New to 120 Film

[DRabbit]

You guys have been so helpful to me in the past, so I thought I'd ask my question here.

I've been developing and scanning my own 35mm film now for two years (thanks to all of you!) and it's a blast. Love it.

I decided this year to play around with 120 film a bit. I got a brick sitting in the fridge just waiting to be used. I'm going to give my Yashica 635 a good cleaning and give it a go.

Problem is, I'm not sure what to do about scanning. I currently have a plustek scanner that handles my 35mm negatives very well, but the 120, obviously won't fit.

Are there affordable scanners out there for 120 film... something like the plustek that offers a good balance of resolution vs. value for money? I don't mind it it's slow or lacks some fancier features, as long as I can get decent resolution files.

Thanks in advance...

[jordanstarr]

...not really a lot of affordable options for really good 120 scanners. You will likely have to go with a flatbed and that will be good for web, but questionable for print. I've seen examples of prints with a V750 and 120 film that were impressive, but it's no darkroom print, that's for sure. I have a Nikon 8000ED that I bought used for just over $1000 6 years ago and it's running strong and it's a little too much for me because I still use the darkroom and only use it for the web. You could sell the Plustek and get an epson v700 and it will do 35mm and 120 good for web. Minolta makes a Multi-scan that does 120 and 35mm, which is a cheaper option used than the Nikon 8000 or 9000.

If you want a good, cheap flatbed for 120, I can recommend the Canon 8800F as I have used it and it gives really good 120 scans for web.

I think a cheap 120 flatbed is good for web and send it out for a drum scan if there's a few negs you REALLY like and pay the $15-30 per scan rather than thousands up front for something you might not like.

[z.bruce.li]

I have been quite happy with my Epson V700 flatbed scanner for the last few years. The difficulty with 120 film is how to keep it flat and thus the whole frame in focus for the scanner. I tried to be patient and flatten the film under a big stack of heavy books overnight; I tried both the Epson film holder and BetterScanning holder (with plastic guides or glass). If I can get the film really flat, I get excellent results from this scanner and can see clearly defined film grain in the scan. But 35mm and 4x5 sheet film seem to keep flat much better than 120 roll film.

I normally scan at 2400 dpi for 120/220 roll and 4x5 sheet film, which seems plenty resolution for my purpose. The DMax might not be that great, since I have trouble scanning really dark Velvia 50.

[PhotoMat]

As an affordable start, you might want to check out the Epson flatbed scanners. I use a 4990 (which was superseded by the V700) with very good results. If I'm printing something for a gallery showing, I send my transparencies out for a drum scan.

[Araakii]

I use V600 and it's already more than enough for my purposes.

[DRabbit]

I do have an epson flatbed scanner already, but I think it's a cheaper model (v90 maybe)... in all reality, at this point I'll likely just need web sizes, but it would be nice to have the ability to get more out of the scans from home if possible.

I do accept if it isn't though...

[filmfan]

I don't print from scans, so the V500 is ideal (and only like $60). When I did, I used the Nikon Coolscan 8000 and it was really nice. You can buy them used or refurbished.

[Dana B.]

My v500 is perfect for monitor/web use. If I should ever want a large print, I'll send it out. Don't sink too much $$$ into it. Until, that is, you get the bug ;p.

[GaryLH]

If u think u will ever do bigger than 120, the Epson 700 or 750 would be that way to go since it comes with 35mm, 120, and 4x5 negative holders.

Nikon 8000 and 9000 is going to give u better scan quality then the flatbed scanners, but their max is 120 film...

Good luck
Gary

[mfogiel]

Epson V700 will suffice with the right holders for an enlargement up to say 6x. An alternative would be to swap your current Plustek for the new one which is supposed to scan 120 film as well. Should you find a Nikon CS8000/9000 go for it, as it is a step above and has better handling of colour and Dmax too.

[segedi]

Depending on how much you see shooting 120, you may want to have it scanned at a lab. See if they can do an uncut roll if you dev yourself - if they dev, have them also do a low res scan.

Or shoot slide film and just appreciate those little gems as is.

[GaryLH]

Btw if u go for the Nikon 8000 or 9000, on Dante site read his comments on how to get the best results with the supplied Nikon 120 negative holder.

Gary

[DRabbit]

Thanks so much everyone... lots to look at from the info you've already given me!

Epson V700 will suffice with the right holders for an enlargement up to say 6x. An alternative would be to swap your current Plustek for the new one which is supposed to scan 120 film as well. Should you find a Nikon CS8000/9000 go for it, as it is a step above and has better handling of colour and Dmax too.

