Any hints for scanning old 120 (620?) negative?

[dmr]

I've just re-discovered an old negative, which may very well be the very first available light photo I ever took. This was a time exposure, absolute wild-guess slop shot, some unknown fraction of a second click-click, with my dad's old folder (Monitor?) which had a true time (click once to open, again to close) as opposed to bulb. I braced the camera on a box my brother had with him and made a wild guess on the time and exposure. I was maybe 15-16 at the time.

Anyway, I used the large HP flatbed scanner at work, put a bright white sheet of paper on top of the negative, set the resolution to 2400, and made a scan, and read it into Photoshop. With just some cropping and levels, it looks much better than the print I remember of this one, which was grayish and yucky. It's better than the original print, but I have a feeling it would look still better with a real negative scanner. The scan looks overexposed, but the negative looks more or less normal.

Anybody know any hints for scanning negatives on a flatbed scanner? The one thing I did determine by trial and error is that scanning the non-emulsion side gives more highlight detail than scanning the emulsion side. (Or should I just bite the bullet and take this into the lab for a real scan?) 🙂

The attachment is with just some cropping and levels. I know there's some spotting of dirt and such to be done.

TIA! 🙂

 

[XAos]

My epson handles transparancies, but the film holder isn't designed for 120 film. I can lay a 6x45 over the 35mm slide holes but it's not big enough for 6x7. I've never gotten results anywhere near as good as you did trying to scan a negative in reflective mode.

 

[Kin Lau]

My current Microtek scanner has a lightlid good for 120 & 4x5's, so it's no problem. The problem with most flatbeds often is the light reflecting off the negative from under the glass that'll make it hard to get a good scan. You might get better results if you have a digicam. Just tape the neg against a white sheet of paper against the window, take a picture of it, and reverse it in PS. If you have a light table, that'll work too.

 

[RayPA]

I use an Epson 4180 (flatbed). It can scan 35 & 120 strips (The 120 holder has a built-in diffuser). I've been scanning 25+ year 120 negatives with it and it works great. I've yet to print any but I'm very happy with the scans.

 

[titrisol]

I just wonder... can you put a "light table" on top of the scanner?

 

[oftheherd]

I just wonder... can you put a "light table" on top of the scanner?

I'd say google it. I remember seeing just such a thing and I thought I had it bookmarked. If I did, I can't find it amoung the about 200 bookmarks I currently have.

 

[kiev4a]

I have a Canon 9950F flatbed that will scan negs up to 4x5. I always get better results off B&W negs that aren't too contrasty. I seem to have less problems with Newton's Rings if I scan emulsion side down. If there isn't a light source behind the negative the results aren't likely to be very consistant. I'm surprised your's came out as good as it did.

 

[XAos]

I tried, but 1) you'd have to disable the scanner's light for reflective mode - it competes otherwise, and 2) my light table (a porta trace no less) has little hexagonal grid marks visible with the light on, and is somewhat uneven - not enough to worry you when eyeballing negatives but I think it would also show in the scan.

#1 is the kicker though. There are a few scanners which have 8.5x11" transparancy lids. I think it's about the ONLY way to go for LF, and probably not a bad way to go for MF too. Someone pasted a 3rd party 120 holder with adjustable cross bars in another thread recently - ran about $30, but I never contacted him about my scanner, so I dont know if it's supported.

Older Minolta Multi's seem to run around $150ish on ebay, 1200dpi range and 3.6D. But a couple of them dont sell at that price too (reserve almost always means they want too much - we have an SGI onyx at work that was north of 1/4 mil new. It's a printer stand now. People who buy very expensive tools often have trouble coming to grips with reality down the road. A lamborghini with severe body rust, warped heads, stripped gears, and 500k miles CANT be worthless!!!)

 

[GeneW]

I'm using an Epson 2450 which is ancient by scanner standards but does a good job of scanning 120 and up (to 4x5). I'll bet the 2450's could be found used for very little these days.

Gene

 

[dmr]

If there isn't a light source behind the negative the results aren't likely to be very consistant. I'm surprised your's came out as good as it did.

On "another network" there was a similar discussion where one guy said that a trick is to put a bright white sheet of paper on top of the negative, in addition to the scanner cover. I really don't know if that helped or not. 🙂

The scan I have came out much better than the original print I remember. I remember being disappointed but not surprised at the gray-ness of it. Of course if I knew then what I do now --- the negative looks good, maybe a wee bit overexposed, but I would have had that reprinted. I may just get a commercial scan done. I remember that camera would do tack-sharp 8x10 enlargements, so it may be possible to get a good print out of this one. 🙂

 

[kiev4a]

If you could come up with a piece of ground glass you probably count use any number of different light sources and the glass would diffuse it evenly enough to get decent resuts.