V700 vs DLSR (CFV 16) Scanning 120 Film

[brent8927]

I've seen some arguments for/against DLSR scanning. I had no interest in buying a DLSR just for film scanning. However, I do have a CFV back, and haven't really looked much into using it to digitize negatives. I'm curious if anyone has tried using a Hasselblad CFV back and 120mm Makro lens to "scan" their medium format film (mostly B&W), and how that turned out compared to using a flatbed Epson.

I have already tried a Coolscan 9000. I found minimal differences between it and the V700 after processing the image in Photoshop. The Coolscan required less editing to get the same image, but given how much longer it took to scan, the aging of the scanner (not to mention the cost), and the difficulty with repairing a Coolscan, it didn't seem worth it to buy it instead of keeping my trustworthy V700.

I'm generally quite happy with the results of the V700, but I'm on the lookout to see if I can get better/quicker results elsewhere. I've been quite impressed at the quality of the images that come from the CFV 16 back, considering it's over a decade old, and wondering if coupled with a macro lens, if it might deliver better results.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I haven’t made that particular comparison, but I do digitize negatives and prints with a DSLR on a copy stand, and I haven’t used a scanner for years. The camera is much faster, and it gives me as much resolution as I need and have patience for, since I can always scan in panels and stitch for more resolution, and there are no format limitations, large or small.

 

[ced]

I think mounting the whole system on a LF or bellows rack gets you a bit closer i.e. 1:1, I've played with some old Leaf backs +/- 22mpx results were superb.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you use shorter macro lenses (like Zeiss Luminar, Leitz Photar, Canon or Olympus macrophoto bellows lenses) and or more bellows or extension tubes, on whatever system is convenient for you, you can go much closer than 1:1 and stitch the results, which can be handy for making high resolution files or cropping small details from 35mm transparencies, for example. If I'm not stitching or maybe only stitching 2 or 3 tiles, I tend to use enlarging lenses, usually a 50mm or 90mm Apo-Rodagon on a 35mm full-frame DSLR. All the better, if you have a MF digital back.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For some strange reasons my LR version doesn't know how to keep negative conversion as preset. This alone makes it longer and mind boggling.
With Epson software it is no-brainer, multiple frames (6x6, 645) in and out, normal files to work with. As quick and easy as it could be.

 

[Ed Sawyer]

If your 9000 tests equalled a v700, something was wrong with the 9000. It is clearly and vastly superior to any flatbed epson.

 

[brent8927]

For some strange reasons my LR version doesn't know how to keep negative conversion as preset. This alone makes it longer and mind boggling.
With Epson software it is no-brainer, multiple frames (6x6, 645) in and out, normal files to work with. As quick and easy as it could be.

I hadn't thought about that aspect. The Epson with VueScan is quite simple...

 

[brent8927]

If your 9000 tests equalled a v700, something was wrong with the 9000. It is clearly and vastly superior to any flatbed epson.

I disagree. It was a recently cleaned/CLA'd 9000, and my results were consistent with some other in-depth reviews comparing the scanners (I realize there are many that the 9000 is superior as well). The difference is the scan from the 9000 needed minimal processing. The V700 is capable of extremely good results if you use good technique.

I understand some people love the Nikon scanners, and I'm happy for them. I am extremely happy with my Epson, and just wanted to know if anyone felt using a MF digital back for digital conversion could yield better results than the V700.

 

[brent8927]

If you use shorter macro lenses (like Zeiss Luminar, Leitz Photar, Canon or Olympus macrophoto bellows lenses) and or more bellows or extension tubes, on whatever system is convenient for you, you can go much closer than 1:1 and stitch the results, which can be handy for making high resolution files or cropping small details from 35mm transparencies, for example. If I'm not stitching or maybe only stitching 2 or 3 tiles, I tend to use enlarging lenses, usually a 50mm or 90mm Apo-Rodagon on a 35mm full-frame DSLR. All the better, if you have a MF digital back.

My only system is the Hasselblad system, and I don't have any focal-plane models. My preference is to not buy another camera if I can avoid it!

 

[gorbas]

For some strange reasons my LR version doesn't know how to keep negative conversion as preset.

That is very strange?? Just convert inversion curve on one negative file and save it as preset.
My issue is: DSLR tethered set up with LR5 worked like charm. I take shot of the negative with tethered camera and import it to LR will all preseta applied.
Now with LR CC Classic or what ever new name they have for it, it takes for ever to apply any settings in tethered mode and there are all sorts of delay.
On the end of session I have to go back and apply presets again for most of shots. If I wait minute or two between shots it's get better and super slow, almost as with scanner.
For my DSLR set up I'm going back to reinstall LR5
Looks like that with avalanche of money ADOBE got from subscription they lost it's way around?

 

[brent8927]

That is very strange?? Just convert inversion curve on one negative file and save it as preset.
My issue is: DSLR tethered set up with LR5 worked like charm. I take shot of the negative with tethered camera and import it to LR will all preseta applied.
Now with LR CC Classic or what ever new name they have for it, it takes for ever to apply any settings in tethered mode and there are all sorts of delay.
On the end of session I have to go back and apply presets again for most of shots. If I wait minute or two between shots it's get better and super slow, almost as with scanner.
For my DSLR set up I'm going back to reinstall LR5
Looks like that with avalanche of money ADOBE got from subscription they lost it's way around?

Is LR Classic the one you were able to buy? I have Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5. I never bothered upgrading them because I didn't think I'd see any real benefits

 

[gorbas]

Newest, LR Classic is subscription only. LR6 was the last you could buy alone.
If you keep up with new digital cameras you have to keep up with LR too or Capture one or???? And Adobe knows that!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My only system is the Hasselblad system, and I don't have any focal-plane models. My preference is to not buy another camera if I can avoid it!

Then your 120mm macro lens should be fine, and you can use extension tubes or a macro bellows, if you want to get closer than the lens allows.

 

[Ted Baker]

I hadn't thought about that aspect. The Epson with VueScan is quite simple...

You can use vuescan with your cfv16, it that helps, you will need a utility to bring the gamma to 1. My guess is that the CFV16 would not be up to the job without stitching, but you won't know until you try.

 

[Richard Man]

I have a V700, had LS-8000 then an LS-9000 for well over a decade. Now use a Flextight for quality and Pakon/V700 for quick scans and contact sheets.

If you use the Better Scanning ANR plate, the V700 is pretty decent for MF. It is still not a comparison for the LS-9000.

 

[lantau]

That is very strange?? Just convert inversion curve on one negative file and save it as preset.
My issue is: DSLR tethered set up with LR5 worked like charm. I take shot of the negative with tethered camera and import it to LR will all preseta applied.
Now with LR CC Classic or what ever new name they have for it, it takes for ever to apply any settings in tethered mode and there are all sorts of delay.
On the end of session I have to go back and apply presets again for most of shots. If I wait minute or two between shots it's get better and super slow, almost as with scanner.
For my DSLR set up I'm going back to reinstall LR5
Looks like that with avalanche of money ADOBE got from subscription they lost it's way around?

I find it very uncomfortable to work with the inverted curve. Furthermore I read that various adjustment sliders use different/adapted algorithms depending on whether you slide into positive or negative values. Since LR doesn't know that your image is actually inverted you will not receive ideal results if that is true. I invert in another program (I used PaintshopPro, and now Affinity Photo) and then import that into LR for final processing. A bit tedious, but for me it's the proper way. I could do everything in Affinity, of course but I'm used to adjustments in LR and its library management.

Is LR Classic the one you were able to buy? I have Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5. I never bothered upgrading them because I didn't think I'd see any real benefits

I started with LR4 and it seems the update from 3->4 was probably the most important one. In particular they changed the so called process. That is the engine at the heart of LR. It hasn't changed until LR6 at least. So using LR4 is perfectly fine if you want the best Adobe has to offer. I upgraded to 5 and left 4 running on the laptop.

Newest, LR Classic is subscription only. LR6 was the last you could buy alone.
If you keep up with new digital cameras you have to keep up with LR too or Capture one or???? And Adobe knows that!

I'm still using LR5 and it never supported my newer digital camera. I simply run Adobe DNG converter (free) to convert all raws to DNG. Then import into LR. Adobe keeps updating DNG converter, which is basically a stand alone Camera Raw, as soon as they implemented a few new cameras. There is no need to update Lightroom if your current version makes you happy.