I didn't even know they were making a new one - but a quick search reveals it may retail for about $1500-2000, which at this point would be way above budget. Though it does look nice :)

[Araakii]

I don't print from scans, so the V500 is ideal (and only like $60). When I did, I used the Nikon Coolscan 8000 and it was really nice. You can buy them used or refurbished.

If I could find a V500 for $60 at the time, I would have bought it too!

[ColSebastianMoran]

With the V500 or V600 I get sharp prints up to 6x the linear dimension of the film. So, this is way better than "web" quality from 120 film.

And, I like my prints sharp enough that I can put my nose right up to the print.

They are very reasonable in price. True resolution seems to be 1350 ppi in one direction and almost 2000 ppi in the other direction. Don't believe the quoted "optical resolution." The V700 or V750 should be somewhat better.

The V500 and V600 are cheap. Keep you 35mm scanner and try one of these for 120.

[shadowfox]

Microtek Scanmaker i800.
Cheaper than V500, just as good.

[DRabbit]

Thanks again for all the info everyone. I'll take a look and research a little on all the suggestions you've sent, but I'll probably end up going the v500 or v600 route to start with.

Next step is to get off my butt and clean the 635!

[GaryLH]

Have fun with the 635. It was how I started in 120 back in college. Mine had the 35mm adapter but I never used it except once to c how it worked.

Gary

[boomguy57]

You might also consider having them scanned for you to save yourself the hassle and expense of buying a scanner (until you're sure you want to keep going with it). I use North Coast Photo for my 120 processing and their scans are excellent too.

[Crazy Fedya]

I bought Canoscan 9000f about a year ago, and i like it very much. It is more than enough for my modest needs. You can have it well under $200. If you are interested, see if Berger Bros. in Amityville have it in stock, then when you go down there ask for Brett Evan, and he will do what he can for you.

[cabbiinc]

B&H used section usually has Epson V500 refurb units for $100. For web use for 120 film I use something that's not even that good.

[keytarjunkie]

I make 20x24 digital prints via an Epson V700, I like the quality (I also use an Imacon, and the difference is probably not worth how much it costs and how much service it requires). I've made up to 30x40 prints of 4x5 scans on the V700 too. It's a great scanner.

[Lovesong]

If you do decide to go with the V500/600, or any flatbed for that matter, have a look at Doug Fisher's holders- head and shoulders above Epson's, holds the film flat, and you can actually adjust it to get the sharpest plane of focus.
http://www.betterscanning.com/

[digitalintrigue]

I use Indie Film Lab. $8 a roll for C41 and B+W including high res scans (Pixel Height: 3,533 Pixel Width: 4,824 -- this is for 645 format)

When the roll is done, you simply download the scans.

They'll hold your negs and ship them in bulk after you've done a bunch of rolls, results in the minimum possible return shipping costs.

[Aristophanes]

I use a V500 and it is more than adequate for web viewing files. If I want more resolution, I send it out for scanning and printing.

I also am starting to see the merits of the Noritsu's/Frontier's at places like Precision and Indie.

[kmallick]

I use Indie Film Lab. $8 a roll for C41 and B+W including high res scans (Pixel Height: 3,533 Pixel Width: 4,824)

When the roll is done, you simply download the scans.

They'll hold your negs and ship them in bulk after you've done a bunch of rolls, results in the minimum possible return shipping costs.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but thanks for suggesting the Indie Film Lab. Good to see some options on affordable developing + scanning deal beside PCV and NCPS. How is their turnaround, if I don't mind you asking?

[ColSebastianMoran]

The machine scans at Precision (sponsor here) and North Coast Photographic Services (San Diego CA) are excellent. Only jpg are available.

[thegman]

I would suggest you have a look at the Canoscan 8800 or 9000, they are pretty cheap, and you can get good results if you work at it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS9000/9000F.HTM

It really depends how much resolution and sharpness you need, but I think unless you have very high standards indeed, a flatbed can get very good results.

[digitalintrigue]

Indie also uses Noritsu and Frontier and the turn-around is faster than both NCPS and Precision (I've used them all) because you don't have to wait for return mail with Indie, you can simply download. I don't believe they do E6, however. NCPS is the best option for that, as Precision sends the E6 to another lab and bumps the price up to cover it.

$8/roll for dev/scan from Indie is the same as just the B&W upcharge from Precision...

Considering all the time and effort that scanning requires (keeping negs flat, dust spotting, etc.) I can't imagine doing them myself and ending up with a lower res image...

