What's your preferred method of digitizing 120 film

[jbcrane_gallery]

Hi All,

 

Having just picked up my first MF and making the transition from 35mm and DSLR, I'm wondering what your all preferred way of digitizing

120 negs and chromes is? I have the Nikon SuperCoolScan 5000 ED, and have thought about upgrading to the 9000 ED. Cost is

substantial, though, and I'm wondering if it's worth the results? I've been pretty happy with the 5000 ED, and wonder if anyone has had

experience with the 9000 and can comment. Or do you just have the Lab drum scan the images you want, and file the rest? Any input is

welcome.

 

Thanks,

John Crane

[bob_sunley]

You could pickup a complete darkroom for less than the cost of a glass film carrier for the 9000. :)

[benny_spinoza]

The 9000 is excellent...but expensive. I also bought SilverFast for it. Since you have the 5000 for 35mm, why not get an Epson V750 or Microtek M1 for scanning you medium format? That will save you money. And they come bundled with SilverFast, which I recommend.

[Ed_Ingold]

The LS-9000 is the way to go. The image quality of medium format film scanned on an Epson V750 flatbed is not as good as 35mm film on the LS-5000. You do need a glass holder to get corner to corner sharpness. The non-rotating holder is the best for this purpose, since you can scan up to four 645, three 6x6 or two 6x7 frames in a batch. The cost of the holder is about $200 if you can find one. I'd like to see what kind of "complete" color darkroom you could get for that :-)

 

If you are serious about medium format film, I suggest you put your name on a waiting list for the LS-9000. All film scanners are on Nikon's endangered species list. The results are pretty impressive.<div></div>

[nealcurrie]

Focal Point sells Anti-Newton glass for $38 per sheet, which can be used with the standard holder for 120/220 film with very little finagling. It adds some noise to the scan, but the corners/edges are MUCH sharper.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Agree that the Nikon CS 9000 is the way to go. Anything better will cost substantially more.

[q.g._de_bakker]

... and not deliver substantially more.<br><br>Used 8000 (perhaps even 9000) Coolscans can be found for about half the list price. And are easier to get than new ones... ;-)

[fwstutterheim]

Another happy 9000 owner. <p>

Ferdi.

[mark liddell]

I've have had scans done on a 9000 and agree you do need to to have a glass carrier for corner to corner sharpness. In my experience the 9000 is also horrible for negative film, the grain becomes very obtrusive.

 

All my scans are done on an imacon now.

[jbcrane_gallery]

Thanks everyone. This seems to confirm what I was thinking. My 5000 is not even a year old, and when I bought it, had no

intention of getting my RZ. Now I love my new (used) RZ and want to be able to get its produce onto the computer quickly

and easily w/o relying on drum scans from the lab. I'll still do that for important images, but everyday viewing and such,

getting it into the computer makes the most sense. I've thought about a darkroom and though the tradition appeals to me,

right now it doesn't make sense (for me). Alas, I need to draw that dreadful line somewhere between romance and

practicality. Thanks again - and Edward, thanks for the image sample. Good stuff. Here's a sample of what I'm pulling out

of my 5000 from 35mm. I'm pleased with it:<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

Digital ICE and sharpening can add "interesting" artifacts to open sky and similar areas, including the "worm tracks" you see in the example above. You may want to live with Digital ICE since it saves so much time, but reserve sharpening for post production. I prefer to mask off the sky when applying USM in Photoshop because it exaggerates grain and serves no good purpose.

[jbcrane_gallery]

I think on this image I was experimenting with selective USM per channel. Can't remember now what settings I used, but

almost certain I used a reduced setting in the blue channel with increased setting in red. And FWIW, I never use USM in

Photoshop anymore. I almost always use Smart Sharpen (CS3 Extended), and work on a per channel basis there as

well. Given this is Velvia 100, a little more grain is visible. With 50, virtually none is.

 

It has taken a good bit of experimentation to get the desired results out of the Nikon software. It's also not a fast

process. At present when I scan, I use the following settings: Scan bit depth:16, Sampling: Superfine (16X), Digital ICE

on Fine, ROC at 0, GEM at 2-4 depending on the image and film (4 starts looking a little weird to me), 2 seems to be the

sweet spot; when I use USM for scanning I stagger between 50/5/3 and 25/0/0 depending on the image (this is not an

exact science ;-). I too mask skies in many cases, but Smart Sharpen in CS3 seems to protect large, low-contrast areas

much better than USM-which globally mucks things up whether they need it or not ;-). Thanks very much for the

suggestions.

[bob_sunley]

Edward, A Durst Laborator 4x5", color head, working power supply, 3 mixer boxes, 5 negative carriers, flat and recessed lens boards and a print dryer, $200. Or a complete darkroom setup with a Beseler 67C with all the trays tanks and a print drum(16x20), that setup was free. :)

[eric_brody]

In addition to the good advice in this thread, you would benefit from searching on Nikon 9000 (and 8000) as well as the other scanners mentioned. There are lots of threads on this subject. I am a happy owner of a Nikon 9000. It is an extraordinary piece of equipment. I have tested the decent consumer flatbeds as well. I have tried the Epson V7xx, and it's pretty good but not quite up to the 9000. To me, and I was fortunate to find a like-new 9000 for a fair price locally, it seems ideal to have a best in class scanner to justify the costs of really good MF equipment.

 

I scan 6x6 and 6x7 black and white negatives on TMX 100/400 and Acros. With the glass carrier, an unfortunate essential, one gets strikingly wonderful results. I use no Digital ICE (useless with silver based film) and no sharpening, I just adjust the curves in the Nikon Scan software and do the rest in CS3. My results are superior to what I did in the darkroom for 40 years with excellent equipment.

