Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Alex MacPherson on January 08, 2009, 09:59:18 pm
-
Hey all
Welp! My Hasselblad H2 has finally arrived.
I was going to get a P21+ for it but, my budget at the moment won't allow for it.
Is there an affordable film scanner (sub $1K) that will give me equivalent image results? I know that drum scans are best but they are so expensive.
Please and thank you!
-
Sweet Fashion, film is great but it is a commitment. Scanning takes time, and the sub $1k scanners are a real pain. Printing in a darkroom is faster than scanning, but I'm not sure of your comfort level with color darkroom work or if you even have access to a darkroom.
I wouldn't shoot beauty with film, unless I wanted the film look. I don't think film is clean enough for commercial beauty work. Maybe with chromes, like 100G on 4x5. Its just a matter of client expectations. I actually like beauty on film, but really only for my book. Fashion on film is great.
That being said, a used Microtek 120tf is a dedicated MF film scanner that produces good results with the glass holder. The regular holder can rarely keep the film flat. I bought one new three years ago after my Nikon 9000 was destroyed during a move. I couldn't find another one so I got the Microtek. Quality wise its close to the Nikon, its just slower and the holders are not as good. Silverfast software is pretty OK, a little buggy. OK, a lot buggy, but it gets you nice color. I use the Microtek scans for my book or when a client wants FPO images from a film shoot before they get a drum scan for press. The FPO scans I've done at 2000 dpi are good enough for publication. I've had double trucks printed from the 2000 dpi scans.
If you have a Canon or Nikon I'd shoot that until I could get a P21+ or a Leaf 54s, at least for beauty. Be advised that the H with film acts differently than the H with a back, just a little slower response.
Good luck with all this!
-
The Epson V series is pretty nice especially for the money involved in a V500. You might want to consider a liquid mount though for it.
-
hey tmark,
Did you ever use silverfast with the nikon? If so is color better than with nikonscan? I have a 9000 but kind of hate the colors it makes for color neg. Especially after seeing the difference on an iqsmart2.
That being said, a used Microtek 120tf is a dedicated MF film scanner that produces good results with the glass holder. The regular holder can rarely keep the film flat. I bought one new three years ago after my Nikon 9000 was destroyed during a move. I couldn't find another one so I got the Microtek. Quality wise its close to the Nikon, its just slower and the holders are not as good. Silverfast software is pretty OK, a little buggy. OK, a lot buggy, but it gets you nice color. I use the Microtek scans for my book or when a client wants FPO images from a film shoot before they get a drum scan for press. The FPO scans I've done at 2000 dpi are good enough for publication. I've had double trucks printed
-
hey tmark,
Did you ever use silverfast with the nikon? If so is color better than with nikonscan? I have a 9000 but kind of hate the colors it makes for color neg. Especially after seeing the difference on an iqsmart2.
No I didn't use Silverfast with the 9000. Silverfast is great for color. Way better than the Nikon software, in terms of color.
-
hey tmark,
Did you ever use silverfast with the nikon? If so is color better than with nikonscan? I have a 9000 but kind of hate the colors it makes for color neg. Especially after seeing the difference on an iqsmart2.
Interesting thread, I'm doing some scans with a Microtek 120 and a glass holder through silverfast and they are really some of the best scans I have seen off transparency. I have quite a few drumscans around from years back and it really does as well or almost as well ( they reproduced well but I can't vouch for the operator!). I can use blending techniques to extend the DR if needed but don't have to do that too often.
The colour is really great Shame it hasn't got digital ice though. I also have the epson 4990 and while its easier to use and has ICE, the scans just aren't close and it can take ages to get just one satisfactory scan, despite having a custom holder for it . It works best with silverfast too. It does quite well with colour neg as it isn't quite as sharp and prints diffuse grain slightly anyway.
Apart from the speed factor , I would happily use it as a MF back substitute. I bought it to scan panorama transparencies and while I have to do them in two halves and it is a pain , it works, all at the fraction of a cost of something like the Imacon / hasselblad scanners. straight film strips are much faster.
