Need an inexpensive 35mm/120 scanner

David Murphy

David Murphy

Veteran
Local time
4:50 AM
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
2,831
I am looking for an inexpensive reasonably good quality scanner that can handle 35mm and 120. It can be a flat bed scanner. I bought a Canon Canonscan 8800F not long after it came out and have had endless problems getting it to scan 120 film. When I actually get it to work, the results with 120 are not that impressive. It had good reviews at the time. It is acceptable for 35mm only in my experience. Also, I find the Canon software to be awful - not intuitive, and in fact confusing as hell.

I don't care if my replacement scanner is a model a few years old and no longer made, so long as it has USB and works well. I prefer to use it on a Mac, but I can use it on a PC if that's what it takes. I am perfectly happy buying a used or surplus model on eBay to save money.

Anyone have any thoughts? I had good luck a few years ago with some borrowed Epson flat bed units, but I can't remember the model numbers. I'd like to spend no more than $100, and $50-$70 would be even better!
 
If you are talking about the Epson V300, then according to Epson Australia the V300 does not scan 120 format film (see link below)... There was some discussion on Flickr about the V300 and it seems that a work around using home made holders was possible... I have no personal experience with the V300...

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfectionv300photo_specs.asp

Edit: the above with Epson Scan software... Coopersounds, I would be interested to understand how this works and where the negative holder came from (after market?).
 
I do not believe, there is something like an inexpensive good quality scanner, particularly that goes up to 120 film. For up to 8x enlargements, and providing you get the NECESSARY Doug Fischer glass holders, the Epson V700/750 does a reasonable work with B&W - it is actually quite good with silver film, because not being able to resolve the grain, it does not alias it. I think that the cheapest solution would be to buy one of these latest full frame mirrorless cameras and an enlarging lens and make your own scanning contraption.
 
I have an 8800f, and I find it quite good when paired with the betterscanning.com 120 holder and glass. With the stock plastic holder the 35mm results are quite good if you put some time into making sure the film is flat and the settings are good. However, the stock 120 holder is crap and the results terrible no matter what the settings.
 
May I ask what the trouble is with the 8800f?

I've had mine for a few years too. I've never had trouble getting it to scan anything. And if the software is the issue- try out Vuescan or Silverfast to see if they do what you want, both will run the 8800f.

Like any flatbed you need to keep the glass very clean when scanning film. And I use a piece of glass with the film flat (emulsion up) on the glass. I got sick of the holders. The "right" solution is a proper ANR glass holder.

What are you comparing the scanner to? And are you sure that there isn't a problem with the camera or film you are using for 120?

If you are complaining about the film holders I couldn't agree more, but there are cheaper and better solutions than going to a new scanner.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Used V500 must costs under $100, because they were $139 or so new. I have one and it does the job well for b/w and OK for color. 120 neg scan. Andrew. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr It will do 6x9 as well. Untitled by Ko.Fe., on Flickr
Click to expand...
Hi ko.Fe.,
I've never used a scanner, but I,m interested in buying one. Watching your scans I see the photo are less sharp than wet printing. Is this due to the scanner you use or this is more or less what can expect from scanning in general?
Other more expensive scanner give real different results?
 
shortstop said:
Hi ko.Fe.,
I've never used a scanner, but I,m interested in buying one. Watching your scans I see the photo are less sharp than wet printing. Is this due to the scanner you use or this is more or less what can expect from scanning in general?
Other more expensive scanner give real different results?
Click to expand...
Ko.Fe.'s scans are sharp enough - he might have not applied some smart sharpening while post-processing, and his 6x9 camera might wear an old Anastigmat lens.

I myself still use an old Epson 3170 which I tweaked to turn out its infamous uneven illumination problem and it works just fine for most of my 120 negatives (but for those which aren't properly exposed - I sometimes get banding every now and then). Costed me $58 ten years ago...

The trick with the Epson flatbeds is not to use the film holders but put the negative strip directly on the scanner window (emulsion side down) and cover it with a custom-cut sheet of sandgrit glass to avoid Newton rings. That way, the scans are sharp believe me.

