Scanning 120 - Hasselblad 501c

[diego_di_michele]

<p>Hi, you bought a nice camera. Like others, my preference is for Negative Film, I find it much easier to work with than slides. And negative film can be scanned and adjusted in PP very well.<br>

As an owner of a Nikon Coolscan 8000, I definitely recommend you getting one of these, 8000 or 9000. You will have a professional workflow this way. With a flatbed scanner you will be able to scan your images to have previews or proofs, but you will not be able to obtain professional results regarding color or definition (finally copies).<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

Best,<br /> Diego.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<blockquote>

<p>With a flatbed scanner you will be able to scan your images to have previews or proofs, but you will not be able to obtain professional results regarding color or definition (finally copies).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I agree with Diego about the value of a Nikon scanner, and about "definition", if by that he's referring to resolution.</p>

<p> But you'll have every bit as much ability to work on the color quality of scans made on a flatbed as you would on those from a Nikon 9000. That's a function of the software you use and the skill you develop in using it.</p>

 

[gateway]

<p>Ken, After setting up an account this past week at North Coast, I'm looking forward to 'seeing' their budget, or lower priced 120 scans to accompany the processing. These are first-test rolls from the camera (and their service-from my perspective). Budget scan=2,048 x 3,072 pixels in 120 format is $5.49 per roll in addition to developing cost of $5.50. That's around $11 per roll before shipping. The processing and CD will be a good first test, and I can try the enhanced scan later=4,824 x 3,533 pixels (120 film). Now, to wait for the results...</p>

<p>Greg, how many pixels in your ocean shot?</p>

[diego_di_michele]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Diego about the value of a Nikon scanner, and about "definition", if by that he's referring to resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>But you'll have every bit as much ability to work on the color quality of scans made on a flatbed as you would on those from a Nikon 9000. That's a function of the software you use and the skill you develop in using it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes Greg, I was referring to resolution. And about color, I meant (think) that Nikon Scanner is capable of getting a better color range from film compared to any flatbed. I might be wrong and it is just a resolution problem.</p>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>great comments on the scanner and about using negative film vs chrome. Re: scanner I bought - after awhile, I can always upgrade.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>Without knowing how large Ken intends to print, this is not advice, it is just perpetuating rumors.</em></p>

<p>They're not rumors when someone has been there and done that. Why use medium format for something that you could do equally well with 35mm? You won't see any significant difference between the two (or a DSLR) in an 8x12 inch print. Medium format gear and materials cost three times as much and shots take twice as long to set up. That gets kinda' old unless you get results that distinguish themselves from a smaller camera. How much is it really worth to have a camera that looks good on you ;-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>If you don't see a significant difference between 35 mm format and MF in an 8x12" print, you're doing something wrong.</p>

[racerxphoto]

<p>Check out these guys $1 per 120 frame scanned on Nikon 9000<br>

http://www.scancafe.com/pricing/scanning<br>

Havent tested them myself yet</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Another option is to shoot black and white and develop and print yourself in the darkroom. I started with film a couple years ago and find the entire process very rewarding. I've been debating about getting a scanner as well so I can shoot slides and print digitally, but one of the things I love about developing and printing myself is that I'm not on the computer so much. I feel more connected to my images, and I like that I'm not tinkering with PS to make them 'better'. So now I've convinced myself that I don't need color. Look at all the beautiful black and white landscape and portrait work that is out there. I appreciate if it's not for you, and of course I spend time in the bathroom instead of at the computer, but it's something worth considering.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Epson V500 (Epson refurb. site) - actually there IS a difference between this and the 4490 > the V500 has LED lights and the 4490 incandescent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 4490 light source is cold cathode fluorescent (the same kind of light source used in older LCD panels.) Functionally, it's no different from the white LED source in the V500 other than the CCF tube takes a few seconds to warm up. It's a minor net plus actually all the way around; the LED should be cheaper for Epson to source.</p>

<p>I had both the 4490 and V500 at one point. Fine scanners both, especially when considering how inexpensive they were.</p>

<p>To maximize digitization resolution from the V500, scan at 4800dpi then down sample in post to around 2000dpi. This gives around a real 20MP image out of a frame of 6x7. </p>

<p>Don't bother with inexpensive (although admittedly more robust mechanically) third party film holders. The depth of field from this scanner's lens is so deep that film curl is inconsequential. By the way, this is also makes the 4490 and V500 an excellent choice for digitizing life sized 3D objects.</p>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I did get the V500 and scanned some pictures. The only challenge I had with slides is that they're unmounted and had a hard time getting them to stay in the guide that came with the scanner. I also managed to leave fingerprints near the edges but I was careful.</p>

<p><img src="http://hasselbladpics.shutterfly.com/pictures/14#9" alt="" />I've included some pictures I have taken with my 501c and scanned with the V500. When I was at Joshua Tree Monument, it was later in the afternoon and I used my polaraizer to enhance the sky but I obviously didn't compensate enough with the exposures because most were underexposed. Is there a rule of thumb for compensating with a polarizer? Never had this problem with digital because light meter is built into the camera. Obviously I goofed!</p>

 

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I did get the V500 and scanned some pictures. The only challenge I had with slides is that they're unmounted and had a hard time getting them to stay in the guide that came with the scanner. I also managed to leave fingerprints near the edges but I was careful.</p>

<p><img src="http://hasselbladpics.shutterfly.com/pictures/14#9" alt="" />I've included some pictures I have taken with my 501c and scanned with the V500. When I was at Joshua Tree Monument, it was later in the afternoon and I used my polaraizer to enhance the sky but I obviously didn't compensate enough with the exposures because most were underexposed. Is there a rule of thumb for compensating with a polarizer? Never had this problem with digital because light meter is built into the camera. Obviously I goofed!</p>

 

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Here is the link of pics:</p>

<p><a href="http://hasselbladpics.shutterfly.com/pictures/14#9">http://hasselbladpics.shutterfly.com/pictures/14#9</a></p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>I don't think that picture looks underexposed/'undercompensated'.<br>

Perhaps other are, but aren't up on shutterfly?</p>

<p>There is one simple rule re compensation and polarisers: use the fixed compensation that is usually printed on the filter rim, and don't meter through it.<br>

The effect beyond that (and what meters behind the filter register and work against) is what you use that filter for.<br>

If you do not want that, you should not use the filter, or set it so the effect is less.<br>

So just (manually) apply the fixed filter factor, and not meter through the thing.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_tuvman]

<p>Thanks, QG - the pics posted were exposed well. The ones not posted were not worth posting! My polarizer is a Cokin - it's a rectangle shape and slides into the adapter that fits over my lens. I didn't see any notes about compensation but will look into it.<br>

Loading the slides in the adapter really is a p.i.a. I'm going to try negative and see if they're easier.</p>