There are tons of pixels compared to 22mp MF , but MF is much faster and very scalable, more than the equivalent sized film scan and more than DSLRs. There is grain , but with scanning , I prefer to see it so I know the scan is sharp right across - I don't want to see any at all from MF!
-
Interesting thread, I'm doing some scans with a Microtek 120 and a glass holder through silverfast and they are really some of the best scans I have seen off transparency. I have quite a few drumscans around from years back and it really does as well or almost as well ( they reproduced well but I can't vouch for the operator!). I can use blending techniques to extend the DR if needed but don't have to do that too often.
The colour is really great Shame it hasn't got digital ice though. I also have the epson 4990 and while its easier to use and has ICE, the scans just aren't close and it can take ages to get just one satisfactory scan, despite having a custom holder for it . It works best with silverfast too. It does quite well with colour neg as it isn't quite as sharp and prints diffuse grain slightly anyway.
Apart from the speed factor , I would happily use it as a MF back substitute. I bought it to scan panorama transparencies and while I have to do them in two halves and it is a pain , it works, all at the fraction of a cost of something like the Imacon / hasselblad scanners. straight film strips are much faster.
There are tons of pixels compared to 22mp MF , but MF is much faster and very scalable, more than the equivalent sized film scan and more than DSLRs. There is grain , but with scanning , I prefer to see it so I know the scan is sharp right across - I don't want to see any at all from MF!
The Microtek 120tf is a great scanner. The Nikon 9000 is slightly better, but only slightly and I think only at 4000 dpi, which is over kill for MF negs. The difference between the Imacon 949 and the Microtek is really in the holders and speed. As an MFD substitute its great for editorial and personal projects. I wouldn't want to scan a catalogue full of images, but that's where digital excels.
-
Sweet Fashion, film is great but it is a commitment. Scanning takes time, and the sub $1k scanners are a real pain. Printing in a darkroom is faster than scanning, but I'm not sure of your comfort level with color darkroom work or if you even have access to a darkroom.
I wouldn't shoot beauty with film, unless I wanted the film look. I don't think film is clean enough for commercial beauty work. Maybe with chromes, like 100G on 4x5. Its just a matter of client expectations. I actually like beauty on film, but really only for my book. Fashion on film is great.
That being said, a used Microtek 120tf is a dedicated MF film scanner that produces good results with the glass holder. The regular holder can rarely keep the film flat. I bought one new three years ago after my Nikon 9000 was destroyed during a move. I couldn't find another one so I got the Microtek. Quality wise its close to the Nikon, its just slower and the holders are not as good. Silverfast software is pretty OK, a little buggy. OK, a lot buggy, but it gets you nice color. I use the Microtek scans for my book or when a client wants FPO images from a film shoot before they get a drum scan for press. The FPO scans I've done at 2000 dpi are good enough for publication. I've had double trucks printed from the 2000 dpi scans.
If you have a Canon or Nikon I'd shoot that until I could get a P21+ or a Leaf 54s, at least for beauty. Be advised that the H with film acts differently than the H with a back, just a little slower response.
Good luck with all this!
I wasn't going to shoot beauty with it... but fashion certainly.
Now if I could only find one of these Microtek 120tf scanners....
I like Kodak film ... which Portra scans better NC or VC? I heard that contrasty films get too contrasty when scanned. Any truth to that?
-
The Nikon 9000 scanners are the best values, imo. The difference in price between an Epson and Nikon aren't that big, but the quality is dramatically different for MF. The difference in price between the Nikon and an Imacon are dramatically different, but I don't think there's as big of a jump in quality (I'm only basing this on one scan I've had from an Imacon 646 vs my Nikon 9000). Get yourself hooked up with the anti-newton scanner glass from Focal Point and you should be set.
BTW, I happen to use Vuescan which I think is easier to use and gets better support than Silverfast.
Re: film choices, I don't think it really makes that big of a difference between Portra NC vs VC. I was a long-time 160NC shooter, but started using 400VC and they're equally as easy to scan. But for my money, I've really grown to like Fuji 160S and 400H.
-
I wasn't going to shoot beauty with it... but fashion certainly.
Now if I could only find one of these Microtek 120tf scanners....
I like Kodak film ... which Portra scans better NC or VC? I heard that contrasty films get too contrasty when scanned. Any truth to that?
