Scanning MF (and 35mm)

B

Bertram2

Gone elsewhere
Local time
5:05 AM
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,416
Hi to all,

as i learned there are a lot of friends here shooting both 35mm and MF.
Beeing a scan newbie with poor knowledge of the practical scan work I'd be interested to learn how those of you scan their MF negs, who shot both formats.

What I want to do is NOT printing my own prints with an inkjet printer. What I need is only a possibility to present my pics in the web and to do some postprocessing on files big enuff for a 8X11 print in a lab (2000X3000).

My idea is to buy an Epson 3170 flatbed for the 6X6 negs or prints, not sure what gives better results. Lately I watched stunning scans of 8X11 BW prints !

For the 35mm i keep a Minolta Dualscan IV as good enuff for the above specified target results.

My main interest is in learning what you do when it comes to scanning MF negs and if you think a cheap flatbed like the 3170 will do what I expect him to do with 6X6 ?

Thanks in advance for the helping hands !

Best regards,
Bertram
 
I am still working out my 120 scanning, but what I use is an Epson 3200, similar to the 3170. In general, the film holder that was provided with my scanner keeps the film flat, but in my opinion is very poorly designed and could scratch the negatives on either side of the one being scanned. I did purchase an aftermarket 120 film holder for it, which does allow for batch scanning, but I have had film flatness issues with it. They have an accessory available to address this, I will attach a link to the site when I get home. (If I forget, send me a PM). For web posting, I think looking for a flat bed is a good choice. I will say that when I get a good scan from a 120 negative with my flatbed scanner, it is very good.
 
I guess Rover mentions the Epson perfection 3200, I have the similar 3170 and does a fair job scanning MF, even though I use it for 35mm as well and I'm well, sort of happy. These are old models now anyway, and I think their successor is the 4850 or something like that, sure the Epson site has more info.
 
I have the 3170, and it does a great job scanning negs. My only complaint is that the resulting files can be a bit soft when scanned at really high resolutions.

I'm interested in that aftermarket neg carrier, by the way. Don't forget the link!
 
I use a Canon 9900 if the image should be used for the web only. There is some softness in the images which comes from the lenses and the interpolated resolution. Nevertheless, with some (light) sharpening and postprocessing the results are very fine and are hard to distinguish from the scans I make with the Nikon 8000.
Generally a problem with MF scanners can be film flatness, usually only an aditional/aftermarket filmholder with glass helps.
 
sockdaddy said:
I have the 3170, and it does a great job scanning negs. My only complaint is that the resulting files can be a bit soft when scanned at really high resolutions.!
Click to expand...

Do you use it for 35mm too ? If yes maybe you can point out examples in your gallery ? IMHO the scan is o.k. if adding a bit (only a bit) USM makes the jpegs looking like the prints.
Thanks !
Bertram
 
schaubild said:
I use a Canon 9900 if the image should be used for the web only. There is some softness in the images which comes from the lenses and the interpolated resolution. Nevertheless, with some (light) sharpening and postprocessing the results are very fine and are hard to distinguish from the scans I make with the Nikon 8000.
Generally a problem with MF scanners can be film flatness, usually only an aditional/aftermarket filmholder with glass helps.
Click to expand...

Wow, they must look good !! I'll go to your gallery soon to get an impression.
Fiulm flatness seems to be a problem, I will keep this im my mind !
Best,
Bertram
 
Bertram, if it helps, ALL my work in the gallery is scanned with the 3170, my only complaints are regarding some lines I've found mainly on MF scans, and zones of even tonality (skies, etc), probably coming from some light bulb trace.
 
I meant hard to distinguish with web sized images (approx. 1000 pixels width) :)
When it comes to printing, well, it's a different issue.

Most of my gallery images here are done with the Canon, especially the XPans. Too comfortable to get a quick overview when you can look at 4 filmstripes at once.
 
It's pretty hard to judge the quality of a scanner on a 96dpi screen. I use an Epson 4870 photo together with a scanning application called Silverfast, this combination leads to awesome results for 120 film anyway. It also has the possibility to do 135 but these results are ok but not comparible to Nikon coolscan. I would however rate 135 Slides scanned with the 4870 better than minolta III and IV.
Silverfast software, IMO is an essential part of achieving max results with flatbeds. I use it only for my 6x6 colour slides, with scanning B/W I mis the possibilities of manual enlarging and printing but I am sure Photoshop wil come up with a (workable) solution for this in it's next version since B/W photography is seeing a revival (in Europe anyway) People are finally seeing that digital B/W remastered by PS or any other package doesn't come close to the real thing...
Anyway Epson flatbeds have impressed me....
 
I use the 3170 and am pleased with it. I have scanned both the film and the prints and have gotten good results. There are some drawback but they are easily worked around. I posted a picture in my gallery taken with the Fujica GS 645 and scanned from the print, check out the Fountain.
 
Jarvis said:
It also has the possibility to do 135 but these results are ok but not comparible to Nikon coolscan. I would however rate 135 Slides scanned with the 4870 better than minolta III and IV.

Very interesting news for me, always thought no flatbed could beat a Minolta IV tho it's well known that it's results are not comparable to the Nikon V of Minoltea 5400.
Thanks,
Bertram
Click to expand...
 
I use a mikrotek artixscan 120 tf - aka polaroid sprintscan something it is for slides and negatives only up to 6x9 cm - it is noisy as ... and you need the glass holder do get film flatness - more dust etc. but that said it is one very good scaner with a d-max big eneugh to deal with the darkest shadows and 4000 dpi optical resolutuin - it is very recomendable
ruben
 
I use the Epson 3170 for 35mm and medium format negatives and have been pleased with the results for the price. (I should mention that something recently busted after 1500+ scans and now I cannot scan above 600dpi; maybe a software or hardware problem but I haven't had time to diagnose or fix it.) The Epson website has reconditioned models for <US$150, a good deal in my opinion. All the prints in my gallery were scanned on the 3170, but there is an art and science to scanning and making adjustments - and I haven't mastered either one.

You can get a 120 film holder from Doug Fisher, whose posting to the epson3200 yahoo group are always generous, helpful and thoughtful.
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

EDIT: I should add that IMHO the Epson 3170 is adequate for the medium format uses in the original question, but then I don't know the alternatives. I scanned and cropped a 35mm negative for a 12x18 print made by a local Chicago lab (Helix) that looked very sharp with tight grain when it was featured in a local exhibit.
 
Last edited:
I have the 3170 and find it great for 6x6 and acceptable for 35mm. Though, had I realized I would shoot so little 6x6, I might have gone with a dedicated 35mm scanner. That being said, it is up to the task, and the model which replaced it is even better.
 
Thanks !

Thanks !

Thanks to all who spent time for sharing their experiences ! Was helpful as it always is, nice community !
Best regards,
Bertram :)
 
Bertram2 said:
Jarvis said:
It also has the possibility to do 135 but these results are ok but not comparible to Nikon coolscan. I would however rate 135 Slides scanned with the 4870 better than minolta III and IV.

Very interesting news for me, always thought no flatbed could beat a Minolta IV tho it's well known that it's results are not comparable to the Nikon V of Minoltea 5400.
Thanks,
Bertram
Click to expand...


Hmm, my Minolta Scan Dual III 35mm scans are way sharper than 35mm on my 4870. Have you tried an a-b test with the same neg? There is no contest....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom