A modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film

[MattKing]

I have soft boxes for my studio flash.

You probably don't want to use a studio flash and softbox, unless you are working with large sheet film.
For me, my Metz 60 CT flashes are probably the best choice, but only because I can still run them using the almost defunct batteries I have.
Something like a Vivitar 283 with a wide angle diffuser would probably be good.

 

[mshchem]

This is all good information. I've got a couple Vivitar 283 flash units. I would really like to get setup for 6x17 . That gets me knee deep in software for stitching and I lose interest.

 

[MattKing]

That gets me knee deep in software for stitching and I lose interest.

Microsoft I.C.E. software - its free!
This is stitched using I.C.E. from two scans of a print on 11x14 paper:

 

[mshchem]

Microsoft I.C.E. software - its free!
This is stitched using I.C.E. from two scans of a print on 11x14 paper:
View attachment 283769

Nicely done. I need to try using computer more. I love darkroom work. Sitting at a computer reminds me of real work. Ugh.

 

[mshchem]

I checked Microsoft and they no longer offer the ICE downloads or the software???

 

[MattKing]

I checked Microsoft and they no longer offer the ICE downloads or the software???

That is unfortunate, and I believe a recent change.

 

[MattKing]

This may work: http://web.archive.org/web/20160421...9e5a-5c91-4b01-898c-ef012cbb07f7/default.aspx

 

[mshchem]

This may work: http://web.archive.org/web/20160421...9e5a-5c91-4b01-898c-ef012cbb07f7/default.aspx

I will try that when I'm on my real computer. Thanks!

 

[Les Sarile]

Microsoft I.C.E. software - its free!
This is stitched using I.C.E. from two scans of a print on 11x14 paper:
View attachment 283769

Big fan of Microsoft ICE since it's release. This one consists of 9 portrait oriented frames of Kodak Ektar 100 . . .

Untitled by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This may work: http://web.archive.org/web/20160421...9e5a-5c91-4b01-898c-ef012cbb07f7/default.aspx

Epson ICE works by scanning film twice. How does this Microsoft ICE work?
Also,the app doesn't mention Windows 10, only operable through 8. Do you know if this works on 10?

 

[Moose22]

Epson ICE works by scanning film twice. How does this Microsoft ICE work?
Also,the app doesn't mention Windows 10, only operable through 8. Do you know if this works on 10?

I just DLd it from the wayback link and gave it a try. It installs on 10 and worked just fine. At least for the test, I don't have any "panoramas" here to composite, but it is stable.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just DLd it from the wayback link and gave it a try. It installs on 10 and worked just fine. At least for the test, I don't have any "panoramas" here to composite, but it is stable.

How does its ICE work?

 

[PerTulip]

I am conflicted.

I did a "DSLR scan" of a 4x5 (1:1 macro, then stitched everything together). The result is amazing! But: a lot of work, meticulous aligning, careful moving the negative, etc. With 135, it's easier, just one shot of the negative. Having a RAW digital image as scan also seems to be better than TIFF or JPG.
On the other hand, my scan workflow is set. Settings in VueScan know. Very straightforward.

I am considering just scanning the negatives on my flatbed to catalog them and at least have one digital copy. If there's anything awesome I'd want a huge print of, DSLR/macro/stiching it will be.

 

[Auer]

Hey there! I wanted to hear your experience for a dedicated and modern scanner for 35mm and 120 film, what to look for, available brands, technologies, etc.

I want something for windows or macos with a fast interface like usb 3.

Thank you
.

Did you come any closer to a choice yet?

 

[moshin]

Did you come any closer to a choice yet?

Not really, seems quite confusing and needs more research, learned a lot reading your answers.

 

[Auer]

Not really, seems quite confusing and needs more research, learned a lot reading your answers.

You could always try out a simple flatbed Epson to get your feet wet, you can sell those pretty fast for not much less than you paid should you not like it.

There is convenience in a dedicated appliance and should you feel the need to use something else later it's easy/less frustrating to experiment if you already have a basic method set up.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Epson ICE works by scanning film twice. How does this Microsoft ICE work?
Also,the app doesn't mention Windows 10, only operable through 8. Do you know if this works on 10?

I don't think these two have anything in common apart from the acronym. Epson ICE is a dust/scratch removal software, while Microsoft's is an image stitching software.

 

[mshchem]

This is convincing me that I need to setup and learn how to use a digital camera to copy film. I do have a nice little Coolscan V unit that was almost given to me. I've used this to scan my Dad's slides. Good results, glacially slow. VueScan software which I have no trouble with.

There is/was a company in the US that converted Kodak Carousel slide projectors into extremely nice slide copiers. A LED light replaced the halogen lamp, a Nikon macro zoom was mounted looking in from the front of the machine replacing the projection lens. You attached a dedicated Nikon DX body and hit start. It would take a picture at about 1 frame a second.

I think if all I want to do is get an image on the internet, for me, the easiest way, for medium/large format negative film, would be to make a contact print and flatbed scan it.

This is a fascinating topic, I think back to the 1960s when color separation negatives were made by using a huge process camera, looking at a rear illuminated 8x10 Ektachrome. We've come full circle in a way.
Best Mike

Frankly people who shoot negatives, intending only to copy and post, would, in my most humble opinion, be better off, simply using digital.

 

[MattKing]

Epson ICE works by scanning film twice. How does this Microsoft ICE work?
Also,the app doesn't mention Windows 10, only operable through 8. Do you know if this works on 10?

I don't think these two have anything in common apart from the acronym. Epson ICE is a dust/scratch removal software, while Microsoft's is an image stitching software.

The Microsoft I.C.E. is short for Image Composite Editor.
And it works on my Windows 10 computer - I downloaded my original copy years ago (on to Windows XP?), and kept it updated through the years. The current version was installed fresh when I updated to Windows 10.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think these two have anything in common apart from the acronym. Epson ICE is a dust/scratch removal software, while Microsoft's is an image stitching software.

