cheapest/fastest way to tranfer 120mm film to digital

[ashton_boni]

I've been working strictly digital and I'm planning on getting a

Rollieflex camera. I know nothing about developing film. What is the

easest/cheapest/pain-free way to get them transfered to digital?

I don't want to develope them myself because I hate being in a

darkroom. I was thinking getting them developed into negatives and

printing out a 4x4 (or what ever size) then take the negatives I

want to a place to get them transfered to digital? If that sounds

write what does that cost to do?

[paulh]

You don't need a darkroom to develop your own film, just a changing back and a daylight developing tank. Apart from loading the film onto the reel, everything else can be done in daylight. There are even some older daylight *loading* and developing tanks, so everything can be done in daylight. Developing is pretty easy to do, and most people can do a better job at home with B+W than many commercial labs.

 

If you really don't want to develop your own, then you are best off sticking to chromogenic B+W (like Ilford XP2) and colour film. Some places will develop and scan the negatives / slides as they would with 35mm, but be aware that the prices vary enormously. Scanning direct from the negative will give you the best quality.

 

Depending on how many shots you take and what quality you are after, it may be worthwhile getting a good flatbed or second hand dedicated film scanner (Minolta Multi Scan or Nikon 8/9000). For really high quality scans or scans for large print sizes, you can always get a drum scan or similar.

 

Paul

[steve_levine]

FYI: 120 roll film is not 120 millimeters wide!

[Ed_Ingold]

The Fuji Frontier (and similar machines) process is inherently digital - the film is scanned, then the image is printed digitally on photographic paper. That digital image can easily be transferred to a CD as an added service.

 

If you can find a processor that has a 120 cartridge, it is likely that you can get a low resolution scan of each image on a CD. In the US, the CD costs about $5.00. The scans are about 2000x2000 pixels - good for 5x7 with decent quality.

 

Medium format is an expensive proposition. The cameras may be a bargain compared to 5 years ago, but are still a lot more expensive than comparable 35mm gear. The film is more (per exposure), and processing is harder to obtain.

 

To get the most out the camera, you need a darkroom and enlarger, or a film scanner. Film scanners for 120 cost about 4x that of comparable 35mm scanners.

 

If you want to go cheap, the quality will suffer. Your Rollei will not perform as well as 35mm, or even a modest DSLR, in that case. What's the point?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I shoot MF, but I develop and print my own B&W. And I send my color work to a professional lab for optical printing. I'm starting to scan, but I'm not yet convinced that the Epson 4990 is a match for optical printing (just got it and am playing around a bit). But I may buy a Nikon Coolscan 9000, if I decide I want more control over the color printing process.

 

I think you should ask yourself, "Why do I want to shoot MF?" and are you willing to pay the additional cost per print.

 

Robert

[ben z]

"I'm planning on getting a Rollieflex camera. I know nothing about developing film. What is the easest/cheapest/pain-free way to get them transfered to digital?"

 

I don't understand what is your point of buying a Rolleiflex, 120 film, and paying for processing, if in the end your criteria for transfer to digital is easiest-cheapest? Just to have the experience of shooting a quaint classic camera? I've got a couple of Rolleis, and while I can't see it cost effective to buy a Coolscan 9000 or similar film scanner (since I already have a 4000dpi 35mm scanner)I did recently get an Epson 4990. For prints of the maximum size that my HP8750 can do (13" square), the 4990 gives me detail and dynamic range clearly and obviously superior to 35mm from my Canonscan 4000, using Vuescan and Focalblade with both. Anybody who says the 4990 isn't capable of giving better results at up to 13" with 6x6cm, than 35mm scanned with a film scanner, either has a bad 4990 or it's a workflow issue. For larger prints, I can't speak because I haven't made any and probably won't ever. Assuming I did want to make an occasional very large print, since I'd need to have it printed commercially I'd probably get a drum scan too.

[Ed_Ingold]

Here is an example of a 6x6 (Hasselblad) image scanned on a Nikon LS-8000 at 4000 dpi...<div></div>

[robert_martin5]

Edward, what film did you use?

 

I have a Nikon 9000 and scan my medium format, but I am using color negatives.

[Ed_Ingold]

This is Fuji Reala, using an Hasselblad 500cm with an 80/2.8 CF lens at f/11.

[chad_worthman1]

I have the lab process my 120 and I scan it with a Canon 8400F. It comes with a 120 film tray.

 

It's not the best, but it's good enough for sharing photos online or making small prints. I figure I'd take the negative (or slide) to a lab for a large print.

 

Chad

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Ben - who said the 4990 can't deliver superior results to a 35mm film scanner? I said that I'm still testing my new 4990, and that I haven't yet convinced myself either way. Also, I don't shoot MF with the intent of printing 13" square or less. So I do want to test larger prints.

 

Testing is taking some time - I had to return my 4990 because the underside of the glass was dirty and the Epson-certified service tech couldn't get it clean (some sort of production problem). But Epson sent me a new scanner just last week - and the glass is clean.

 

Nice scan from the Nikon 8000, by the way.

 

Robert

[ben z]

Some guy named Illka somebody, on <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DyYV">this thread</a> and IIRC it wasn't the only time he was very vocal about the supposed inferiority of the 4990. I agree, and said so, that I wouldn't depend on the 4990 for prints larger than the HP8750 is capable of. Not that the 4990 couldn't handle it, just that why should I risk my time when I need to have those large prints printed commercially anyway, I would just get a drum scan done. My personal choice is to spend $450 on as decent a flatbed as I could for the 13" prints, and pay whatever it costs for really good drum scans for the occasional larger print, rather than spend $1200-2000 on a MF film scanner, which is below the level of a drum scanner but the cash outlay would preclude me from then paying for drum scans for those large prints.

[ben z]

Whoops. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DyYV">working link</a>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I'll eventually spring for the Nikon Coolscan 9000, but the Epson seems quite good for now. Besides, I'm still fairly new to scanning, so the Epson probably exceeds my current abilities. But I'll buy the Nikon when I get better at this. And I'll keep the Epson because I'm planning to start shooting 4x5.

 

Robert

 

Robert

[ted_chambers]

I agree with the previous postings that suggest you won't get much of a quality boost from shooting medium format. I shoot medium format and large format and scan with a Canon 9950f (flatbed).

 

I'm very happy with the results and am happy to recommend the Canon. However, I have to say I can't really see much difference between medium format film, scanned, and digital. If you're looking for a big jump in quality, I think you'll be disappointed.

 

Large format is another story. No comparison with digital. If your intent is to get the very best that film can offer, get an old Graflex. Cheaper than a Rolleiflex, too.

[Ed_Ingold]

Ted, that's my experience as well. I will add that once you have medium format images, you'll still have them if a better way to scan comes your way.

[ilkka_nissila]

It's not "supposed inferiority" of the 4990. It is easy to find samples comparing the 4990 with film scanners on the internet. And they all agree with my results - you lose the advantage of medium format by scanning it with a cheap flatbed. Sure it has less grain than any 35 mm scan (because the 4990 can't see any grain in good iso 100 slide film) but it doesn't have a noticeable amount of more detail than my LS-5000 gets from the same film (e.g. Velvia 100F) in a 35 mm original. In an extremely high-contrast shot such as a night shot of city lights you might get some more detail out of the 4990 than you do from 35 mm film, but no way would I bother to shoot medium format film if I only could scan it with the 4990.

 

As for being very vocal, it's because people quote morons like Ken Rockwell and have no firsthand experience with a good scanner (and good scanning technique) or the 4990.

 

(And I do not have a workflow issue, but I do have one problem: good eyes.)