Medium format digitizing on a budget challenge

[ColSebastianMoran]

OP asked about making 11x14 prints from 6x9 films. Has 24MPx DSLR, 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, and V500. Here are my comments for trying this equipment and others.

- The V500 will make a good 11x14 print. I've tested 20x30" prints from my V600.
- The 24MPx camera-scan with excellent macro lens and perfect focus will be better. Difference for me is visible in 20x30 prints with close naked-eye inspection.
- The 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor should be good at the magnifications you'll use for 6x9 film to your DX body. (55 f/2.8 is better at 1x; at 1:3 for your application, your lens should be just fine)
- Biggest challenges I see in your quest are focus, film flatness, and alignment. I am unable to get good cam-scan focus thru the view-finder. Instead, focus with Live-View and magnification. Take care with alignment.
- What about film flatness? Test corner focus vs center focus to see if a problem. To deal with flatness, you could use wet mount to glass. You could use ANR glass on non-emulsion side, plain glass on emulsion side; this works very well. But the simplest would be a series of shots focusing on corner, then mid-corner, then near center and finally center. Let Photoshop merge these for focus stacking.

I too have both kinds of equipment; I've gone over 99% to camera-scanning. Much faster, excellent results, and I have more control more easily.

 

[das]

If you really enjoy digitizing medium format and do a lot of it, I would suggest getting a dedicated scanner (not a flatbed). I don't regret it, it's super easy, requires no set up, no $$$ macro lens, and no copy stands and light boxes. Also, who knows how much longer anyone will make one? Vuescan will ensure that if the scanner works, you will always have future software for it. Doing the digital camera route only makes sense if you already have most or all of the equipment.

 

[Doug A]

I have an V600, a Plustek 8100 and a dedicated 35mm scanning rig with a 24 MB mirrorless camera.
- My 6x6 scans using a DigitaLIZA 120 film holder with the V600 are perfectly acceptable for my maximum MF print size of 12x12.
- I occasionally scan 6x6 negatives for a client who commissions very large, i.e., wall size, prints. For these I take six shots with the 35mm setup and stitch them to produce an 81 MB file.
- For the very few 6x9 negatives I have scanned I used the exact same setups as above but had to take nine shots with the 35mm setup.
- My 24 MB scans of 35mm B&W negatives with the digital camera are far better than those from the Epson, better on close examination than those from the Plustek, and far far faster than either.
- My 35mm B&W scanning setup is a Leitz BEOON stand, a 50/2.8 Schneider Componon-S enlarging lens, a Fuji X-T20 with a 24 MB X-Trans sensor, and an old Logan fluorescent light box. Very compactt, very sturdy, no alignment issues, and no focus issues after dialing it in once with live view on the Fuji.

 

[das]

I can't speak to flatbeds or 24mp camera results. I use an older Minolta 5400 and the newest Plustek 120. Both produce outstanding results with very little hassle. But at the end of the day, it's just going to be about the results one will find acceptable from any of the various methods.

 

[Vince Lupo]

If you really enjoy digitizing medium format and do a lot of it, I would suggest getting a dedicated scanner (not a flatbed). I don't regret it, it's super easy, requires no set up, no $$$ macro lens, and no copy stands and light boxes. Also, who knows how much longer anyone will make one? Vuescan will ensure that if the scanner works, you will always have future software for it. Doing the digital camera route only makes sense if you already have most or all of the equipment.

So what is a good dedicated 120 film scanner that’s available today?

 

[das]

So what is a good dedicated 120 film scanner that’s available today?

Plustek OpticFilm 120. There is one more on eBay. Looks like that's the only way to buy them now. They must be made in small batches and only a few are sold at a time. It looks like the company ironed out many of its prior problems with this one.