Last rolls sent to Indie took 8 days, and a few minutes to download.

[digitalintrigue]

Sample from Indie, Portra 400. This is straight from the download, no edits.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7204504692_d63a7048ee_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjagitsch/7204504692/)
000098700008.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjagitsch/7204504692/) by restoration35 (http://www.flickr.com/people/rjagitsch/), on Flickr

[kmallick]

I would suggest you have a look at the Canoscan 8800 or 9000, they are pretty cheap, and you can get good results if you work at it:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS9000/9000F.HTM

It really depends how much resolution and sharpness you need, but I think unless you have very high standards indeed, a flatbed can get very good results.

+1 for a Canon 9000F (+ Vuescan + 120 film holder with ANR glass from betterscanning.com). The combo works very well for me for the 120 rolls of B&W I develop myself at home.

[MartinP]

If it is "only" for web-use, and you have a DSLR, just make a negative holder out of mounting-board offcuts and a couple of spring-clips. Suspend this assembly a few feet over a piece of white card lit from at least a few feet away (by almost any sort of desk-lamp or foto-lamp, or even the sun). In my case, I rest my enlarger neg-carrier on a piece of clear perspex, overhanging the reflector, balanced on top of a cardboard-box - but there are an infinite number of ways of arranging things.

Make a careful focus and wriggling-around, using live-view from a tripod, looking at all the corners of your neg, then bracket a few stops to give a choice of exposures. Putting a simple chimney of black card above the neg and around the lens , to reduce unwanted reflections from above the assembly, is a good idea too.

The idea that hundreds of dollars or euros are necessary for quickie scans seems odd. Spend the money on film!! (or send it to me).

[PatrickT]

I've been scanning my 120 myself on an Epson V500 with decent results. It can certainly be frustrating though.

Now that I've heard about Indie Film Lab (above), I may start doing that!

[kuzano]

Thanks again for all the info everyone. I'll take a look and research a little on all the suggestions you've sent, but I'll probably end up going the v500 or v600 route to start with.

Next step is to get off my butt and clean the 635!

I wanted to find out if home scanning was worthwhile. I love to shoot images, but I am not interested in hours spent on scanning film unless I can reach reasonable results.

I sent a couple of rolls of 120 transparency film to a professional lab to get an idea of potential quality. Pricing was very high... with shipping, processing, scanning and ship back, I spent almost $35 for two rolls. Ouch!!

However, then I bought a new V500 Epson, scanned a couple of rolls of 120, plus about 100 35mm slides. The 35mm slides were just OK (for the web), but the holders that come with the Epson for MF are pretty bad. Considered the betterscanning holders, but after spending hours on the various processes, packed the V500 up and sold it.

Now in fairness, I think the V500 is about as capable as scanning gets up to 120/220 using any of the flatbeds I have researched. Going prices on used (and almost always LNIB) is around $100.

I see a lot of referenced to Nikon scanners (8000, 9000). However, since Nikon discontinued those scanners, I see prices up to $4000 for used on eBay. WAY out of any budget I could consider.

Scanning takes a lot of the fun out of film photography for me, if I try to do it. Sorry, but I will pay someone to do it. I spend one heck of a lot of money on my photography. Seems ridiculous to try to shave pennies at the very end of the process. I don't have all my images scanned, so the cost of having scans done is a relatively small part of the game.

Now again, in fairness to those who like to scan, I did do the same exercise a couple of years later with an Epson V750. Same fiddly, constantly tweaking the system, results. Same end result, sold the scanner.

And again my same bottom line. I have lots of money invested in camera gear to get the best images I can. I'm not likely to compromise the images by trying to scan them myself. I constantly hear that even with professional (drum) scanners, it's often more a question of how many hours and expertise the operator has under his/her belt.

I just plain think that home scanning is a waste of both money and my time. Of course if you are only scanning for web... different story. My goal was to scan for print. I don't display my images on the web.

[kmallick]

I just plain think that home scanning is a waste of both money and my time. Of course if you are only scanning for web... different story. My goal was to scan for print. I don't display my images on the web.

Scanning is definitely painstaking but not a waste of time and money for me. It takes patience, good techniques and a workflow that works best for you.

I prefer to scan only those 'with care' that I need for printing. High-res scans in TIFF from labs are expensive, especially ones from 120. But either jpeg scans or small print proofs from labs help me to decide which one need to be scanned with care.

For b&w, I would much rather wet print than spend hours fiddling with scanning. But then again quick scanning helps to identify frames that are the best picks and for web sharing.

