Process of getting your medium format negatives to the computer.

[andyorr1982]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I think this is my first time posting in the photo.net forums but I hope it'll be a new, ongoing thing for me!<br>

I have a question which may seem pretty basic for most of you, but I hope you'll help me out with some helpful replies.<br>

I am hoping to acquire my first Hasselblad soon and I'm curious what process you use for getting the developed negatives onto the computer for posting on websites. Obviously, there are a few ways one can do this (from what I've thought of so far)<br>

1- Scan the negatives in a medium-format capable scanner (not within my price range at all...and I don't know anyone with access to one).<br>

2- Have the local photo lab where my film is being developed do it. Not ideal because they charge way too much for their 'high res' scans and it's a total rip off unless it's my only option!<br>

3- Have a flatbed scanner scan the negatives. I guess this isn't ideal, either, because of the negatives' size and the resolution of the scanner.<br>

4- Something method I haven't heard of yet.</p>

<p>So, basically, what do you guys do? And what would be the best idea on a limited budget or with limited costs?</p>

<p>Thanks much,<br>

-Andy</p>

 

[steve_mareno]

<p>I have to admit I have never understood this approach. The reason you would wish to buy a high quality camera would be to get high quality images, right? So why lose that high quality by using a low end scanner? Just doesn't make any sense to me. You would be far better off if you bought a high quality 35mm camera like a Leica R or Contax G1 (just a couple of the many good examples out there) and then bought a dedicated film scanner such as a Nikon V ED. Your total cash outlay would be around what a Hasselblad would cost, or maybe even much less depending on the lenses you'll need for the Hassy. You would then be able to print on a decent printer at 13x19 and have better quality photos than a MF camera w/ a low end scanner would give.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Go digital! Just kidding.</p>

<p>Welcome to photo net. We are here to help each other with our photography. I've got on file about 45 years worth of negatives, mostly medium format and 35mm that I'm going to working on scanning with the project probably lasting several years!</p>

<p>I just bought a Microtek ArtixScan M1 and I'm just getting it up and running. It will scan 4"x5", medium format and 35mm strips as well as slides. I paid $500 and change from B&H. They have plastic trays to accommodate each size and the tray slides under the glass. I will put a few up here on photonet as I get going. I have an old Kodak slide projector that uses the round trays and I'd like to be able to accomplish several things as I scan them.</p>

<p>There are other scanners for sale but the price seems to be right and I will defray to others how they evaluate this device. I didn't buy the most expensive because I will still have the film if I need to get a better quality for a particular purpose.</p>

<p>Hope this helps you.</p>

[ned1]

<p>I've had nothing but bad experiences with photo lab scanning, even pro ones. But the again, I'm too cheap to go to the labs that charge $20 a frame, so I'm guessing they'll do a better job.<br>

Most of the time I scan on my V700. When I have something important (meaning money is involved) I rent time on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 at a local photography school. Where are you located? There might be a school or photogrpher's coop that will do the same for you.</p>

[andyorr1982]

<p>Thanks for your replies! Steve, I hear what you're saying and totally agree. I didn't state this, but these are my actual intentions: I want to be able to put photographs up on a website for critique and general comments people may want to make about my photos. When I take a photograph that I really like and would like to have it enlarged I'll have it done the proper way...not through scanning and printing from computers.</p>

<p>So, actually, maybe I've answered my own question. I can have the enlargements made of photos I like...and scan those on a flatbed for the internet.</p>

<p>Another comment you ask, Steve: why spend money on a high quality camera when I'm just going to loose quality to scanning. (Already kind of answered that above, but here's another reason I have). I'm tired of buying a digital camera and have it loose value every day. If you buy an older camera today it will have already undergone any degrading in value that it will do. What I pay today I can get for it down the road—should I choose to sell it. And I may be obtaining the hassie I'm looking at for a very good deal from a friend's parents.</p>

<p>So, I hope that explains my reasoning a little bit. Perhaps you still look at me as being foolish.<br>

I also have a fascination with medium format...so I really want to shoot more of it. </p>

[jonathans]