The Microsoft I.C.E. is short for Image Composite Editor.
And it works on my Windows 10 computer - I downloaded my original copy years ago (on to Windows XP?), and kept it updated through the years. The current version was installed fresh when I updated to Windows 10.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Deep breath. I was looking at using a digital camera for "scanning" my Beseler Negatrans looks like it would transport my medium format film ( sittingon top of a light source) . What's the best light source

Electronic flash.

+1

You probably have one to work with if you're constructing your own setup. Good diffusion (could even be superwhite paper andor a reflector/flash diffuser) with the highest possible CRI light.

High CRI, bright lights are expensive otherwise. The bigger the light area the more expensive, so if you have a flash already...

I don't want to push this thread any farther off topic, so I have started another thread <here> to discuss details about how to use an electronic flash as the light source when copying film with a digital camera. Thank you.

 

[albireo]

Frankly people who shoot negatives [...] be better off, simply using digital.

Interesting sub-topic and I disagree.

I like digital photography, I have nothing against it. It just so happens that I enjoy using film cameras, not digital cameras, in spite of seeking a digital end-product - for a variety of reasons. Price, handling, ergonomics, the beauty of the process, the beauty of the results, the simplicity of the tools, and so much more. For example, I love shooting and developing black and white film and the results I (and I stress `I') get from a hybrid workflow (film camera+film+self-development+self-scanning) are way closer to my taste - with little or no post-processing - than what I (and I stress `I') could ever get with a DSLR followed by greyscale conversion of some kind.

So, to go back to scanning: it follows from the above that not everyone who scans uses scanning as cheap way to obtain digital 'contact sheets'. I, for instance, try to pursue the best scanning results I can get, and therefore am interested in great scanning devices. Therefore it makes sense to discuss scanning technique, scanners, DSLRs and any other devices that might fit the bill.

Unpopular and very personal opinion: darkroom printing is over-rated. I, and many people in my age group/circle of friends, are simply not interested in wet printing. I think printing is a different art altogether than photography and requires study, passion, money and space. I've been lucky enough to live in three European capitals with excellent access to exhibitions of great past and present artists. I find that unless done by a professional printer, most wet prints are actually mediocre things, that add very little to, or sometimes remove from, the actual photo. The stress on 'the darkroom print' when discussing film photography is a heritage of the past as far as I'm concerned, and there are equally legitimate vehicles to share or present work. Those who believe that 'scanning is cheating' and 'exposure and development do not matter if the purpose is scanning' many times simply can't really scan, based on what I can see.

Essentially, I think there is a new generation of film photographers for which the key product of the process is the negative - not the print. The composition is in the negative, the light as captured is in the negative. I love striving to obtain the best exposed and developed negative I can achieve - what I then do with it after is entirely my business.

 

[runswithsizzers]

[QUOTE="albireo, post: 2457820, member: 86204" [...]
I like digital photography, I have nothing against it. It just so happens that I enjoy using film cameras, not digital cameras, in spite of seeking a digital end-product - for a variety of reasons. Price, handling, ergonomics, the beauty of the process, the beauty of the results, the simplicity of the tools, and so much more. For example, I love shooting and developing black and white film and the results I (and I stress `I') get from a hybrid workflow (film camera+film+self-development+self-scanning) are way closer to my taste - with little or no post-processing - than what I (and I stress `I') could ever get with a DSLR followed by greyscale conversion of some kind.

So, to go back to scanning: it follows from the above that not everyone who scans uses scanning as cheap way to obtain digital 'contact sheets'. I, for instance, try to pursue the best scanning results I can get, and therefore am interested in great scanning devices. Therefore it makes sense to discuss scanning technique, scanners, DSLRs and any other devices that might fit the bill.
[...] [/QUOTE]
+1
I could not have said it better myself.

 

[Les Sarile]

what I then do with it _after_ is entirely my business.

I would argue that what you do before and during as well is also entirely your business . . .

 

[Helge]

Which would be fine, if both positive and negative materials matched in how the colours are put together, and if all the different brands and types of colour materials behaved exactly the same.
The continuous spectrum source permits you to work (relatively) easily with multiple materials.
You don't want a light source that works great with Kodak film, but is just a bit off with Fuji.
And by the way, I forgot one important criteria - the "scanner" needs to have a really accurate system that ensures focus, if only to be able to deal with mounted slides.
One of the reasons that this whole subject arises is because the optical requirements of the traditional line type scanners are so much less demanding than of a scanner that images to a large sensor.
A lens designed for use both at close distances and everything out to infinity - no matter how good - is always going to involve more compromises than a lens designed for repro work - which is essentially what film digitization is.

There is two opportunities to immensely cost reduce a modern scanner:
Liquid immersion of film and/or optics, and cast/pressed plastic optics, as perfected in smartphones over the last decade and a half.
Both of them has been used in microscopy for decades and reduces the complexity of the lens and the need for coatings by an order of magnitude.

Scanning mounted slides would be hard to impossible. But:
A. No scanner can be jack of all trades, within a realistic budget.
B. It's good practice to scan your slides before you mount them.
C. It's a hassle but not an ordeal to open a frame, scan and remount.

A third opportunity of secondary importance is the event of high quality very bright LEDs, with finely tuned phosphor peaks.

A liquid immersed diamond coated sensor of high enough pitch, carefully "walked/stamped" over the scanning fluid emerged naked film, contact printing the emulsion, with a very highly colaminated backlight would be one close to ideal solution.

The sensor need not at all be fullframe. On the contrary fine pixel pitch is much more important here than the size of the sensor. And that goes for whether you contact "print" or use optics.