126 or 110 film on Nikon Coolscan or Epson Perfection

[dale_lundy]

<p>I have Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED and an Epson Perfection 3170.<br>

The Nikon works well for 35mm. However I have that almost complete and now need to look at old 126 and 110 film. I'd rather scan it on the Nikon, but the Epson doesn't do a bad job and I'm guessing that the quality of the negatives will be the limiting factor anyway for that film.<br>

I see no way to scan this film in the Nikon.<br>

The Epson has some plastic film holders that the 126 film will slide into, however it crops off part of the negative, and could well scratch it sliding in and out.<br>

I saw on one website some holders, but they were fairly expensive for a piece of plastic, and they required that you modify your Adaptor on the Nikon, something I'm not willing to do.<br>

Has anyone had any success in scanning either of these film types on either scanner, or a similar scanner?<br>

<br />Dale</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I scan 126-films in my Coolscan V.</p>

<p>I have decided long time ago that I would not have more prints from 126-films made by any print shops, and that I would print these myself on my own Epson. The Coolscan V is delivered with a slide holder, which ordinarily is used for slides. I believe you can still get slide mounts for 126-film. Therefore, I don't mind cutting the 4-image negative strips into single negative units. If you cut your 126 film strips into single frames and scan them in the slide mount, you should be OK. But try first with some frames that are not of great value to you.</p>

<p>If you cannot get 126 frames, you could also try 135-frames, and rotate one of the sides 90 degrees. The open light area would then be 24x24mm, which is the 126-format. (Not all frames are suitable for this, though...)</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Try this..... <a href="http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html">http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html</a></p>

[dale_lundy]

<p>Per-Christian, so far as the slide holder, do you mean the MA-21? I can see how mounting the negatives as slides would work. On the other hand, since I need to scan them all to be able to see what I want to keep, it would be very time-consuming. I had to remount a number of glass-mount slides to scan them and it wasn't fast. Still, fast and efficient may not be an option. </p>

<p>I know there is an FH-3 film holder available for the Nikon but I don't know if it will hold 126 or 110.</p>

<p>Peter, I looked at the site. If I read and see correctly, the glass is on top, the film under that, and the acetate underneath?</p>

<p>This sounds time-consuming and messy. However there may not be a method that isn't, so having some way to do it may be better than none at all.</p>

<p>You said "If you use the fluid I suggested, you can use clear acetate, otherwise a sheet of clear mylar will have to be used." (Where can one get a mylar sheet?) Does that means the mylar replaces both the acetate and the scanning fluid? It sounds like that would be much less messy and faster? But I'm wondering since that isn't the preferred method.</p>

<p>I just found the following statement on the Epson web site a few minute ago -- "To scan 110 film, place it face-down on the document table. (Your images and any wording on the film strips should appear backwards on the side that faces up). Be sure to position the film directly underneath the transparency unit window located in the scanner cover." That sounds fairly simple, except for the fact that the negatives are curled, therefore I will have get a piece of glass or something transparent to hold them flat in order to see if this works. Presumably the same thing would work for 126.</p>

<p>Dale</p>

<p> </p>

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, I looked at the site. If I read and see correctly, the glass is on top, the film under that, and the acetate underneath?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Opposite. It's only as messy as any other wet mount. For 110, it is by far the best milage.</p>

<p>Here is a 110.... from that $150 4490......</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6170/6145990910_103154fb76_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>And no cutting of the negs.....</p>

[dale_lundy]

<p>Impressive from a 110! Most of my really old photos are 126's, but presumably the same process would work. Two questions:</p>

<p>Does the reason to layer for optimal height has to do with scanner focus? Since there is no focus adjustment, it must autofocus. In that case, why not lay the glass directly on the scanner glass?</p>

<p>Also, does this take care of film which is curled (as some of mine seems to be) or is something else necessary?</p>

<p>Dale</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Dale,</p>

<p>The height is for the focus as it is a fixed focus scanner. It's not rocket science, as you can ball park it from the holders that come with the scanner.</p>

<p>You shouldn't lay the film on the scanner glass because the focal plane is expected to be above the glass. It's optimized to be that way.</p>

<p>Film curl should be at a minimum. Edge to edge is the worst kind of curl, but length wise is completely acceptable. i just roll up the film opposite of the curl and stick it in a 35mm film case for about 1/2 hour.</p>

<p>When you spray the fluid on the glass, the film will effectively bond and you will be good to go. I have used both acetate and mylar and I find the acetate breaks down less, but is a little soft (scratches easier). Acetate can be goten by the sheet at any art store.</p>

<p>The point of all this, is it doesn't have to be expensive. It doesn't mean it is without effort. You can scan any format this way.</p>

<p>Since then I have moved up to a v700 and a better scanning wet mount tray. My tray holds up, but I do appreciate the thicker glass of the better scanning one.</p>

 

[dale_lundy]

<p>I see. Although I got an adequate scan from laying the film directly on the scanner glass, there may be increased sharpness from a small height adjustment. I have to admit, I don't understand, since a document/photo scan focuses on paper/photo laid directly on the scanner glass, why the focus would be optimized to be above the glass, not on it.</p>

<p>The curl I have on the 126 film is edge-edge, and is fairly severe in the first batch I looked at. Can something be done about that, or does the suction of the fluid take care of it?</p>

<p>I notice the V700 is fairly expensive. Is the quality significantly better than the 3170? I don't know at this point the contents or quality of the 126 strips which make up the bulk of my older non-35mm strips, so that would play a role as well, I'd imagine.</p>

<p>I looked on the BetterScanning website after reading your post. It looked like the Better Scanning option would be easier to get the height adjustment. Beyond that, though, is the time and effort to use yours and it about the same, or does it vary by any significant amount?</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts!</p>

<p>Dale</p>

 

[peterbcarter]

<p>When the software sets the transparency mode (film) there is usually an internal adjustment for the focus lens. Not all scanners may behave like this, but the mid-upper range ones do.</p>

<p>You can scan right on the glass, as it may still be in the DOF of the lens. I opted not to do this for a few reasons. 1) It's a pain to clean a glass that you can't remove. 2) Some of the fluid may cause damage on internal parts, if they get in there. 3) not using scanning fluid results in moire patterns in the scanned image.</p>

<p>The v700 is a little more than your budget and I have never used a 3170. Sorry, I cannot compare. The 4490 did get me acceptable results (above) at $150.</p>

<p>The use of the Better Scanning mount and mine are identical. I would suggest a trip to a dollar store or walmart be in order, if you are still deciding. It's not much of a project but will certainly help you make a clear decision.</p>

<p>I am not disappointed with the Better Scanning tray, but I would not have purchased it knowing that there was no real gain with what I already had.</p>

 

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>The curl I have on the 126 film is edge-edge, and is fairly severe in the first batch I looked at. Can something be done about that, or does the suction of the fluid take care of it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To a point. Re roll it like I described above, and it will take care of it.</p>

[dale_lundy]

<p>I did notice a moire pattern in the 110 and 126 samples I tried to scan directly on the glass. I thought until I read your post it was a fingerprint that had gotten on several of the frames. Now I see it's not that at all.</p>

<p>I was not aware of wet holders or of scanning fluid until you posted in this thread. I've done more reading, and it seems apparent, as the photo you posted attests to, that this is going to be necessary to get a decent quality scan. I've been convinced to pick up the supplies, find a place to order some scanning fluid and give it a try.</p>

<p>As I understand it above the scanner glass platen you'd have the height of the cardboard legs, the sheet of glass you lay the film on, then the film (and then the acetate cover). I'd assume the clip frame glass must be fairly thin not to overextend the height beyond the scanner focal range.</p>

<p>I appreciate your help!</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>The glass does not have to be thin. The fluid makes the glass,film,acetate optically one unit. That's why there is such a thing as scanning fluid, it's made to be optically transparent.</p>

<p>I initially chose the clip frame because I had some to try. You do not need a big sheet of glass to do 110. You might have something to use already.</p>