I've seen the 120tf go for under $500 used.
I usually shoot 400NC as an outdoor default. When shooting under lights I shoot 160NC exposed at 100. Its important to expose such that you get a really thick, fat, dark negative. With color, 2/3 of a stop. For B&W, like Tri-X, I expose at 100 - 160. NC versus VC is a matter of taste. They both scan well. I like the Fuji 160C very much. Its a little more natural than 160VC.
As TP said above, it doesn't really matter what film you scan. Some are better than others, but most of the problems people encounter are from chromes, that can be VERY contrasty. I couldn't scan a roll of some Fuji slide film so I had to get R-Prints made. Not in the budget.
One thing you can do is get an optical print made. If you are in NYC go to Duggal or make a print at Print Space. It will make you reevaluate digital.
Remember you can have an 11x14 C print be your deliverables. Saves you a bunch of time in front of the computer.
T
This is 400NC scanned at 2000 dpi on the 120tf. Mamiya AFd and 80 2.8 AF. An editorial on a woodshop in Williamsburg Brooklyn. The one with the drill press was hit with some wide area usm. The other is straight from the scanner. I'll try to dig up some fashion examples that are postable. By the way, this was an intense mixed lighting situation. Daylight, flourescent, tungsten. The film is daylight balanced, no filtration.
-
Dolce,
Check it and Wreck it. A 120tf on CL.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html (http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html)
-
Dolce,
Check it and Wreck it. A 120tf on CL.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html (http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html)
ArtixScan?
-
ArtixScan?
The 120tf was an Artixscan model. I've seen them go for $300 bucks. You really need the glass holder for $125 if it doesn't come with one.
-
The 120tf was an Artixscan model. I've seen them go for $300 bucks. You really need the glass holder for $125 if it doesn't come with one.
for that price it's no brainer... if you ever see one again around that alert us here... or me only
-
The 120tf was an Artixscan model. I've seen them go for $300 bucks. You really need the glass holder for $125 if it doesn't come with one.
for that price it's no brainer... if you ever see one again around that pricealert us here... or me only
-
I posted some images scanned with Nikon 9000 here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30951&view=findpost&p=251194)
-
Dolce,
Check it and Wreck it. A 120tf on CL.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html (http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html)
Wow! Thanks man! I just sent them an email. I live in Canada though. They might not want to ship it.
-
Hey all
Welp! My Hasselblad H2 has finally arrived.
I was going to get a P21+ for it but, my budget at the moment won't allow for it.
Is there an affordable film scanner (sub $1K) that will give me equivalent image results? I know that drum scans are best but they are so expensive.
Please and thank you!
I shot roughly 40,000 film frames with my two H2s before moving to digital and I did all of my scanning on the Nikon 9000 (most of the images online are from these scans). The Nikon is worth the extra money in my opinion and try your best to get the best image from the scan capture part in the workflow. Scan at max resolution as well.
As someone else suggested, get the glasss tray, but I found I got best results with wet scanning my film with the 9000.
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
-
Wow! Thanks man! I just sent them an email. I live in Canada though. They might not want to ship it.
where are you in Can?
-
where are you in Can?
Vancouver
-
Vancouver
I was there 6 month last year... had a good time and work
-
doubled
-
I shot roughly 40,000 film frames with my two H2s before moving to digital and I did all of my scanning on the Nikon 9000 (most of the images online are from these scans). The Nikon is worth the extra money in my opinion and try your best to get the best image from the scan capture part in the workflow. Scan at max resolution as well.
As someone else suggested, get the glasss tray, but I found I got best results with wet scanning my film with the 9000.
Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
Derek,
Nice images on your site.
For your work max resolution and wet mounting is required. For fashion and people 2000 dpi is really all that's called for. I liked my Nikon 9000. One thing about the Nikon is that is really only scans at 4000 dpi. For lower resolutions the software down samples the 4000 dpi scan. I think what Dolce Moda needs 2000 dpi will be fine.
-
Derek,
Nice images on your site.