<p>I'm in a similar situation, looking at going with an Epson 4490 for medium format scans b/c that's all I can afford at the moment. From the reviews I've read, it will do a perfectly acceptable job of scanning images that will be posted online, and a fair job for images I want to print up to say 8x10, maybe larger. If I could afford it, I'd go with the Epson V750 - from the reviews I've seen it has the potential to very nearly match the quality of a dedicated film scanner. <br>

Regarding losing quality - I'm not, at all. The negative itself isn't actually losing anything from the scan process, so when/if I get an image I like and want to have printed larger I can either sit on it until I can afford a high-quality scanner, send it out for scanning at a professional lab, or have it printed traditionally. Actually, the ability to get decent scans with less costly scanners is part of the attraction of medium format to me. The larger negative simply scans better on a flatbed from everything I've read so far. <br>

Getting back to the original question - for web use, it seems that flat bed scanners will produce an acceptable scan of medium format negatives. Very high-quality flatbeds can produce exceptional scans but even relatively inexpensive units like the Epson 4490, V500, and Canon 8800 can produce good scans. Don't discount them for making web-ready images. Plus it's useful for more than just negatives - I take the occasional polaroid and have old maps and newspaper articles that I need to scan on occasion. Having a decent flatbed will give me that capability even if I update to a dedicated film scanner in the future. </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>4- Something method I haven't heard of yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>5 - Outsource for high quality scans at fairly low prices. Look into ScanCafe. Haven't used them, but supposedly this India based company uses a Nikon 9000. Makes since really given how labor intensive scans are to do.</p>

<p>Also look up Mauro Franic. He's a fellow P.N member. My recollection was that he offered Nikon 9000 scans at a good price.</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>One thing I will say about high res scans - it opens up possibilities you can't do with normal printing.<br>

I had one shot that required me to stand in the Pacific making 60 second exposures. Unfortunately, the waves crashing into the tripod blurred the shot to the point I couldn't have used it with an enlarger. I was able to salvage the picture in Photoshop (not through any sharpening filters though - and it took me about 4 hours).<br>

In another - I have two shots taken with an ultra-wide angle (Pentax 67 45mm) that I stitched them together in photoshop and was able to make a seamless image, despite having moved my tripod a considerable distance between the exposures. I'm happy with the image quality at a 30"x72" size (haven't actually made one yet, but I printed an 8x10" crop. Making a panorama wasn't my original intention, but when I saw the scans... I couldn't help it.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Andy -- if all you are interested in is getting your photos onto the computer for web or email based critique, a flatbed will be perfectly fine. Something like the Epson V700 or 4490 should do the job for you. When people go on about the quality of dedicated film scanners, they are generally talking about their use for making digital prints. If all you are doing is web sized jpegs, the flatbed will be more than enough. </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I want to be able to put photographs up on a website for critique and general comments people may want to make about my photos. When I take a photograph that I really like and would like to have it enlarged I'll have it done the proper way...not through scanning and printing from computers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case get the film scanned when it is processed. The lowest resolution (and therefore cheapest) scan will be more than enough for web use.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>A flatbed will be fine for the applicaction you state. I'm setting up a major website rebuild/update right now using scans from a flatbed . Anything from an old Epson 3200 or similar up to a newer V700.will do. But best to have one with a holder specifically for 120/220 film. Normally that will allow you to scan two or more negs at a time.</p>

<p>Personally I'd rather do that than pay a lab to scan everything I shoot, some of which I'll throw away, most of which I won't want to put on the web. OTOH how are you deciding what you like and what you don't? Its sometimes hard to tell from negs, especially colour negs. I'd guess that you're going to need to get either a set of proof prints when you have films processed, or to scan or have scanned pretty much everything so you can work out whether you want to print, put on Flickr, or whatever.<br>

Lab scans will give you instant feedback but long term will cost you more than owning and using a flatbed, which at a cost from maybe $100 for a used version to $500 for a newer one with ICE and a good spec will get you free scans for ever or until it breaks. </p>

<p>Either way, I assume you have some means to edit the scans- they'll mostly need a little attention before you use them</p>

[bueh]

If you want digital pictures, get a digital camera. Period.

