on the nominal focal length of most camera lenses. So even if the TLR your dad used had a lens marked '75mm' fitted; that lens may have had a true focal length of anywhere between 73mm and 77mm. Not even allowing for aforementioned focussing extension.

 

Good luck with the research, but I think you need to consider the estimation of focal length as just that; an estimate, and not an exact science.

I know this is an old thread. I just came accross it. I have a similar situation in that I inherited a bunch of old negatives in 620 and other sizes from my parents. I have a 35mm film scanner which obviously won’t work form these. I have a copy stand and light box. I was wondering if you could detail your setup for digitising negs with a DSLR

I know this is an old thread. I just came accross it. I have a similar situation in that I inherited a bunch of old negatives in 620 and other sizes from my parents. I have a 35mm film scanner which obviously won’t work form these. I have a copy stand and light box. I was wondering if you could detail your setup for digitising negs with a DSLR

If you don't already have a macro lens, then that'll be your major need. Or alternatively a set of bellows and a good enlarging lens.

 

Whichever you decide, the copy lens focal length should be no more than 80 or 90mm, otherwise you'll need an extremely long rail on the copy stand, which won't help stability.

 

A good used macro lens might set you back $200 or more. Whereas a 6 element enlarging lens in near-mint condition will often cost well under $100, and possibly do a better job. But of course the cost of a bellows unit has to be factored in as well.

 

It'll help if you tell us what camera and lens(es) you already own.

The digital Nikon solution sounds pretty easy. I have been using for years, my Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED but the software these days is rather buggy.

The digital Nikon solution sounds pretty easy

It is once you've got a rig set up. You can get off-the-shelf attachments for 35mm copying, but medium format takes a bit more ingenuity and DIY skill, unless you buy something like a Bowens Illumitran or Honeywell Repronar.

 

FWIW, here's a 6x6 neg copied at 4000 x 4000 pixels (reduced to show here) using my Illumitran, a 24mp digital camera and an 80mm enlarging lens.

Well I'd certainly give that a Passing grade :) . Peter

The digital Nikon solution sounds pretty easy. I have been using for years, my Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED but the software these days is rather buggy.

 

I use an 8000 with an equally old computer. The computer is headless and I connect to it via screen sharing (the Mac equivalent of remote desktop). There's automation scripts that run when NikonScan completes an image that copies the photo to my modern computer and imports it to my photo library software. It's all automatic.

 

Sometimes NikonScan crashes or creates weird artifacts on a picture or two out of the bunch but that happens with 35mm more than 120. NikonScan is old and far from perfect but I've never cared that much for VueScan and it doesn't do thumbnails on the 8000. It does previews but they're much slower.