For your work max resolution and wet mounting is required. For fashion and people 2000 dpi is really all that's called for. I liked my Nikon 9000. One thing about the Nikon is that is really only scans at 4000 dpi. For lower resolutions the software down samples the 4000 dpi scan. I think what Dolce Moda needs 2000 dpi will be fine.
TMark,
Thank you--you are right, 2000 dpi, or even 300 dpi if not printing more than 8x10, is sufficient. I only scan at 4000 dpi because I only want to scan once and I do print large. Wet scanning is a major PIA, but the results are worth it. From 645 scans I'm printing 48" x 40" without software up-sizing. But the quality from a digital back is far beyond scanning. Be well.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
Derek,
Nice images on your site.
For your work max resolution and wet mounting is required. For fashion and people 2000 dpi is really all that's called for. I liked my Nikon 9000. One thing about the Nikon is that is really only scans at 4000 dpi. For lower resolutions the software down samples the 4000 dpi scan. I think what Dolce Moda needs 2000 dpi will be fine.
Can I get 2000dpi with an Epson v700 and fluid mounts?
-
Can I get 2000dpi with an Epson v700 and fluid mounts?
Ask this guy:
http://scanscience.com/Epson_V_Kits.html (http://scanscience.com/Epson_V_Kits.html)
Kind regards,
Derek
-
Can I get 2000dpi with an Epson v700 and fluid mounts?
I only use my v700 for 4x5, and mainly black and white and chromes, as the color gets strange with negative film. That's using three different drivers: Silverfast, Viewscan and the Epson software.
T
-
I only use my v700 for 4x5, and mainly black and white and chromes, as the color gets strange with negative film. That's using three different drivers: Silverfast, Viewscan and the Epson software.
T
I am told from the ScanScience people that wet-mounting prevents color shift as compared to dry scans.
-
Ask this guy:
http://scanscience.com/Epson_V_Kits.html (http://scanscience.com/Epson_V_Kits.html)
Kind regards,
Derek
If you are going to wet mount and you have the space, I would go to Ebay and pick up a drum scanner, they go for Epson money. Other than that the Nikon coolscans will beat the cheap flatbeds.
My ideal would be something like the Eversmart range of A3 flatbeds, a bit to much money at the moment, with them you get speed ease of use and top quality.
The cheap flatbeds like the Epson/Micrtotek quote high dpi, but in reality you don't get anywhere near that in captured detail. In fact I did see a test somewhere where you actually captured more detail at 2000dpi with them than at the "full" resolution. Get a Nikon.
Kevin.
-
I am told from the ScanScience people that wet-mounting prevents color shift as compared to dry scans.
With all due respect to the person at ScanScience, the only reason why I went to wet scanning was because of the random appearance of Newtonian Rings (NR), even with the anti-NR glass. If there is even a slight curve to your film, these rings will destroy a photograph.
Color shift? I've used the 9000 for years before wet scanning and the color isn't any different/better with wet scanning. Very important: you must make sure you have a dust free environment, dust in the liquid is a major PIA.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
If you are going to wet mount and you have the space, I would go to Ebay and pick up a drum scanner, they go for Epson money. Other than that the Nikon coolscans will beat the cheap flatbeds.
My ideal would be something like the Eversmart range of A3 flatbeds, a bit to much money at the moment, with them you get speed ease of use and top quality.
The cheap flatbeds like the Epson/Micrtotek quote high dpi, but in reality you don't get anywhere near that in captured detail. In fact I did see a test somewhere where you actually captured more detail at 2000dpi with them than at the "full" resolution. Get a Nikon.
Kevin.
The Microtek I use is a dedicated film scanner. I do get more detail out of it at 4000 dpi than 2000 dpi, but the time penalty is absurd.
I think it is important to note that all of the home solutions are compromised to some degree. For anything really important I send it out for a drum scan or, gasp, I print it in the darkroom. I can't (and won't) spend four hours making a "perfect" scan, then four more hours retouching. Its possible to reach the pinnacle of scan perfection with wet mounts, but is really tedious. I think for up to 16 x 20 a 2000 dpi scan from a dedicated film scanner is just fine, for people.
That being said, perhaps buy a v700 and try it out. It might work for you. If not, you have a good flatbed for scanning polaroids, prints, flat art, invoices.