 

Good luck.

[william_john_smith1]

Hey Bob, the topic is ".....digitizing 120 negs and chromes....". How does one digitize negs in a wet darkroom?

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>In my experience the 9000 is also horrible for negative film, the grain becomes very obtrusive.</i>

<p>

This is very simple to solve. Set ROC = 0 and GEM = 2 or 3 in Nikon Scan. This creates beautiful results when

scanning color negative film. Other software has other settings which may or may not create similar results. For

non-C41 black and white negative film, other people may give suggestions; I am not an expert with it.

<p>

I think the LS-9000 is a superb scanner.

[robert_marvin]

"the topic is ".....digitizing 120 negs and chromes....". How does one digitize negs in a wet darkroom"

 

Print 8 X 10s, scan the prints on a flat bed scanner

[davem1]

Scan them. Is that not the only way?

[jbcrane_gallery]

Thank you all for the feedback and recommendations on this topic. It has helped confirm my early suspicions and I will

be in search of a Nikon CS9000 shortly.

 

Speaking for a moment to those who have offered darkroom alternate routes, I'll offer this olive branch: I'm pretty much

die-hard digital and have been for many years now. I'm in MF for the tradition, the "look' (for certain shots), the bellows,

lens and DOF characteristics, and yes - the relatively low cost-per-shot resolution bump over the DSLR's best efforts for

certain shooting. But going truly, purely "wet" for nostaligia's sake isn't in the cards for me. I have too many computers,

and too much experience & training invested om Photoshop (since v2) -and- not a dark room in the house anymore ;-).

 

I'll say this, too: having hung out on DPReview for far too long, I'm very much enjoying the educated, civilized and

intelligent crowd here. A kind and heartfelt thanks to all who responded.

[markbristol]

Hey John,

I guess I'll be the oddball here. For a number of years I have been using a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. When I

scan negs (which ain't too often) I use a Scanhancer. Really helps to minimize grain. Problem is that it is not

produced anymore. Has very fine reviews but I don't know how it would compare to Nikon's offering. I like BIG prints

and 30x40 enlargements retain fine detail. Silverfast also has scanning software with multi-exposure to enhance the

dynamic range of scans. Rumors say that the multi-exposure feature does not work well with the glassless carrier of

the Nikon unit but may with the glass carrier. It has been said that heat from the light source may be "popping" the

film. The Minolta SM Pro comes with a glass carrier and non glass unit. You may be able to fine a good unit used.

[philippartridge]

Yes, the Multi Pro is some scanner, at a fraction the size and weight of the Nikon 8000/9000 unit. The Scanhancer delivers excellent results for a few bucks more. The last version of the stock software is also very good...the glass carrier is excellent and provides more than acceptable film flatness as the frame expands against the upper sheet of glass.

 

Erik, the guy who produces the Scanhancer (works great for all film types, Mark), has some excellent advice on his website about getting the best from this device. Mine has been, fingers crossed, trouble free, and has saved a small fortune in scan costs. Drum scans are a little better, but generally not noticeably so. With so many pros deserting MF the past few years, there really should be a decent second hand market for both these scanners - I am guessing pros would have been the natural target audience for them in the first place.

 

Neg films do pretty well overall, but slow speed is a great advantage to prevent grain up in scanning. Noise reduction software (Noiseware in my case) cleans up my NPH 35mm scans pretty well. I do almost nothing except exposure in the scan software, as you probably do as well. Forget the Epsons, they are a waste of space for quality output. I feel the Imacons are over-priced for their quality of output. Of all people, Ken Rockwell has some reviews of the Nikon and Minolta scanners.

[thomas_janik]

Another vote for the 9000, with the caution that you must use a glass carrier for 120 film; the supplied carrier is useless unless you convert it to a glass carrier as described here:

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/008Jf3

Edward: the "interesting ICE artifacts" you refer to is one of the reasons I kept my Minolta DSE5400. The Minolta does a better job with 35mm, especially Kodachromes. Not only is the increased resolution worthwhile,but the

Minolta doesn't produce the "worm tracks".

I recently had a troublesome slide scanned with a new Imacon/Hasselblad X5, the reults were no better than those I am getting wiith the Nikon.

[steve_mareno]

I'm glad this topic came up as I'm looking for a MF scanner myself, although the economy of a darkroom vs scanning may win me over. I sent some 120 negs over to A&I in L.A. to get scanned on their Noritsu 1700 SA. The scans are really affordable. They will do a roll of 120 negs for $30 and the files you get will be from 50 to 81 mb depending on your format (6x4.5 vs 6x7). You won't get monster size prints from these, but the quality is OK. Probably somewhere between a good flatbed and a good Nikon film scanner. Here's a couple.

 

I agree w/ you John, the folks here are definitely nicer than on a lot of the other forums, although sometimes it seems the ghost of Scott Eaton takes over some of the members.<div></div>

[steve_mareno]

These are from a Fuji GS645s on Ilford FP4<div></div>

[david_f._stein]

Don't have any experience with dedicated medium format film scanner, Imacon or drum scans, but I wouldn't rule out a quality 8x10 flat bed with transparency adapter like the last UMax scanners. I did quite a bit of 120 film on quality flatbed scanners and it worked for color neg, what I would call scanner-compatible B&W and vintage glass plate negatives. I made inkjet prints up to 13 x19. I know the files are good. Uploaded a few to Kodak's online print shop and the resulting prints were excellent and true B&W. The last UMax with Firewire is affordable. With Vuescan, you can obtain TIFs plus a master RAW file. Good luck.