120 film scanning.

[andy_briggs1]

<p>Over Christmas, I managed to pick up two old 1950's era Kershaw cameras in pretty good condition. They run on 120 film which I haven't used for a few years now.<br>

My plan was simple. Clean up these cameras, enjoy shooting with them for a few weeks then get the film developed and drum scanned so I can manipulate the images in Photoshop. What could possibly go wrong?<br>

Well, quite a bit if I'm not too careful. A quick search of the interwebs tells me that the only local company that scans MF negs these days only does batches of 100 (I think that's frames not rolls) at a cost of £4 per image. It doesn't stop there though. Multiple passes cost more, as does dust and scratch reduction. Basically, I won't get much change out of £600 if I'm not careful.<br>

Does that sound about right or have they seen me coming?<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Andy B. </p>

[reichard]

<p>Find a used MF scanner on fleabay to quench your thirst. Near lab/pro quality. If you need better quality, buy a new/better scanner or pay a pro.<br>

Meanwhile, a cheapo MF flatbed might satisfy you for your personal use. Not too meaningful to pay top $$$ for scans or a scanner if the camera is in poor shape or the IQ of the photo's are marginal.<br>

Relax, get a cheap scanner, take some pictures, scan, and enjoy.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>For about 1/10th that price you can setup a darkroom for black and white film developing and printing with used equipment.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p><strong><em>"What could possibly go wrong?"</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Only an assumption that you need to drum scan every single frame. The more efficient way to go about this is to get a flatbed scanner which for anywhere between say £100 and £300 will produce scans that are perfectly adequate for screen use or indeed small proof prints. Anything from a used Epson 3200 up to a V700 will do it and the Epson software is real easy to install and follow, especially if the heavy lifting is going to be done in PS </p>

<p>Then you pay for better scans for that small minority that you want to turn into serious prints. Whilst drum scans are arguably best if you want really big prints, you can buy150MB 16 bit Imacon scans for little over a fiver from</p>

<p><a href="http://www.blueskyimages.co.uk">www.blueskyimages.co.uk</a></p>

<p>Incidentally I would be very surprised if the £4 you have been quoted is for drum scans. </p>

<p>A couple of alternatives. First if you shoot slide film you don't have to scan to see what you've got. Second you could try Scancafe in India if they have their logistics sorted to service the UK yet and you're not impatient. They are very cheap, but for me, life is too short.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

[tibz]

<p>Well, the magic of film is that you don't have to have digital copies of every image. Once you get it processed, get a light table and choose the images you want scanned. Drum scans are too expensive to run on every image. If enough images are good, it's worth the money. The scans are charged by megabyte because the limitation of drum scans is that rate. You can choose your size.</p>

[andy_briggs1]

<p>Cheers guys, I think the major thing is that I doubt I'm going to have 100 images that I will want to scan and I was interested in seeing if it was possible to get them scanned in dribs and drabs. Ideally, I would take Bob Sunley's advice and get myself a darkroom. Sadly, my house just aint big enough.<br>

Thanks for all the good advice. Does anyone have an image that they could upload to show me the sort of quality that I could expect to get from a flatbed scanning a MF neg?<br>

Thanking you all in advance.<br>

Andy B.</p>

[stb]

<blockquote>

<p>

 

 

<p >For about 1/10th that price you can setup a darkroom for black and white film developing and printing with used equipment.</p>

 

 

</p>

</blockquote>

Provided the room comes for free, which is not the case for most of us.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>1200 DPI EXAMPLES<br>

<br /> A Flatbed does NOT get all the usefull detail out of an original; but they are inexpensive today and perform good enough for many applications.<br>

<br /> Here is a scan with an old Epson 1200U scanner from about 2000; its done at a 1200 dpi setting; its optical pitch of its scan bar.<br>

<br /> This is a 6x6 MF Ektachrome transparency. A more modern flatbed scanner will pull out more info.<br>

<br /> With this example I am PURPOSELY using an example with an older obsolete flatbed; scanned with the stock Epson holder; using the stock Epson software; it was scanend with 400 Mhz Celeron eMachine with 256 megs of ram; using windows 98.<br /> <br /> Our first 1200 dpi flatbed was a pro unit that cost as much as a brand new Hasselblad KIT ; with A12 back and 80mm F2.8 lens; several thousands of dollars.<br>

<br /> The Epson 1200U scanner from the year 2000 is BETTER than the old pro 1200 dpi unit; and cost us 1/10 as much; maybe 1/15 if one includes inflation. Today it is considered totally obsolete by the peanut gallery; and often "not good enough".<br>

<br /> Newbies tend to to have NOT been around when scans were 2 bucks per megabyte; a 60 megabyte scan of a one MF negative was once 120 bucks.<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/xenar/JoycePartongirl1inchsquare.jpg?t=1231613321" alt="" width="72" height="74" /> <br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/xenar/girl1200dpiCROP.jpg?t=1231612020" alt="" width="388" height="807" /> <br /> This 6x6 cm tri-x negative was scanned with the old 1200U Epson flatbed @1200 dpi too :<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-498.jpg?t=1231612830" alt="" width="510" height="544" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>2400 DPI EXAMPLE<br>

<br /> Here is an examples scanned with the obsolete epson 2450 scanner at 2400 dpi; its claimed optical resolution; ours clocks in about a real 1600 to 1800 compared to a real dedicated high end film scanner.<br>

These exampels were all scanned with stick Epson holders; stock scan software; with computers with Pentium Pros; Pentium II's; Pentium III's. This scanner is from about 2003/2004.<br>

<br /> Barbara and Heather on a 6x7cm Ektachrome transparency from 1990<br>

<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-505.jpg?t=1231614053" alt="" width="158" height="209" /><br>

Tess O'Brien<br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-507.jpg?t=1231614154" alt="" width="707" height="262" /><br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-506.jpg?t=1231614238" alt="" width="633" height="315" /><br>

Melody Shepherd</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A higher end scan will show more eyelash details; more hair details; more skin flaws. Heather Deen might not really want a more detailed scan today; it might have been back in the Newberry Park High Schools days of going to taco bell over on TO Blvd.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With a just average MF shot a flatbed scanner might NOT be the limit; the so-so image might be. Here is a just average shot with a TLR; its with pushed Royal-x film thats a real 1250 asa. Its a mid/late 1970's shot at the Conejo Valley rink; the old whitefront store in Newberry park off of Ventu and the 101. This rink moved/morphed to Simi valley in the mid 1990's; off of Easy street and the 118.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-453.jpg?t=1231616639" alt="" /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/hockey/tripods-452.jpg?t=1231615960" alt="" /></p>

 

[andy_briggs1]

<p>Kelly,<br>

Thanks very much for posting those images. I'll be off to check the specs of the flatbed I've got. I think you've shown me the way forward.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>Andy B.</p>