Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Scanner for 120 film?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Scanner for 120 film? Reply with quote
Hi folks

I don't have a scanner, but now I've started shooting film again I need one.

I will be shooting plenty of 120 rollfilm so will need to be able to scan thsoe as well as 35mm.

Just wondering what people recommend that won't break the bank?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Epson V500 good for both and not expensive.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Attila, I will take a look.

Finally, after two failed attempts I successfully processed a 35mm film today.

I used a Kodak Color Plus 200 (cheap, low quality film) and developed it in 1:1 Microphen for 15 mins and fixed in plain sodium thiosulphite for 15 mins.

A third of the roll still had some emulsion left, obviously when loading the spiral some of the film was touching to cause this, but the other shots look fine, the negs are very brown looking but the contrast and sharpness looks fine holding them upto a light source to view. I have an old lightbox I will dig out to have a better look, need to get a scanner obviously.

Now I've managed to develop one of these cheap C-41 films I'll soot a lot more as I have a small pile of these cheap films, mostly the Kodak Color Plus but also some third party rebrands like Supasnaps and Truprint.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You did develop a C-41 color film in B&W chemical ? Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, it does work, did it a lot at art college as processing shops use to give you a free C-41 film with every film developed so I had tons of these cheap low quality films.

ID-11 or D-76 works but I preferred to use a speed enhancing developer like Microphen.

Wish I could scan these negs done in Microphen, they look pretty good to my eyes, they have a lot of drying marks so I need to rewash them in warm water with some soap, but considering I developed them without a thermometer (guessing temp) and using the kitchen wall clock to time, they came out not bad. I shot this roll in my Carena SRH760 that I suspect has a dodgy meter, but the shots with my newly acquired Meyer Lydith 30mm look pretty good, I think the roll was underexposed but the Microphen helped to increase the speed a little. The Ensinor 2.8/28 shots also look good, I think the Pentacon 1.8/50 shots were the ones lost due to that emulsion problem.

I followed the reccomendations from Ilford on dev times, they were talking about XP" BW C-41 film but it also works on normal C-41 color films.

You should try it Attila, take the oldest, cheapest roll of C-41 you have and shoot it then process in BW chemistry, you get negs that are brown and denser than BW film and the look is a bit different but I like the look for some subjects. Contrast can lack which is why I like using Microphen and pushing a 200ASA film to 400 by using 15mins dev time at 1:1.

Quote:
Yes, it is possible to develop ILFORD XP2 Super in conventional black and white chemistry; however, the results will generally be disappointing; there is a loss of speed and the negatives are quite grainy.
If you wish to try this, here are the recommendations:
ID-11 or D-76 1+1: 12 minutes at 68?; EI 160 MICROPHEN 1+1: 12 minutes at 68?; EI 320 ILFOTEC HC, 1+47: 10 minutes at 68?; EI 320.
You can also rate the film at 400, and develop for a higher contrast: ID-11 1+1: 18 minutes MICROPHEN 1+1: 15 minutes ILFOTEC HC 1+47: 15 minutes.
Fixing time should be increased by about 50%. The film will look milky (like it is underfixed) when wet; this will clear when it dries.
David Carper
ILFORD Technical Service


If the weather allows, tomorrow I will shoot another roll of Kodak Color Plus in my Praktica BC1 with Pentacon 1.8/50 and also dev this in Microphen and will let you know how the results are.

I will have to get a scanner ASAP!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you! I didn't know this is possible!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, very possible, you can even develop C-41 in caffenol according to what I have read.

Rodinal is supposed to be brilliant for developing C-41 films.

As soon as my 120 spiral arrives I will be shooting the two rolls of Ilford XP2 I have in my Ensign Selfix 220 and developing those in Microphen. I have a little project to take nice BW portraits of my family and friends in 6x6, this will be my first attempt. I have some normal BW 120 film too I will also try.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Until I will see your pictures I will make a little re-search in Google.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plenty of examples here

http://www.flickr.com/groups/c41inbw/


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Epson V500 good for both and not expensive.


That's about the best value scanner new ...but check out older ones like 3200 and 4990 etc to see if they do 120.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Attila wrote:
Epson V500 good for both and not expensive.


That's about the best value scanner new ...but check out older ones like 3200 and 4990 etc to see if they do 120.