<p>

Scanning film is no big joy and takes a lot of time if you have medium format negatives. And quality will be pretty poor unless you get a really good scanner or have your film scanned at an expensive pro lab. I second Edward's observations in regards to digitalizing medium format, but I gave up a long time ago... it's just not worth it, though for the <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00PX8K">occasional</a></b> scan for photo.net I just used my vintage flatbed scanner.

[david_henderson]

<p>"<em><strong>If you want digital pictures, get a digital camera. Period</strong></em>."</p>

<p>I used to see people on here trotting out the mantra</p>

<p>"if you want prints use print film".</p>

<p>That was often wrong as well. </p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I use an Epson 4870 flatbed to scan mostly for the web. It does a good enough job to get 11x14 prints from a 6x4.5 neg, so don't discount flatbeds. But you will need to learn how to clone or heal dust spots - they're inevitable. The labs around me can't scan 120 film anyway, so this was my only option. With B&W, I wet print them and scan the print. That's where 120 is more fun anyway. </p>

[andyorr1982]

<p>Thanks for all the comments.<br>

I'm sorry this has turned into a film/digital argument for some people. Of course those were not my intentions. </p>

<p>Sounds like I'll probably end up going with a Epson V700 if I decide to buy a scanner. We'll see. :-)<br>

In the mean time, I need to concentrate on getting the Hassie. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>I'm scanning only my personal negs. I've got a boatload of them from various times in my life, education at various levels, military service, family events & foolin' around stuff. I anticipate I will look at them more often in digital format however, time will only tell. Some of them are slides and go back to when Kodachrome had an ASA of 10!</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>This thread remains cordial, largely because you have a legitimate question and did not frame it as a "film vs digital" rant.</p>

<p>The sad reality is that you ratchet up the cost significantly going from 35mm to medium format. Used mf equipment is a bargain compared to its new price, but it is by no means cheap. Other than the 80mm and 150mm, lenses tend to cost as much as the big f/2.8 Nikon or Canon zooms. Consummable costs are 3x as great and the infrastructure needed to produce high quality results follows the same trend.</p>

<p>Since the negative is so much bigger, you can get results on a flatbed comparable to that of 35mm film on a dedicated film scanner - not great but useable up to 11x14 inches. Posting on the web is a piece of cake. In fact, web pictures are well under 1MP, which you could match with any P&S digital.</p>

<p>The <em>raison d'etre</em> for medium format film is the ability to make large, sharp prints, with the added benefit of better tonality compared to 35mm. There is also the pleasure of using a purely manual camera and pride of ownershop. An Epson photo scanner will carry you through for now, and give you time to save for the next step. If you don't plan to take that next step, medium format is probably not the best thing for you. It's like sailing without a boat - standing in a cold shower, tearing up $100 bills.</p>

[peter_rhalter]

<p>The Canon Canoscan 8600F scanner I bought for use as a flatbed included a medium format negative holder. I tried it out with some 6x6 transparencies and was amazed at how well the scans came out; certainly fine for posting online and maybe even better than that. I haven't tried to print the files, though. Depending on how you plan to use the scans, don't dismiss a recent flatbed as a cost effective solution. YM(and expectations)MV, of course.</p>

[andyorr1982]

<p>Thanks for the comments, Edward. I see your point and agree. I've been a bit of a hypocrite in my post. The approach I am taking to medium format is similar to the way I entered photography to begin with...6 or 7 years ago. I purchased a 35 mm Nikon FM and tried to find an economical way of getting the photos onto a computer. However, those intentions were to edit the photos in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Now, 7 years later, and after playing with a digital camera and buying equipment for it since then, I want to go back to film in a new medium (medium format). As I get more acquainted with mf I'll likely feel more comfortable investing in a quality scanner. In the mean time, I do feel I need to be somewhat conservative with my purchases and so I am looking for an economical way to transfer negatives to a computer as described in my posts above. I don't like wasting money, so I feel strongly that you should start out with a camera that is of quality rather than growing from a camera you aren't happy with and always wishing you had spent the extra funds to go with the more expensive system. I've taken that approach to buying lenses for my digital camera. If you're going to invest in a lens, buy the lens that has the quality and craftsmanship that you will want in the future and don't waste your time/money in the mean time with sub-quality lenses.</p>

