Flatbed for film in 2015

[btgc]

Recently I've started to use MF cameras and came to conclusion I can't reliably scan 120 film with reflective type flatbed. I can get some usable scans using frosted glass and daughters tablet, even sometimes without tablet and using only ambient light but it's hit or miss. External light isn't too convenient. Sometimes I get strange pixelated pattern all over image, sometimes exposure varies wildly. So I decided to splurge for flatbed with 120 in mind as I have scanner for 135 type.

Watching prices for used scanners of last generations I came to conclusion they aren't cheap. Some 10 years old are OK but also far from free (add shipping, too), yet who knows how they keep on. New scanners - I rejected Epsons of V700+ because of price and pulled trigger on V550. I won't use PSE so thanks, no love for V600.

V550 isn't cheapest thing considering that money could bring macro lens (or help to fund it) for DSLR+Macro scanning setup but my DSLR is first gen 6mpix gizmo so lens alone wouldn't help me a lot. I figured I'll use V550 for 120 film and judging from pictures I see around, maybe to proof 135 as it does two strips of 6 at a time (instead of pushing film carrier for each frame now).

Probably I just postponed most logical step....what do you think? I haven't got scanner yet so can't say what I get from it and how I like it.

 

[Scapevision]

I am using a v600 with great results, mind you I have 2-3 years of perfecting my workflow, and hit a sweet spot. It's all about your expectations and knowing how to get the best out of what you got.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

V550 is good enough for 120 if you are into photography, not pixel peeping.
It does extremely good job for 135 bw if you are OK with prints up to 8x11.
It is no slouch for color either.
And it is all done in automatic mode by the native software with easy editing in LR.

I don't know about pricing where you are. My 550 was purchased new well under $200.
It means used it is worth $100 maximum.

 

[btgc]

I'm aware some people are bashing stock holders but here I decided to hold on as there are many OK scans around. People using aftermarket holders usually mention them so I'm expecting stock holders as not most sophisticated but usable. Sometimes people also don't read instructions or just opt for easier solution if it's offered, even if for extra.

Hitting a sweet spot, that's what I mean. Just like with any other thing.

 

[btgc]

V550 is good enough for 120 if you are into photography, not pixel peeping.
....
It means used it is worth $100 maximum.

Agreed on practical needs. It's possible to use sports car to commute to office but one has to be a horsepower peeper to enjoy this. I'm not.

Late euro isn't as it used to be, but even used units cost about half and more than new V550, yet they have to be waited for and transported. I'm getting to get new and even adding a bit for extended 5 years (2+3) warranty for peace of mind (OK, that could be unnecessary, but I'm going to finish my flickr subscription which covers that extra).

 

[Swift1]

I'm aware some people are bashing stock holders but here I decided to hold on as there are many OK scans around. People using aftermarket holders usually mention them so I'm expecting stock holders as not most sophisticated but usable. Sometimes people also don't read instructions or just opt for easier solution if it's offered, even if for extra.

Hitting a sweet spot, that's what I mean. Just like with any other thing.

The stock holders work fine if your film is flat.
If your film is curled, the stock holder won't hold it flat which can have a big impact on image quality.

 

[btgc]

The stock holders work fine if your film is flat.

Oh, that's the catch - holders don't have crossbars to keep film flat. Another stimulus to cut film and let it rest for some time before scanning. Slows down slow film route even more 🙂

I believe there are ways to help flattening film in holder, even if they call for some work.

 

[Joao]

... I believe there are ways to help flattening film in holder, even if they call for some work...

With a Canon scanner I made two narrow glass plates precisely the size of the space the film occupies in the holder; those glass plates are placed over the fim in the holder and they keep the film flat.

With 120 film I use larger glass plates over the film; the film lays directly on the scanner glass (I have previously marked the precise position the film must be in).

I get decent scans, at least for web posting - I've not yet tried to make large prints from them.

Regards

Joao

 

[btgc]

With a Canon scanner I made two narrow glass plates precisely the size of the space the film occupies in the holder; those glass plates are placed over the fim in the holder and they keep the film flat.

I have to see holders in life, but similar idea has occurred to me. Even better if upper frame would be wider by a tiny fraction to let glass rest on edges of lower part instead of film only.

With 120 film I use larger glass plates over the film; the film lays directly on the scanner glass (I have previously marked the precise position the film must be in).

When scanner is in film mode, isn't focus adjusted automatically slightly higher than glass surface to adjust for elevation holders provide?

 

[Jockos]

I got a refurbished 12mp Sony Nex camera and a Zuiko macro lens for about the same as a v600, mind you that was a few years ago, and you'd get a higher resolution camera today.
While I do scan with a flatbed, I certainly don't like the results. I use them only for small web uploads, anything that's to be printed goes to the Nex macro, even small prints.

 

[btgc]

I got a refurbished 12mp Sony Nex camera and a Zuiko macro lens for about the same as a v600....
While I do scan with a flatbed, I certainly don't like the results

I admit I haven't researched macro scanning thoroughly. While 135 film can be digitized using slide duplication units, 120 film adapter also can be made - for 6x9 which would work also for 6x45 and 6x6. Or light table to lay film on + stand for camera.

Do you digitize also 120 film using your macro rig?

 

[Jockos]

I admit I haven't researched macro scanning thoroughly. While 135 film can be digitized using slide duplication units, 120 film adapter also can be made - for 6x9 which would work also for 6x45 and 6x6. Or light table to lay film on + stand for camera.

Do you digitize also 120 film using your macro rig?

No, but 4x5!
I don't do 120 at all any more, gave my last rolls away because I thought it was such a hassle with the format; loading it in the camera, loading it on the developing reels, loading it in the flimsy flatbed (canon) holders, it was just to much of a PITA!
If you had say a clamping enlarger holder, I think you'd do well with a macro 🙂

 

[Joao]

When scanner is in film mode, isn't focus adjusted automatically slightly higher than glass surface to adjust for elevation holders provide?

Yes, it is supposed to work that way. I had those plates cut to fit the 120 film holder and comparing the results with them on the film holder and on the glass surface I found no visible difference... But keep in mind that I am using rather small files for web viewing only. If you want to get large files or make prints, that will be a different matter.
Or maybe my CanoScan 8800 f is so bad that the differences are not visible🙄

 

[btgc]

After playing with just-received V550 I have impression it's quite OK for proofing, web, small prints and such purposes.

One 6x9 frame didn't want to be detected properly, yet some 35mm mounted slides were detected with mounts when placed with carved side of mount on glass.

MF scans are visibly softer that those from lab but look more natural yet can be sharpened.

Color negs required little to no corrections in both 135 and 120. I scanned two strips of 135 in holder - one as suggested, emulsion up and another emulsion down and didn't notice any differences, but I'll look closer for sake of science. Yet at 1200 dpi setting and USM+GRAIN reduction (no ICE) gives me what I get from Canon FS2710 at 1800dpi but with better white balance automatically. So Canon stays for max res scans of 135 and Epson does 135 for web and 120 for everything.

First impression is good, except size - scanner occupies quite a space on desk, compared to narrow Canon. I have to figure out some scheme how to re-organize desk.

Loved clean, snappy sounds of new mechanisms. I ordered 3 years of extra warranty in addition to default 2 years so I have another time span for film.