Both the 4490 and 4990 do, the 4490 is the ancestor of the V500, the 4990 of the V700.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My budget is limited so it's a case of finding something cheap on ebay while I save my pennies for a V500...

My dad just threw away a nice HP all-in-one because the printer part wouldn't feed paper evenly, bah humbug, I could have used the scanner on that...


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/EPSON-PERFECTION-1240U-PROFESSIONAL-SCANNER-PC-MAC-/170656507551?pt=UK_Scanners&hash=item27bbeba69f#ht_500wt_1289

Probably worth about 10 or 15£, with the transparency unit it scans medium and some large format negatives and slides. Low resolution (1200x2400) and don't expect pin sharp focusing, but for big negatives at cheap bastard prices, it should be ok. It works great with Vuescan, which I really recommend with any scanner.

This is a Polaroid print (9x12) that I scanned with a similar Epson 1640 I got for 15€. The original is much better, but the scan is ok for web use or small prints and it should give you an idea of the quality you will get. Negative scanning is harder than scanning prints of course



Last edited by ludoo on Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wonderful Ludoo, many thanks, I have put a bid in.

Eventually I could always pick up an old SCSI Coolscan or DImage film scanner if I find I shoot a lot of film, but for the time being, the Epson would be ideal.

That quality looks fine to my eyes, if I did have something I wanted a large print from I could always have a conventional enlargment made from the negative by a pro or send the neg to a pro scanning company but for the vast majority of things I will shoot that level of quality will be perfectly acceptable.

Fingers crossed I can show everyone my crude diy 35mm developing shortly!

I'll have to dig out my box of old negatives too and get digitising the good ones.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Wonderful Ludoo, many thanks, I have put a bid in.

Eventually I could always pick up an old SCSI Coolscan or DImage film scanner if I find I shoot a lot of film, but for the time being, the Epson would be ideal.

Fingers crossed I can show everyone my crude diy 35mm developing shortly!

I'll have to dig out my box of old negatives too and get digitising the good ones.


Oh, for 35mm the Epson above is pretty awful, you are much better with a used Plustek 7xxx, or even an Epson V300 (90€ new, less used). It's only ok for medium format, but maybe for proofs it might work even for 35mm.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Attila wrote:
Epson V500 good for both and not expensive.

That's about the best value scanner new ...but check out older ones like 3200 and 4990 etc to see if they do 120.

Both the 4490 and 4990 do, the 4490 is the ancestor of the V500, the 4990 of the V700.


You can even go older if you want. I have an Epson Perfection 1640SU PHOTO, with the transparency unit, and it will scan up to 4x5" at 1600 dpi. It's about 10 years old now, and cost me about the same as developing two rolls of film at the lab. Laughing

I bought it recently as a temporary solution, but honestly, it's good enough that I am having a hard time justifying an upgrade. Cool It easily bests my father's newer HP G4010... which has 3x the resolution and a much more impressive set of specifications! Shocked


I tend to thing of scanners as an area where it pays to get a good one right off the bat though. With all of the time you will spend scanning, you won't want to re-scan your negatives if you upgrade later on. Based on my experience with this older Epson, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a newer Epson if I was in the market. Cool


//edit: Whoops, I see that ludoo has already mentioned the 1640SU... Do you have the transparency unit for yours?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:
You can even go older if you want. I have an Epson Perfection 1640SU PHOTO, with the transparency unit, and it will scan up to 4x5" at 1600 dpi. It's about 10 years old now, and cost me about the same as developing two rolls of film at the lab. Laughing


Heh, I have the same scanner (see above), crappy but for wha it cost it's great.

Ian, check this too

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-3490-scanner-/150621242641?pt=UK_Scanners&hash=item2311b9c511#ht_500wt_1289

much better than the one I linked above, though it seems to be missing the film holders. With some patience you should be able to get something that works for both 35mm and MF, of reasonable quality. But if you are in a hurry you might as well spend 10£ for an old 1640 or similar, then toss it once you get something better.

Edit: a 4490

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-4490-photo-scanner-/250840941589?pt=UK_Scanners&hash=item3a67490415#ht_500wt_1289

4990

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-4990-Photo-scanner-HIGH-QUALITY-/250841547545?pt=UK_Scanners&hash=item3a67524319#ht_500wt_1289

Sometimes I wish I lived in the UK Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got the Epsom v500 on Attila's recommendation. I have made 8x12 prints from 35mm scans (yes I know this isn't really the way to go).

