Medium Format Scanning and Scanners

[oxcanary]

Hi all, Hope this does not breach the rubric. just now realising I would like to scan my hasselblad and yashicamat negatives (all 6x6) So I can post online. Do any of you have suggestions about good medium format scanners to look at or good scanning methods.

many thanks?

 

[neilt3]

You typically just use a flatbed scanner with the correct film holder .
I have an old Epsom scanner that must be about twenty years old .

You would be better doing a search on the hybrid forums as this has been discussed before with lots of good advice .
See here ; https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/scanning-and-scanners.361/

 

[Dan Daniel]

Another method is to photograph the negatives with a (that which will not be named) camera and invert. For B&W negatives the inversion is fairly simple. For color negatives, there are presets, or methods that need to be followed, but again fairly simple.

 

[Alan9940]

For posting online, I would think just about any flatbed scanner that will handle a 6x6 film holder should suffice. For higher quality and/or for printing, I would recommend a digital scanning setup; especially if you already have a digital camera. This is not an inexpensive option and there is a learning curve involved, but IMO that results obtained are worth it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Epson V600 around $300. It scans 35mm and 120.
Epson V850 around $1300. It scans 35mm, 120 and large format up to 8"x10". It's slightly better for resolution and dMax but not much to matter.

I have both and can recommend the V600. Here's a link to the scans I've made with the v600.

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Once you decide and purchase, you might want to come back to this forum to get tips. Scanning takes time to learn and tips will speed it up.

 

[KinoGrafx]

Hi- I just use an old GH1 with a nikkor 55mm macro to shoot negatives (in a neg holder set several inches above a REALLY old ipad as a light source) and get far better “scans” than I ever got from my epson scanner, and it’s also a much quicker process!

 

[RestroomSoap]

It all depends on your budget, what quality you want out of your negative, and how much time you have.

I found an epson v600 for $100 on fb marketplace and it has served me well. It's relatively quick and the quality isn't bad for internet posting.

 

[blee1996]

I have used my Epson V700 for 15 years since new, and it still works well for my medium format scans.

 

[Pioneer]

I use an old Epson V500 and I have even scanned 8x10 in sections and joined them with software. Posting on-line doesn't require a lot of quality and frequently you'll be shrinking it down anyway.

 

[250swb]

An Epson V700 is very good for medium format scanning (and doing digital contact sheets), but the best means of top quality scanning is a full frame mirrorless or DSLR camera with a minimum 24mp and a macro lens, copy stand etc.

 

[MattKing]

Thread moved - thanks for the report.

 

[VinceInMT]

Just a couple years ago friend gifted me an Epson V500 and I have used the heck out of it. For posting online, it creates good images like this one in the Gallery:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/barber-church.68858/

 

[albireo]

the best means of top quality scanning is a full frame mirrorless or DSLR camera with a minimum 24mp and a macro lens, copy stand etc.

Not at all. A DSLR camera with an interpolating Bayer (or worse, Xtrans) sensor is, by design, a sub-par method for scanning. Poor resolution in relation to the hardware used, especially colour resolution, as expected due to demosaicising. The only way to avoid this is by stitching, but that can cause a host of other artefacts, and completely nullifies the only real advantage of DSLR scanning, which is speed.

A dedicated film scanner using a non interpolating line sensor will easily wipe the floor with most amateur DSLR scanning concoctions, at a fraction of the price (a Coolscan 8000ED works perfectly on Windows 11 and can be found refurbished for 1000$). Otherwise it's drum scanners.

The only reason to tinker with DSLR scanning is if one has a DSLR kicking around already, if one is bored and prefers aligning repro stands with light pads rather than taking actual pictures, or if one cannot stand the noise of a real film scanner (they can admittedly be quite noisy).

 

[Les Sarile]

Keep an eye out for the older model Epson 4990 that can be had for very reasonable cost in the used market. You might also find Epson V7XX and V8XX for reasonable prices. These scanners have ICE (dust and scratch removal). Keep in mind that DSLR scanning does not have the ability of ICE.