<p>I am still very new to photography and I love exploring it. I might have weird ideologies concerning photography and the way I spend my money with it...but I suppose we all make our own choices concerning this.<br>

I may be take the steps to learning photography in somewhat of a convoluted way. But I'm okay with that.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your posts. I know we're drifting away from the main focus of this post...but I'm fine with that as long as the moderaters are. It's just nice having a conversation regarding photography. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

[greg_jones1]

<p>Andy-</p>

<p>I got a V700 scanner recently and must say I am very surprised at the quality it delivers. I am quite confident with going to 11X14 prints from these scans of medium format. I originally intended it to be my "quick proofing" machine, and images for the web not demanding high resolution. I think you too will be pleasantly surprised. Like is always said when discussing flatbeds, "it ain't a Nikon 9000." No it is not but you would die of old age before you found one to buy. Get the V700 or 750 and dont look back.....</p>

[kevcross]

<p>I have been developing and scanning MF film from a Hasselblad on a Canon 9950F (around $350, I think) for a few years now and find the quality is perfectly acceptable for computer viewing when scanning relatively low contrast negatives. However I've found that this scanner doesn't work well with high contrast and higher density negatives. Also a bit of a pain to photoshop the dust spots out. I'm moving in the direction of making traditional darkroom prints in the 8x10 range and scanning those on a flatbed. A lot more work but yields better end results without spending upwards of $70 per image for scanning at a good lab. Best of luck!<br>

Kevin</p>

[andyorr1982]

<p>Thanks for the suggestions. I've been reading a bit about the Epson V700 today. It seems this may be the method to choose. It looks like a good affordable method.<br>

Thanks everyone,<br>

-Andy</p>

[david_goldenberg1]

<p>Andy,<br>

Take a look at the Epson V500 as well. My impression (from web browsing) is that for medium format, the V500 and V700 yield comparable quality. I think that the second lens in the V700 may only be used for 35 mm, in which case the v500 and v700 may be equivalent for medium format.<br>

I have been using a V500 for mf for a few months and just got a coolscan 8000. The coolscan is better, of course, but not by as much as one might think. The main thing is that scans from a flatbed have to be sharpened to approach the detail from a film scanner. Sharpening can introduce artifacts, especially "halos" and perhaps more of a "digital look".<br>

David</p>

[martin_green4]

<p>Andy, I am about a year into my MF "research" and I use a Epson V500 with a film holder from betterscanning.com. I also have the professional version of Vuescan 8.5. The Epson was a compromise for me - it was the cheapest scanner that had Digital ICE and handled 120 film. I'm sure it wasn't the only one out there, but it was the only one they had at Fry's. I'm pretty happy with it. It turns out that Digital ICE is only used on color film. I shoot BW. But it does work with C-41 B&W film like Ilford XP2 and a lot of comments said this is a good film for scanning. I've tried it, but my skills aren't good enough to tell the difference.<br>

If I had it to do over I would spring for the V750 and I would not buy Vuescan. The Epson Scan software is pretty good and gives me everything I need as a newby. I find myself using it more often than Vuescan. That may change as I get better since Vuescan has many, many more options and configurations.<br>

I do think the film holder upgrade is worth the money. The holder that comes with the V500 is frustrating to say the least. The V750 may have a better film holder.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[asher]

<p>I haven't had time to read the other responses above- my apologies if this duplicates another answer above:<br>

I get my C41 120-format film processed at a local lab (Hunt's Photo, Kenmore Sq, Boston area) for about $4 to $5 per roll. I bought a new Epson V500 flatbed scanner for a very affordable price, and I have been totally satisfied with the results, scanning a resolutions in the range of 400-1200 dpi, with digital ICE selected. I use the film holder that comes with the scanner with no problems. In fact, it's easier to align films that it was with my 35mm scanner. I used to use a Nikon Coolscan V when I shot 35mm and I still shoot with a 5D, for comparison- once again, the V500 is more than satisfactory for my needs.</p>