Given what I get off my old and very lazy 3170 I'm sure that the V500 will produce excellent scans from 120 negs coming from a good MF camera with a sharp lens. The V500 has the same innards (more or less) than the 4990 which was praised when Epson released it. The only advantage of the V700 over it resides in the illumination area for transparencies (A4 versus a central area covering one 120 film strip only).

If you want someting really good you'll look for a dedicated MF film scanner - but it'll cost you an arm and a leg !

Bottom line : for 35mm negatives it's hard not to feel the need of buying a good dedicated film scanner made by Minolta or Nikon. Even the V750 can't compete there.
 
I've been in the same position. Was going to buy an 8800F off ebay but they seem to have a problem with the power cables breaking (and its impossible to find a replacement that doesn't cost more than the scanner).

As luck would have it, Epson sells refurbished V500's for $99 shipped with a 1 year warranty and 14 day returns. Squaretrade 2 year warranty available if you want it. Most other sellers are asking over $150 for a new one, and around $100 for a used, Seem like a pretty good deal to me to grab the refurb with all the masks for $99 shipped

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Perfe...1352311778?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item2c8d7c8fe2

I don't work for Epson, by the way
 
I have the 9000F Canon (same internal hardware as your 8800F, I believe) and found the stock film holders to be sufficient for holding the film down on the glass ONLY. Putting the film IN the holder is a recipe for terrible results as you have found.

The Canon software is tedious but if you set it up to scan the entire strip of 120, you can skip the preview portion and just swap film between scanning runs to speed up the process.

You should be able to get good enough results with 120 to make the 35mm scans seem soft. I can still get better 35mm results by using my 10MP aged DSLR, but the gap is lessening as I learn how to post process the files from the scanner better and better.

6x7 TMX100
325iS by Fixcinater, on Flickr
 
shortstop said:
Hi ko.Fe.,
I've never used a scanner, but I,m interested in buying one. Watching your scans I see the photo are less sharp than wet printing. Is this due to the scanner you use or this is more or less what can expect from scanning in general?
Other more expensive scanner give real different results?
Click to expand...

Sorry for late reply. I don't use sharpening at all. I'm not obsessed with it.

Last evening I was listening vinyl records and staring at 8x10 portrait I took with Summitar and scanned with v500. It was as good as digitally taken with Canon 50L lens portrait beside it. Sharp.
V500 gives me what I want from the scan. Wide and deep film tonality.

More expensive ones will scan it to the grain level. I don't need it.

This is 4x5 scan from V500.

GSG_FujiAcros100_HC110_B_Aug_2014985_stitch.JPG


$150 scanner which does 135 and 120 in b/w and color well, plus no big hassle for 4x5. I don't need more expensive ones :)
 
David Murphy said:
I am looking for an inexpensive reasonably good quality scanner that can handle 35mm and 120. .....
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind the concept of "the weakest link".

The final technical quality of images made with the worlds best lens will only be "reasonably good" if the image is filtered along the way by scanning it with a "reasonably good" scanner.
 
Need an inexpensive 35mm/120 scanner

Don't we all?

Seriously:
- Epson flatbeds, starting with the 2450, V500, V600. Good for prints up to, IMHO, 6-8x the linear dimension of the film. Good for web.
- DSLR "scanner", spend the $100 on a macro lens
- Pakon F-135 scanner from AAAImagingSolutions on eBay for $300, automated, fast, quality 6MPx scans. Requires Win XP. Only for 35mm.
- Send film to Precision (sponsor here) or North Coast Pho. Svcs.
 
David Murphy said:
I am looking for an inexpensive reasonably good quality scanner that can handle 35mm and 120.
Click to expand...

I think you should be looking for two scanners if you are working to a budget. One specifically for 35mm, such as a Plustek 7400 which you can get very cheap but the results are very good, and a flatbed for medium format. Then you get the best of both worlds and minimise any disappointment in the results of 35mm from a cheaper flatbed.

The Plustek 7400 (or whichever older model is most discounted and being dumped on the market) shouldn't be seen as 'an old scanner', because they are essentially the same as the current version only with an older version of the Silverfast software. You wouldn't want to use Silverfast anyway, but the solution is to get Vuescan and run both scanners with that.

V
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom