Scottboarding
Established
I've finally decided that I'm going to buy a medium format camera (Fuji GW690iii most likely) but I'm not sure how to go about scanning the negatives. I currently have a Plustek 8100 for 35mm and I'm pretty happy with it but it obviously won't work for medium format. My first scanner was an Epson V550 which I still own and does 120, but I'm concerned about the image quality. If I'm going to be shooting 6x9 I want to be able to get the most out of it.
Dedicated medium format scanners are quite expensive; more than double the price of the Fuji. So what I'm really curious about is how scanning with my digital camera will compare to something like the Pacific Image 120. I own an Olympus E-M5ii which has pretty great image quality at 16mp. Is there going to be a noticeable difference between the Olympus and the Pacific Image or Plustek 120 scanners?
I do want to print my images at 11x14 or higher, so I'm guessing that the Epson is probably useless for that. The Plustek doesn't seem to come up on ebay very often which would leave the Pacific Image 120 which is $1,100 or so. I really do want the best quality, but that just seems like so much money when the camera costs less than $500.
I am super lost right now and don't know where to go from here. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Dedicated medium format scanners are quite expensive; more than double the price of the Fuji. So what I'm really curious about is how scanning with my digital camera will compare to something like the Pacific Image 120. I own an Olympus E-M5ii which has pretty great image quality at 16mp. Is there going to be a noticeable difference between the Olympus and the Pacific Image or Plustek 120 scanners?
I do want to print my images at 11x14 or higher, so I'm guessing that the Epson is probably useless for that. The Plustek doesn't seem to come up on ebay very often which would leave the Pacific Image 120 which is $1,100 or so. I really do want the best quality, but that just seems like so much money when the camera costs less than $500.
I am super lost right now and don't know where to go from here. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
lynnb
Veteran
Why not see how the V550 goes before committing to something else? 6x9 is a lot of real estate. I scan 6x9 on a V700 and the scans aren't too shabby, though not in the same league as a drum scanner, obviously. I haven't printed them large but, I've printed 35mm from the V700 at A3+ with good results, so maybe you might get by with a flatbed.
The alternative is to get them scanned at a lab. That might work out cheaper, if you don't plan on printing big all that much. For web and smaller prints you could still use your V550 and just have the "special" images scanned by an agency with a drum scanner.
Just my 2c.
The alternative is to get them scanned at a lab. That might work out cheaper, if you don't plan on printing big all that much. For web and smaller prints you could still use your V550 and just have the "special" images scanned by an agency with a drum scanner.
Just my 2c.
Steve M.
Veteran
That's the beauty of medium format....you don't have to worry about that. As long as your scanner or camera is working as it should you will be fine w/ most anything.
These scans were made on an ancient $40 Epson 2450 flatbed scanner. They have been converted to jpegs and rezzed down for uploading to the web, but the TIFF files are huge.
The first shot was made w/ the Fuji camera you wish to buy, and the second shot is from a Rolleiflex w/ a Xenotar lens. The Fuji glass is good, but the Rolleiflex is quite a bit sharper. That mountain on the horizon was a long way from where I was shooting in New Mexico. I have a 13x19 print of the first shot on the wall that I inkjet printed and it looks nice. The darkroom print on fiber is in a different league. You could probably print the 6x9 shot 3'x4' w/ no loss in quality.
These were handheld using Tri-X shot w/ a yellow filter, which looks really, really good with 120 film. Very tight grain. If you aren't making large prints you won't see a ton of difference in MF compared to 35mm, assuming the 35mm is shot w/ the right film and exposed and developed properly. At least that's my take on it. You can't get tight grain like this w/ Tri-X in 35mm though, you would have to shoot a 100 speed film, expose it at 50, and develop in Mic-X to get really tight grain for good skies.
These scans were made on an ancient $40 Epson 2450 flatbed scanner. They have been converted to jpegs and rezzed down for uploading to the web, but the TIFF files are huge.
The first shot was made w/ the Fuji camera you wish to buy, and the second shot is from a Rolleiflex w/ a Xenotar lens. The Fuji glass is good, but the Rolleiflex is quite a bit sharper. That mountain on the horizon was a long way from where I was shooting in New Mexico. I have a 13x19 print of the first shot on the wall that I inkjet printed and it looks nice. The darkroom print on fiber is in a different league. You could probably print the 6x9 shot 3'x4' w/ no loss in quality.