With a good setup, DSLR scanning's main advantage is speed of acquiring the image. Of the three types of film - b&w, color slides and color negatives, the first is the most advantageous as ICE doesn't work on b&w film. So the same amount of post work cleaning the image will be required. Inverting the b&w image to a positive is relatively simple. With color slides, the conversion is still relatively easy but now you may miss having the use of ICE. The last type - color negatives, will require the most work when it comes to the post as inverting the color negative can be challenging. There are many sources of information on how to do this and there are many here who have done it successfully. In fact a member here also does this as a service doing it in high volumes. As with slides, you won't have ICE so you will also have to spot your image in post.

 

[BMbikerider]

Epson V600 around $300. It scans 35mm and 120.
Epson V850 around $1300. It scans 35mm, 120 and large format up to 8"x10". It's slightly better for resolution and dMax but not much to matter.

I have both and can recommend the V600. Here's a link to the scans I've made with the v600.

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

I will go with a V600. I have one which replaced an elderly V500 after it stopped working with one of the updates with Windows 10. The 120 negative is not all that demanding when compared with 35mm so you should get grain free scans.

 

[wahiba]

I use a Epson V300, 35mm only for my occasional forays into 120. It actually scans a strip about 40mm wide and about 200mm long. Rather than the scanning frame that comes with it I use a piece of card with slots cut in to match those on the frame. I then scan 120 wide film twice lengthways. It is fairly straight forward to scan one side and then slide it across for the other obviously keeping it as parallel as possible.

Using Photoshop Elements 'panorama creating' facility I blend the two scans together and 90% of the time get a clean invisible blend. Occasionally they might mismatch but a rescan usually sorts this out.

Obviously the scans are at the same setting, easy enough with the Epson software.

Recently I acquired from a Charity (US Thrift?) Shop a basic 120 scanner. No great resolution but more than adequate for on line and Lomo images. I had been on the look out for one for ages as I had no intention of paying big money for one.

Alternatively just photograph the negative with a digital camera. For a quicky this can be done by hand. Someone had some old 6x9 negatives from a box camera and literally held them up to the light and took a picture. Graphics software does the rest.


The pixl-latr is a holding frame for anything from 35mm to 4x5 and can be propped on legs, supplied on a white sheet of paper in front of a window and the negative photographed with a digital camera. Tripod or by hand.

 

[Steven Lee]

Hi all, Hope this does not breach the rubric. just now realising I would like to scan my hasselblad and yashicamat negatives (all 6x6) So I can post online. Do any of you have suggestions about good medium format scanners to look at or good scanning methods.

Define "good"? Putting the workflow issues aside and only looking at the image quality when scanning medium format, it goes roughly like this, in the ascending order:

• Dirt cheap camera-based setup with an extension tube
• Epson V600
• Epson V700/750/850
• Plustek 120 Pro
• Mid-priced camera-based setup with a macro lens
• Coolscan 8000/9000
• Flextight 949/X5
• High-end camera-based setup
• Creo
• Drum

The definition of cheap/mid-priced/high-end camera setups deserves a thread of its own. Mainly this is about megapixel count, lens quality, availability of pixel-shifting and stability of the platform.

Also, there's the law of diminishing returns. Starting from the middle of this list each subsequent upgrade costs progressively more money while offering smaller marginal improvement than a previous upgrade.

 

[Les Sarile]

Define "good"? Putting the workflow issues aside and only looking at the image quality when scanning medium format, it goes roughly like this, in the ascending order:

• Dirt cheap camera-based setup with an extension tube
• Epson V600
• Epson V700/750/850
• Plustek 120 Pro
• Mid-priced camera-based setup with a macro lens
• Coolscan 8000/9000
• Flextight 949/X5
• High-end camera-based setup
• Creo
• Drum

The definition of cheap/mid-priced/high-end camera setups deserves a thread of its own. Mainly this is about megapixel count, lens quality, availability of pixel-shifting and stability of the platform.

