Film scanner equivalent to MFDB?

[Alex MacPherson]

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!  

[TMARK]

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!

[Imaginara]

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.

[Brady]

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

[TMARK]

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.

[SeanFS]

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!

[TMARK]

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.

[Alex MacPherson]

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?

[terence_patrick]

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.

[TMARK]

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.

[TMARK]

Dolce,

Check it and Wreck it.  A 120tf on CL.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html

[Carsten W]

Dolce,

Check it and Wreck it.  A 120tf on CL.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/pho/987458746.html

ArtixScan?

[TMARK]

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.

[david o]

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  

[david o]

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  

[evgeny]

I posted some images scanned with Nikon 9000 here

[Alex MacPherson]

Dolce,

Check it and Wreck it.  A 120tf on CL.

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.  

[jecxz]

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

[david o]

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?

[Alex MacPherson]

where are you in Can?

Vancouver