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

I recently came across a bunch of 120 negatives that my dad took in the early '60s, mostly black and white. At this point I don't have plans to get into shooting 120, although...famous last words. I have a Coolscan III for 35mm, but currently nothing that can handle 120. I don't want to spend thousands of dollars, but I also don't want to get something that will just give mediocre results. Does anyone have experience with various methods? In terms of the Epson flatbeds, how much does the added $550/$820 of the V800/V850 give you over the V600?

 

Below is a shot I captured with my Nikon D7200, 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED, LED lightbox, and tripod. ISO 100, and I stopped the lens down to f/8. It's...pretty good? I still have to tweak my setup a bit, including doing a better job of cleaning everything, but presumably this is about the quality I can expect. How would a scan on a flatbed compare? A dedicated film scanner? Any general thoughts/suggestions?

 

Here's the next shot on the roll for another example.

How would a scan on a flatbed compare?

 

Some flatbeds are better than other, although the claimed ppi is often far more than you can actually get.

 

A Canon 9000F or the older 9950F are what I use -- good enough for web use, at least:

Rescue testing of bull-dozed area of site Rolleiflex 6x6 cm- scan Canon 9950F.

Original Ektachrome 120 slide.

Edited November 26, 2018 by JDMvW

Some flatbeds are better than other, although the claimed ppi is often far more than you can actually get.

 

A Canon 9000F or the older 9950F are what I use -- good enough for web use, at least:

[ATTACH=full]1272810[/ATTACH]

Rescue testing of bull-dozed area of site Rolleiflex 6x6 cm- scan Canon 9950F

 

Is that full resolution, or scaled down?

1 for one crop at full scale

Is that full resolution, or scaled down?

 

It's downsized for posting here at the 1000ppi limit on posts.

The original scan is 1200ppi for 2365x2401 pixels and the saved file (jpg) is 864KB in size

Edited November 26, 2018 by JDMvW

It's downsized for posting here at the 1000ppi limit on posts.

The original scan is 1200ppi for 2365x2401 pixels and the saved file (jpg) is 864KB in size

 

There's a limit? My images are about 3900x3900, and about 6.5MB.

 

Regardless, your original is about 66% the size of mine, once cropping is taken into account. I have to wonder how the scan quality compares beyond pure file resolution. Both in terms of dynamic range and optical quality.

There's a limit?

At the time I did this, the "wisdom" and testing then done had suggested that scanning on a flatbed above 1200ppi or so added no real resolution to the result.

 

By the way, this clip is from another 6x6 slide

Edited November 26, 2018 by JDMvW

Nothing comes close to the resolution of a dedicated film scanner. A Nikon LS-8000 scans at 4000 ppi, yielding an 8500x8500 pixel scan from 6x6 film. It's best to crop inside the borders of the actual image for better color and exposure, which can be done on the thumbnails on a batch basis. The color conversions is automated, and there is ICE for dust and scratch reduction. The results are grain-sharp for most common emulsions.

 

The next level down would be using a digital camera and a copy table or fixture. I use a Novoflex focusing rail with a film holder. The best resolution I can muster with a Sony A7Riii is 5340 x 5340 pixels, less if you crop appropriately. A 24 MP camera would yield a maximum of 4000 x 4000 pixels. Neither is quite grain sharp but good enough for a 20"x20" print, perhaps larger with interpolation. Copying slides is easy, but negatives require careful conversion to positives. I use Silverfast HDR, which has all of the controls and automation Silverfast applies to film scanning.

 

Flatbed scanners have an effective resolution of 2400 ppi or less. The compromised optics of the imaging system do not match the pixel count of the sensors. I have had several "film scanning" flatbeds, but found them wanting. I no longer bother. My purpose in exploring the use of a digital camera for film "scanning" is to provide a superior alternative to flatbed scanning at a lower cost than a long obsolete film scanner.

 

 

Hasselblad Reala, scanned with a Sony A7Rii + Sony 90/2.8 Macro

Thanks. So it sounds like the DSLR route, while cumbersome, will likely yield better results than a flatbed. Unfortunately, it appears as if film scanners, while providing much better results, are prohibitively expensive, at least for what I'm doing.