Also, there's the law of diminishing returns. Starting from the middle of this list each subsequent upgrade costs progressively more money while offering smaller marginal improvement than a previous upgrade.

Just for perspective, the Coolscan 4000dpi produces a 5669 X 3779 pixel file or - 21.4MP, from 35mm film. This 4000dpi scan exceeds the scan from a 36MP Nikon D800 DSLR on the same 35mm film. Since the 8000/9000 applies 4000dpi across the full size of the medium format film this means the DSLR required to match that resolution will have to be well beyond >100MP for 645 film and >200MP for 6X9 film. Or you will have to take many DSLR scans and piece them together.

BTW, depending on the film used - and various other qualifiers, 4000dpi may not be enough to extract all the info that has been captured on the film.

Also consider that the Coolscan 9000 has an incomparable ICE (dust and scratch removal) in terms of speed and quality. Currently, Adobe PS AI is not even close to matching it.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Les Sarile Not going to argue with you. My list is based on my skill+technique, my equipment, and my results (except the bottom 3 options, I paid for those scans). By the way, since we are talking Coolscans, the question was about scanning medium format, not 35mm. The effective resolution of the 8000/9000 series is somewhat lower than the 4000/5000.

 

[albireo]

Also consider that the Coolscan 9000 has an incomparable ICE (dust and scratch removal) in terms of speed and quality. Currently, Adobe PS AI is not even close to matching it.

So does the 8000ED. I often use ICE via Nikonscan and it's a godsend. One caveat is that to truly experience the value of ICE one needs to use the original Nikonscan software. Vuescan does a much poorer job of driving the ICE hardware in these machines. I didn't believe this until I tried it myself.

Devil's Advocate Hat on: one clear, massive advantage of DSLR scanning is silence of operation. My film scanners, and that includes my 8000ED, make a racket, so much so that I feel divorce is close.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile Not going to argue with you. My list is based on my skill+technique, my equipment, and my results (except the bottom 3 options, I paid for those scans). By the way, since we are talking Coolscans, the question was about scanning medium format, not 35mm. The effective resolution of the 8000/9000 series is somewhat lower than the 4000/5000.

I assigned an actual DSLR for relative measure where you didn't. Since you stated you did, what DSLRs specifically were used as "Mid-priced camera-based setup with a macro lens" & "High-end camera-based setup" as well as what specific medium format film.

I presented the D800 on 35mm as a reference to be extrapolated when applied to medium format and stated that 4000dpi is applied to the full film sizes that it supports. Whereas a DSLR's full resolution would have diminishing resolution when scanning larger film formats such as 645 or 6X9 compared to 35mm. Even more so when accounting for cropping due to different aspect ratios.

 

[Les Sarile]

So does the 8000ED. I often use ICE via Nikonscan and it's a godsend. One caveat is that to truly experience the value of ICE one needs to use the original Nikonscan software. Vuescan does a much poorer job of driving the ICE hardware in these machines. I didn't believe this until I tried it myself.

Devil's Advocate Hat on: one clear, massive advantage of DSLR scanning is silence of operation. My film scanners, and that includes my 8000ED, make a racket, so much so that I feel divorce is close.

I only have the 9000 but it makes perfect sense that the 8000 pergorms equally well. I also continue to use Nikonscan because ICE is optimal with that combo.

All my scanners are noisy and the 9000 maybe the loudest of rhe bunch. So its easy to tell when the batch is done . . .

 

[warden]

Also consider that the Coolscan 9000 has an incomparable ICE (dust and scratch removal) in terms of speed and quality. Currently, Adobe PS AI is not even close to matching it.

Dust and scratch removal in PS does not need AI and is better overall quality than ICE because it doesn't soften the entire image to remove dust and scratches.

 

[albireo]

Dust and scratch removal in PS does not need AI and is better overall quality than ICE because it doesn't soften the entire image to remove dust and scratches.

The thing is, ICE doesn't soften anything. And by that I mean that nobody would ever pick the ICE-d version of a scan versus the non ICE-d in a double blind test done correctly.