It take some experimentation to get decent results.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all the help and advice guys, really appreciated, especially Ludoo!

For the time being, I'm happy to just be able to scan negs well enough to show you guys online.

If I take up shooting film seriously then a better scanner would be my first purchase.

One thing occurred to me, I will need to scan 6x18cm slides once I've finished the panoramic camera I'm building so a flatbed scanner that will do at least 18cm length is a good idea...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks for all the help and advice guys, really appreciated, especially Ludoo!

For the time being, I'm happy to just be able to scan negs well enough to show you guys online.

If I take up shooting film seriously then a better scanner would be my first purchase.

One thing occurred to me, I will need to scan 6x18cm slides once I've finished the panoramic camera I'm building so a flatbed scanner that will do at least 18cm length is a good idea...


First, I would like to come to the defense of Epson scanners. My first Epson was a 3170 I bought probably 7 or 8 years ago, and it did a good job with 35mm and an excellent job with medium format. Then I bought a 4990 a couple of years ago after meeting a couple of large format guys who liked to make contact prints with their 4990. And their contact prints were pretty damn spectacular. So, I kinda got the hook set for a 4990. Because it is discontinued, though, I had to do some searching, but eventually I found a lightly-used one, and I've been happy with the results.

But these guys are right -- if you're hoping for max resolution with 35mm slides, even a V7xx isn't gonna give you as good a resolution as an old 2400ppi scanner will, like the old Minolta Dimage Scan Dual I for example or the HP S20. And those old scanners won't give as good a resolution as the film dupe setup I've put together for my 10.1 mp DSLR (10.1 mp works out to about 2600 ppi). You want really great 35mm scans? get a functioning Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV, or a Plustek, or one of the other 3200 ppi+ scanners made by Nikon, etc. Seems like the 4000 ppi limit is the way to go with film. But this means expensive scanners. Or a high mega-pixel DSLR, like the EOS 5D Mk II for example. That camera, with its 21 mp resolution and with my setup can produce duplicates of 35mm images at 3741 ppi. That's pretty close to the Nikon scanners that allegedly produce 4000 ppi, but the cool thing about this is you also get a pretty cool camera in the bargain.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aha, a slide copier! Why didn't I think of that...

Sadly the one I had I dismantled for parts...

I will get one though, it's a cheap solution to digitising and could come in handy.

I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for a high res 35mm scanner, I used some of the early Nikons at university, they were slow but produced great scans.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, you're still relatively new here so you might not have caught my old thread on the different results one can expect between a slide copier and a scanner. Here's the link to this earlier thread:

http://forum.mflenses.com/slide-copying-scanner-vs-duplicator-t22881.html

It won't help you much with medium format decisions, but if you have a decent scanner that'll do 2400 ppi, that's plenty for mf.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
****but if you have a decent scanner that'll do 2400 ppi, that's plenty for mf.***

....and I might have mentioned this before:- For sharpness a 35mm supermarket scan at 2.4mp is good enough for a computer screen and posting here, as long as large crops are not done. Those supermarket Fuji machines are very good at scanning and have asked the operator if they could scan my negs higher, but they don't know what I'm talking about erm they just know how to work the machine.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My local Costco will include a CD of the negs for an additional $2.99. The guy didn't know the resolution, though. Well, I went ahead and had him scan the negs for a couple rolls, just so I'd know. Turns out they're 5mp scans. Okay for the web and prints maybe up to 8x10, but that's it.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
It won't help you much with medium format decisions, but if you have a decent scanner that'll do 2400 ppi, that's plenty for mf.
yes - 2400ppi is enough. but there aren´t many scanners which achieve this resolution - from my knowledge, one of the best flatbed scanners (epson v750) makes scans up to cca 2000ppi (...and contrast at this resolution isn´t something).

second thing is that with MF scans you don´t need that high resolution unless you want to print really big enlargements - about 1500-1800ppi (which achieve many flatbed scanners) may be enough. worse is that even best flatbed is unable to achieve ful tonal range of high-density slide films (f.e. fuji velvia)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2