I have several thousand 120 images in 6x6, 6x4.5, and 6x7. I opted for an Epson V850. And I used different scan software depending on the film manufacturer. I'm not particularly crazy about the film holders for 120, so I purchased a Better Scan frame, and it makes the V850 superb. I also use the V850 for 35mm and 4x5, since I have a lot of each of those formats, both negative and transparency types.

 

The V850 also works well for flat bed photos, and I've also scanned documents with it. I know there are probably better 100% dedicated scanners, but the V850 offers a lot of bang for the buck.

 

PS - After going through the scanning software, I've come to the conclusion that no one program does it all. There are just too many algorithms from the code writers. Ektachrome may scan well with one, and not the other, etc.

I use a V700 with the standard holders to scan 120 and 4x5 . I scan at 2400 and see a definite difference between 1200 and 2400. I also use the native Epson scanning software - nothing special. I got my V700 for a little over $300 and run it on a Windows XP laptop I use for devices newer versions of Windows (8 for example) won't support.

Here is a scan of a 120 negative on the V700 at 2400 dpi with EpsonScan software. Edited November 26, 2018 by andyfalsetta

Here are V600 scans of RB67 6x7 120 medium format I did. I scan at 2400 48 bit color (if color) or 16 bit monochrome if BW and save as tiff. Of course these were reduced for the internet. I think you might do better with a V700 or V800.

Search: rb67 | Flickr

If you are prepared to spend time with a DSLR and macro lens, you can certainly scan at extremely high resolution. As an experiment, I have scanned 6x7 negatives with a 22MP DSLR and a 100mm macro lens - by scanning overlapping sections of the negative at macro distances and stitching them together, I can a get a 74MP (~300MB) DNG file. If you use, for example a 180mm macro and scan even smaller sections of the negative at high magnification, you could obtain files with even higher resolution! Whether such high resolution (and attendant enormous file size) is overkill for any given negative is an individual decision, but for select/favorite images, it can be a cost-effective (assuming you already have a DSLR/macro kit) and efficient means of producing a high quality result. Example below:

 

Being realistic; what's the quality of the pictures you want to scan like?

 

There's no point in spending several hundred on a scanner if the original camera was a Box Brownie or similar.

 

Even if they were taken with a Rollei or Hasselblad, the content might not warrant any more than a 16 megapixel camera 'scan', especially if they were shot on grainy film.

 

I'd stick with the D7200 camera copies until you find any actual need for more quality. It'll almost certainly be quicker than using a dedicated film scanner.

 

I can recommend the Canoscan 9950F if you can still find one with all the holders/masks. But it might well be overkill.

 

A 3900 x 3900 pixel camera copy is easily good enough for a 12" x 12" print anyway.

What do you plan to do with the scans - produce large exhibition prints, occasionally print up to 18x24 for viewing at 4-10 ft, or use on the web? Assuming high quality negatives properly exposed and developed, and not enlarged much beyond 8x10, I'd go the DSLR route any day. If you're planning on large high quality prints and have deep pockets, a dedicated film scanner might make sense - but IMHO the learning curve could take the fun out of it.

Good point about what the "end game" is with these negatives. Actually, you might just select the ones with "potential" and have them professionally scanned by a lab. No learning curve, no hardware cluttering up the house, no buyer's remorse. By the way, your Dad did a nice job capturing that newsstand. It brings back memories of the shops in practically every large building here in NYC. Do you know where he took it?

Being realistic; what's the quality of the pictures you want to scan like?

 

There's no point in spending several hundred on a scanner if the original camera was a Box Brownie or similar.

 

The best I can say is see the photos I posted. Unfortunately I have no idea what camera he was using at the time (I know he got a Nikon F not long after), just that he was in art school at the time.

 

By the way, your Dad did a nice job capturing that newsstand. It brings back memories of the shops in practically every large building here in NYC. Do you know where he took it?

 

Both photos were taken at the Federal Building in Milwaukee, December 1961. The mailroom photo is the US Post Office that was located there at the time. We recently discovered he created a book, presumably as a school project, documenting downtown Milwaukee. These were taken for that (the newsstand photo made it in, albeit cropped, while a different mailroom shot made it in). There are at least 140 more photos from that project I want to capture.

Another shot from around the same time...possibly with a different camera? Unfortunately the neg wasn't totally flat when I captured it, so the right side isn't totally sharp.

 

Where it's sharp, that scan and the first one posted are about as good as you'd get from any flatbed scanner.

 

Just hone the technique with the D7200 a little to get the film flat and square-on to the camera, and I don't think there'd be any benefit got from buying a scanner.

Just as a note, since a couple people mentioned it...there shouldn't be a need to scale photos down to post here. The ones I posted are full resolution, and the upload dialog indicates the maximum file size is 1GB, which is far larger than most photos.

This shot is an ancient family negative (medium format) and was one of the better negatives I inherited from my Dad when he died. I believe (since I didn't have the opportunity to ask my Dad) that this is my grandfather on my Dad's side who I never met, but who I am named after (middle name). This was scanned with an Epson Perfection V500 scanner (so a few generations back). I had to scale it down for Photo.net but even the best flatbeds probably won't get all the detail out of it that was there. With a family picture, that is more or less irrelevant. With a landscape photograph, I'd want a medium format scanner, if I could get one. Note that I stuck with 35mm mostly in the film days because I couldn't afford a good medium format scanner, and I didn't really NEED it for submitting to local photo club contests. So I guess it's up to what kind of quality you are willing to accept. For family pictures, you can generally do OK with Epson Perfections, and the new ones are probably much better.

 

I thought we were still limited (or at least encouraged) to make the longest side 1000 pixels.

I thought we were still limited (or at least encouraged) to make the longest side 1000 pixels.

 

I'm not sure if that's encouraged or not, but there definitely isn't a hard limit.

Where it's sharp, that scan and the first one posted are about as good as you'd get from any flatbed scanner.

 

Just hone the technique with the D7200 a little to get the film flat and square-on to the camera, and I don't think there'd be any benefit got from buying a scanner.

 

Yes, when it comes to digitizing film today, "go with what you already know works reasonably well" is a good mantra. I was kinda surprised that you began this thread at all, lukpac: the results you've shown from your DSLR technique are certainly good enough for web use and 12 x 12 prints. A top flatbed scanner like V700/V800 might be able to do slightly better, but it would take a lot more effort in learning curve and experimenting with various expensive film holders (wet mount, etc). Unless you're planning to make exhibition prints or publish a book, stick with your familiar technique that is already providing decent results.

 

Dedicated medium format film scanners are the only worthwhile step up, as Ed_Ingold suggested. But they are all long discontinued, fragile, finicky, irritating junk piles today (and priced in the stratosphere considering the age and risk factors). The learning curve is daunting, scans take FOREVER until/unless you become an expert operator, and most have software and drivers incompatible with anything past Windows XP or Mac 10.4 Tiger. I own a Nikon CoolScan 8000 that cost me $1100 (used) nine years ago. It arrived defective, and had to spend a month with Nikon getting repaired at a cost of $400 (luckily I bought it from a legit photo dealer, who paid the repair fees). Its an amazing scanner, but every time I hook it up I worry it will croak (because they all do), and repairs are no longer available. It makes a horrible whining noise that can be heard throughout the house. The results are superb, but I hate using the thing and have procrastinated archiving for years because of that. When I eventually return to a 36mp FX sensor camera, I'm gonna look into your method again. Film scanners are becoming irrelevant even for museums and libraries: they've migrated to a "DSLR" scanning setup made by Phase One, using a $40K medium format 50MP or 100MP sensor.

 

You might also consider sending these negs to a scanning service and let them do the work. Depending on the total number of frames, it could be very cost effective and save a lot of your time. Results from mainstream discount services will be roughly equal or slightly better than your DSLR scans. Since these are black & white negs, if at some point you want a few large, impressive exhibition prints, you could have your favorites wet printed in traditional analog process (analog color is more difficult to come by nowadays). Another option is to have a subset of the "best" negatives scanned by one of the remaining service bureaus that still uses top-of-the-line old-school ultra-res flatbeds like Creo or Scitex, a Hasselblad Imacon, or drum scanner. These come at a high per-frame cost, but yield the greatest file flexibility.

Edited November 29, 2018 by orsetto