These were handheld using Tri-X shot w/ a yellow filter, which looks really, really good with 120 film. Very tight grain. If you aren't making large prints you won't see a ton of difference in MF compared to 35mm, assuming the 35mm is shot w/ the right film and exposed and developed properly. At least that's my take on it. You can't get tight grain like this w/ Tri-X in 35mm though, you would have to shoot a 100 speed film, expose it at 50, and develop in Mic-X to get really tight grain for good skies.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
My V550 does 6x9 well and with original software. Absolutely no issues with quality. Original MF film holding frame is little finicky, but fully usable.
Scan at high resolution with reduction of image size, to maintain reasonable file size.
But I'm not sure if 6x9 really gives most from MF (I have done 645, 6x6 and 6x9).
And I have yet to see image with character from 6x9 Fuji... If you want most from MF, get Rollei 6x6 camera. Even Rolleicord will do.
Scan at high resolution with reduction of image size, to maintain reasonable file size.
But I'm not sure if 6x9 really gives most from MF (I have done 645, 6x6 and 6x9).
And I have yet to see image with character from 6x9 Fuji... If you want most from MF, get Rollei 6x6 camera. Even Rolleicord will do.
roscoetuff
Well-known
You can scan with virtually anything. One note is to see how you like images scanned by a lab. They tend to be cheap, and you can scan a lot of rolls before you pay for a MF scanner. I have the Plustek 8100 as well and found it okay, but clunky as it doesn't really automate to move from one frame to the next the way some others do. I next tried DSLR scanning but found the process didn't quite suit me, and set it aside. I know it can be done, but the best I've seen from DSLR scans come from stitching multiple partial images together... which is more work than I typically want to get involved with. For that level of quality, a really really good scanning service can probably do better still if the operator is skilled. So for everyday, I ultimately sprung for a Nikon Coolscan which I had rehabbed and works great with Vuescan software. It will handle 12 35mm frames or 3 MF frames in a loaded holder with a decent machine stepper to automate the process.
At the end of the day, I think a good solid scanner is worth the editorial control it will give you. The scanner is only as good as the operator, and if the lab's operator doesn't know what you want - and most won't, you can get results you want best if you do it yourself. The lab will have better equipment often, but won't typically be as dedicated to tweaking results as you will. Against this control thing is the time sink involved in scanning. Much to think about. Good luck! and welcome to MF.
At the end of the day, I think a good solid scanner is worth the editorial control it will give you. The scanner is only as good as the operator, and if the lab's operator doesn't know what you want - and most won't, you can get results you want best if you do it yourself. The lab will have better equipment often, but won't typically be as dedicated to tweaking results as you will. Against this control thing is the time sink involved in scanning. Much to think about. Good luck! and welcome to MF.
bmattock
Veteran
Agreed. I have scanned 6x9 on an Epson 2400 with transparency adapter unit and on a (now broken) 4490. Both were more than satisfactory for my uses.
If I had to make a recommendation, it would be to invest in good negative holders, with Anti-Newton glass inserts to keep the film the right distance from the scanning glass and as flat as possible. I think those things are key.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Completely, utterly, and unequivocally disagree with this statement.
Character comes from light, composition, and subject matter, not gear.
Huss
Veteran
Forget that nonsense! I have several Rolleiflexes as well as the Fuji GW, but my camera with most character in its images is the Lubitel 166.
So much character!
charjohncarter
Veteran
I scan my 6x9 negatives on a Epson V500. I does a reasonable job. I guess if you are going to be making on a regular basis large prints you might think about a dedicated 120 scanner. If you are going to make a few a year it would be better to use someone like Bluemoon in Portland. This is a 645 negative from a Rolleiflex scanned on a V500:
Ilford HP 5 by John Carter, on Flickr
and this is a V500 scan of a 6x9:
Arista EDU ultra 400 Rodinal 1+100 by John Carter, on Flickr
Ilford HP 5 by John Carter, on Flickrand this is a V500 scan of a 6x9:
Arista EDU ultra 400 Rodinal 1+100 by John Carter, on Flickr
Arbitrarium
Well-known
I scan with an Epson flatbed, but I've made some little plastic supports to slot in between frames to keep the film as flat as possible. It's definitely improved the sharpness of my scans when the film's a bit curly.
jzagaja
Well-known
V700 is absolutely find for MF, I compared with drum scanner:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66109016@N04/14661196231/sizes/o/
Sigma DP2q resolves even better than gw690iii, but is too sharp unlike film that has nice smoothness.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66109016@N04/14661196231/sizes/o/
Sigma DP2q resolves even better than gw690iii, but is too sharp unlike film that has nice smoothness.
