How do you scan your 35mm B&W film?

[Bruno Gracia]

Pakon 135 Plus

 

[mrred]

I use a V700 with my own DIY fluid mount jig. I have a pre-fab jig, but it is more of a hastle to use and I have yet to get it into perfect focus.

The software is vuescan.

ORWO N74+, Thornton Stand 5/5, I forget the camera

The DIY rig sitting on my (then) 4490. It cost me under $10, not including the scan fluid. I made it in 2010 and I use it to this very day.

My blog article on it....

http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html

 

[Charles S]

+1 For the Pakon

 

[MiniMoke]

I got a Nikon Coolscan IV from an RFF member to replace my Epson V600 and the change in quality and resolution in enormous, though the Coolscan sports only 2900 dpi.... less than the Epson.

I do not need to sharpen in post anymore, well mostly, and get VERY good color results from slides and negative film without any hassle. Before, the Epson produced very often weird color casts on the scans, with Epson Scan, Silverfast and VueScan.

With the automatic film feeder, the scanner is reasonably fast..... well, it takes still more time to scan a couple of rolls than the Epson, but the quality is well worth it.

 

[gilgsn]

Hello,

I just got a Pacific Image 120 yesterday. Upon taking it out of the box I heard a noise inside... Shook it a bit and a screw fell off. I scanned a few 6x7 negatives and the front door fell off! I assume that's where the screw should have been... So, shoddy quality control for sure. It doesn't feel very solid either, not $1300 solid anyway...

Image quality however is a noticeable improvement from the Epson V500.

I could have cleaned it up better, but you get the idea... HP5+, with Pentax 6x7, 105/2.5.

So I am not going to send it back, too long to wait. It does work, just that stupid door missing now. I put a piece of masking tape on the slot when not in use.

What I like is that on 3200dpi the scanner produces an image that has a 3000dpi resolution. There is no need to scan at higher resolution and reduce the image via software.

Gil.

 

[rolfe]

You guys doing mainly 35mm should get a Pakon and not look back...they're only $250.00! Add a V700 if you're doing medium format and that is the cheapest scanning solution you will find that does quality work.

 

[curmudgeon]

I use a V700 for MF scans but I've never been really happy with it for 35mm scans. I recently bought a Plustek 8100. It gives me better 35mm scans but it's annoyingly slow for scanning quantities of frames. My solution, which I just started this week, is to use the V700 to scan the entire roll as an 8x10 transparency, print an 8-1/2x11 B&W "contact sheet" just like I did in my darkroom days, and then use 8100 to scan just the frames I plan to work with. I'd forgotten how much useful information is provided by a contact sheet.

 

[JPSuisse]

Coolscan 5000 with SA-30 so I can scan an entire roll in one go.

@ Jon : Such pictures of such mundane things can be really useful! Thanks for the idea.

Otherwise, I am surprised how many people really get satisfactory results now using digital cameras to *scan*.

Keep the comments coming everybody!

 

[maxwell1295]

You guys doing mainly 35mm should get a Pakon and not look back...they're only $250.00! Add a V700 if you're doing medium format and that is the cheapest scanning solution you will find that does quality work.

This is EXACTLY what I'm doing. Worked out pretty well for me. The Pakon is a godsend...

 

[mrred]

How many bit colour are the scans?

 

[semilog]

Since my old Mikrotek/Polaroid 4000 bit the dust, I've been scanning with the Epson V500. The resolution is not tremendous, but it's fast and I've learned to extract adequate tonality from it. This is 35mm ACROS.



A bigger version is here.

 

[A Y]

The Pakon has 8-bit color. It's good, but sometimes its non-adjustable auto-exposure gets in the way if you purposely shoot low-key or high-key, and it tries to compensate for it.

I go between that and a DSLR digitizer, which can be very high quality, but is much slower, especially for large negatives.

 

[B.Toews]

I'm currently only shooting 35mm, which I "scan" with my Canon 5D or 7D and a Sigma 150mm macro lens. It only takes about 10 minutes per roll, and I'm happy with the quality.

 

[Merlijn53]

I'm currently only shooting 35mm, which I "scan" with my Canon 5D or 7D and a Sigma 150mm macro lens. It only takes about 10 minutes per roll, and I'm happy with the quality.

What's the use of photographing on film if you take this route. Isn't it easier (better)? to use your digital camera to take the picture? Or do you also make "wet" prints?
Frank

 

[Sid836]

Well, to show these photos to your buddies that are far away, you need to scan them in some way. You cannot send the negatives, nor print them and mail them.
It all remains the same though. Also, manipulating your scans on the computer is a cheap way of making an easy preview of what and how to print on paper. I like to scan them first, try different contrast values, different crops and then I decide on what paper to print, how to crop. It saves me a lot in the darkroom especially when deciding to use some expensive papers.
Btw, me too scan the film with a Nikon D90 and a Micro 40mm lens.

 

[Merlijn53]

Well, to show these photos to your buddies that are far away, you need to scan them in some way. You cannot send the negatives, nor print them and mail them.
It all remains the same though. Also, manipulating your scans on the computer is a cheap way of making an easy preview of what and how to print on paper. I like to scan them first, try different contrast values, different crops and then I decide on what paper to print, how to crop. It saves me a lot in the darkroom especially when deciding to use some expensive papers.
Btw, me too scan the film with a Nikon D90 and a Micro 40mm lens.

Well, that makes sense. Maybe I was just thinking a bit narrowminded. Since I have no darkroom at the moment, for me scanning is the only way. I use an Epson v700 for archiving my negatives, like contactsheets and an Imacon for the real work.
Frank

 

[edge100]

What's the use of photographing on film if you take this route. Isn't it easier (better)? to use your digital camera to take the picture? Or do you also make "wet" prints?
Frank

Huh? You don't really lose any of the benefits of film by digitizing it, whether or not you use a scanner or a DSLR to do so.

 

[Merlijn53]

Huh? You don't really lose any of the benefits of film by digitizing it, whether or not you use a scanner or a DSLR to do so.

Well, maybe it's just me, but photographing on film and than photograping this film with your digital camera looks a bit funny to me, unless it's for one of the reasons mentioned above.
I do understand that you do this to have quick access to your pictures for the web etc. I do understand you do this to digitize your existing archive for the same reason. But you're welcome to convince me

 

[mrred]

When you develop BW film, you have access to an oasis of techniques that affect the look of what you shot. Aside from removing dust and other scanning related artifacts, I rarely do anything in PS other than levels. The look is already formed before it get's converted into digital.

My aim is for 'photo-real' and when I shoot digital, it just seems so cold and lifeless.

 

[A Y]

There's a whole community of people who shoot film, digitize it, and then print it on an inkjet printer. You get the best of all worlds: the tonal qualities and highlight response of film, and the power of digital post-processing which let you do things no one short of a master darkroom printer could do in the old days, and a bunch of things no one could do in the old days (eg. precise correction of geometric distortion). Once you have your print proof worked out, you can then replicate that print every single time on the printer.

TOP recently had an interesting example of this: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa.../07/dd-b-on-the-lincoln-memorial-picture.html