As for E-6 slides from 120, I just get sad when I scan them. I would much rather project or at least view them by holding up against light.

[BobYIL]

120 is not like 35mm; I do not think you will have a lot to scan in a week.

Better stay away from the expensive Nikon or Minolta dedicated scanners as they are rather risky to use in the years coming; all have been discontinued. In the meantime I have seen some professional results from the Epson series from V500 up to 750; indeed impressive for both web as well as up to A2 enlargements. In case you come up with a few worth of highest quality then send them to drum scanning.

IMO, a good used V600 can be obtained for around $150 (or a new Canon 9000F for $175) to be an appropriate match for your 635.

[digitalintrigue]

Here is the math for my circumstance:

I average mailing about 4 rolls of 120 at a time.

Costs using Indie:

Outbound postage: $0.38/roll ($1.50 per 4 rolls, for USPS first class with tracking -- these travel with priority mail and usually arrive in two days.)
Padded envelope: 0.25
Indie develop and scan: $8
Sales tax: $0.00
Return postage: $0.20 (every six months, 50+ rolls in a medium flat rate priority box at ~$10 = 0.20/roll)

Total: $8.83

Costs if I scan at home: (There is only one local lab that will do C41 and B&W.)

Develop only: $8.88 (including sales tax) for B&W, $7.03 for C41.
Outbound postage: $0.38/roll (can't do it by car, it's 20+ miles or about $7 in gas round trip to drop off the film, and $7 round trip to pick it up.)
Padded envelope: 0.25
Return postage: $1.25/roll (Approx $5 for 4 rolls uncut, via priority mail small flat rate box)

Total: $10.76 for B&W, $8.91 for C41

So it's already more expensive to scan at home, and I don't have any scanned images yet!

Plus I can't get the resolution or the quality, I can't scan infinitely fast, not to mention the tedium of dust spotting, film flatness, and all the rest….

(I suppose I could send the 120 out via the Wal Mart route, which is cheap but would involve driving time and gas expense, and dealing with the Wal Mart vibe, and two week turn around, but I'd still have to do the scanning.)

Bottom line: I'd rather spend my time shooting than scanning.

[kmallick]

Thats all good. For normal color C41 processing I am with you.


So it's already more expensive to scan at home, and I don't have any scanned images yet!

But some of us like to develop B&W at home. :cool:



Bottom line: I'd rather spend my time shooting than scanning.
Amen!

[kuzano]

Scanning is definitely painstaking but not a waste of time and money for me. It takes patience, good techniques and a workflow that works best for you.

I prefer to scan only those 'with care' that I need for printing. High-res scans in TIFF from labs are expensive, especially ones from 120. But either jpeg scans or small print proofs from labs help me to decide which one need to be scanned with care.

For b&w, I would much rather wet print than spend hours fiddling with scanning. But then again quick scanning helps to identify frames that are the best picks and for web sharing.

As for E-6 slides from 120, I just get sad when I scan them. I would much rather project or at least view them by holding up against light.

Those three items you mention in sentence two of paragraph 1.... Don't Gottem!!! Then, beyond that, I heartily respect and relate to what you say.... for you. Scanning, in particular, deciding what to scan and what to take other alternatives, is a delicate balancing act.

It's somewhat like the story about the guys who hire a guide to go "bear hunting".

The first day out in the cabin at the hunt, the "guide" gets up early, get's dressed, and tells the hunters, "you guys wait here in the cabin. I'm gonna go out and have a look around". About an hour later, the hunters hear a commotion outside and look out to see the "guide" running like hell down the hill, an angry bear on his tail, shouting "Open the door... Open the door!!!"

Just at the last moment, he steps aside, lets the bear run into the cabin, reaches in and closes the door, staying outside himself. Then he shouts to the hunters inside... "OK, you guys skin that one out... I'm gonna go get another one!! Be ready for me."

So I say... OK you guys scan those images..... I'm gonna go out and get some more!!!

[charjohncarter]

My v500 is perfect for monitor/web use. If I should ever want a large print, I'll send it out. Don't sink too much $$$ into it. Until, that is, you get the bug ;p.

I agree the V500 is great for up to 8x10. I have one and use it almost every other day. I think mine was under $200;

120, 6x9, pardon the wide angle distortion:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7028/6472198653_2ae7149347.jpg

[KenR]

Scanners are great, but a REAL monochrome print done in a darkroom is something to behold. Used enlargers are dirt cheap - think about it.

[Haigh]

I am happy with my Epson V700 but if I am to exhibit prints I get the negs professionally scanned.