Prest_400
Multiformat
I'm a bit of a quality maximizer but agree with the opinions above. Start up with the V550! And you got an interesting option there... Use the EM5ii (hi res mode) to scan.
I always wanted to try that route, and a legacy macro lens can be a cheap start point. Actually on ebay some guy sold it because he found that mode to not have enough bit depth for CN, but fine for the rest of "scanning".
V550 is fine with 6x9, at 2400 ppi you get a large file although the stock holder may not optimize the best of the best for resolution out of that format.
I think lab scanning surpasses in convenience and resolution if you get the largest file sizes... Proofs are ok and 2000px sided scans don't do the format justice.
robert blu
quiet photographer
For my neg in 120 format I use Epson V600 with better scanning film holders and it seems me very good. I think you 550 should be ok.
robert
robert
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Presuming a good copy setup and a good lens, the Olympus E-M5II should do a fine job of capturing your 6x9 negatives. I've made exhibition quality prints even with a 5Mpixel E-1 at 20x24 inch size, so the 16 Mpixel resolution E-M5II should be no problem at all for making very large prints.
If you are determined to get "the most" out of 6x9, well, that presumes a 4000 ppl scanner for the format, something like the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED or Hasselblad Flextight, or a drum scan. These devices (and even services using them) are quite costly, so start with your existing camera and scanner setup to see what you can get out of them, whether it satisfies you or not, and move forward from there.
My own solution for medium format to digital transfer nowadays is a 24 Mpixel Leica CL with a good macro lens, copy stand, and flat panel light box. It produces sufficient quality that anything I'm going to print is well represented. I tend to print up to 13x19 max at home, and larger than that is usually printed via a service onto canvas. I sold my Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED a year or so back because I so rarely used it or needed more than the 24 Mpixel I could get out of my camera.
G
If you are determined to get "the most" out of 6x9, well, that presumes a 4000 ppl scanner for the format, something like the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED or Hasselblad Flextight, or a drum scan. These devices (and even services using them) are quite costly, so start with your existing camera and scanner setup to see what you can get out of them, whether it satisfies you or not, and move forward from there.
My own solution for medium format to digital transfer nowadays is a 24 Mpixel Leica CL with a good macro lens, copy stand, and flat panel light box. It produces sufficient quality that anything I'm going to print is well represented. I tend to print up to 13x19 max at home, and larger than that is usually printed via a service onto canvas. I sold my Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED a year or so back because I so rarely used it or needed more than the 24 Mpixel I could get out of my camera.
G
jawarden
Well-known
I've wanted one of those Fujis for years. Outstanding quality lens, huge negative, and under $1K.
I agree with the others - don't replace your Epson until you've thoroughly tested it with your Fuji.
Scottboarding
Established
Thank you all so much, I didn't expect to get this many replies! For now I'll stick with my Epson and look into getting glass holders and see how that goes. Thanks everyone!
Huss
Veteran
That E1 has max rez of 2560 x 1920 which is good for 9x6 prints @ 300dpi i.e the standard for high quality . Unless u used uprez software 20x24 would be severely pixellated. I guess u could make exhibition prints that size if the subject matter was lego blocks.
From northcoastphoto.com:
jzagaja
Well-known
Why use high Mpix camera? All in all you have to multi stitch, it’s only about computational microphotography, speed. Lens matters only.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Like someone said above, I've been very pleased with my 120 "Better Scanning" holder. I do 6x9 easily with it.
This is my set up: http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert.html
Get both the holder and the Glass (ANR).
Huss
Veteran
Because i only need to make one capture and i am done. without spending all the time and effort of repeated captures and stiching. Ever scan a 36 exp roll? With my 47mp digicam and es-2 copier I can do that in 10 minutes at 8000x5000.
I do this all the time.