I recently got into film with a Nikon 35mm and a Rolleiflex. I was hoping to pick up a scanner that would do both. My ideal scenario would be a simple macro lens adapter, but I don't see one at BH that does 120. Not wanting to make a huge investment, but curious on what people in the group use? It's $9 for my local place to scan for relatively low res, so over time it will add up so hoping there is a good cost effective solution. I have an old Nikon Coolscan that's about ten years old, but it won't do 120 either.
You're about to be deluged with everyone sharing their personal DIY or otherwise complicated/expensive story about scanning film. Before you take the plunge into home scanning, send out a few rolls to online labs (if you don't like your local place). Get your technique down, make sure your equipment works. Home scanning is best for when you are producing a bunch of high end scans for print or a show. It's laborious and complicated. Epson flatbeds will scan 120 but they suck for anything but sheet film. There is a new production 120/35 scanner but it's set you back $2k. Most people camera scan now but the components are not cheap at all and the labor is high.
Just pay the $9 or whatever it costs to get the resolution you want. Labs are great. Film would not continue to exist without them.
$9 seems like a lot for scans; my lab here in Montréal does 3200x2100px scans with a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier for $5 Canadian, which is about $3.50 US. Those are high-res enough for online sharing purposes; they can do higher-res for a higher price but I've never needed it.
The Valoi Easy 120 (https://www.valoi.co/easy120) is probably what you want; it does 35mm and 120 and attaches to a macro lens, and you can scan a roll of film easily and quickly (in less than 5 minutes). But it's about $520 for the kit; if you don't already have a macro lens you'll have to pay extra for that. At your current rate of $9/roll it would pay for itself after about 58 rolls.
There are plenty of options for cheap camera scanning set ups. There is definitely a learning curve, both for the actual scanning and for converting to positive using one of the available software options, but once you're set up, scanning and converting isn't really that time consuming.
This topic has come up a number of times, start with this thread for 120: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1841321/
The original question is about scanning 120 with the rebate, but there is plenty of more general discussion in there.
bjhurley wrote:
$9 seems like a lot for scans; my lab here in Montréal does 3200x2100px scans with a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier for $5 Canadian, which is about $3.50 US. Those are high-res enough for online sharing purposes; they can do higher-res for a higher price but I've never needed it.
The Valoi Easy 120 (https://www.valoi.co/easy120) is probably what you want; it does 35mm and 120 and attaches to a macro lens, and you can scan a roll of film easily and quickly (in less than 5 minutes). But it's about $520 for the kit; if you don't already have a macro lens you'll have to pay extra for that. At your current rate of $9/roll it would pay for itself after about 58 rolls.
I pay more than $13 to get developed/scanned depends on which lab I use.
I told my fiancée I spend $200 a month on film and developed/scanned but looks like I already over that amount since I'm shooting more and more film the passed half year.
I'm trying to set up my digital scan anytime soon and also try to persuade my fiancée spend hundred bucks on the setup is saving a lot in long term.
I have the Valoi for 35mm combined with a Canon 100mm macro on my R5. Love it.
But I’d have to shell out a lot to also scan 120 film with the Valoi, so I’ll go with the copy stand and Negative Supply kit I had bought before I got the Valoi (which initially was only available for 35mm). I have thousands of 35mm negatives but only a few hundred of 120.
I use Negative Lab Pro for the conversion in Lightroom.
Looks like the Blackbox HOLO is a cheaper alternative to the Valoi Easy 120 (and also scans 35mm); it has good reviews on Etsy but I'd like to see some independent reviews. Seems similar to the Valoi Easy 120 but is less expensive. Note that the listing below is on the Canadian Etsy site; it does that automatically based on my IP address...
Scanning square 120 film is a bit wasteful of pixels obviously with a 35mm camera, or even a 4x3 (although less so). You can get around this by taking two overlapping shots and combining two images. But, seriously, I would not dream of doing that unless desperate. Or you can zoom in from your square original and use more of the 35mm frame. In my experience, though you still get a good "scan" shooting the square into a 24x36 sensor, particularly if you use the Sony pixel shift to maximize color info.
speedgraphic wrote.. Home scanning is best for when you are producing a bunch of high end scans for print or a show. It's laborious and complicated. ..
I find it simple, easy and quick using a digital camera and macro lens.
I use a Nikon Z7 and just crop out the non-scanned area when I scan 120/220 film. If shooting square format images eg Rolleiflex, Hasselblad 500 etc, I still get images 5200x5200 which is plenty for anything.
bjhurley wrote:
$9 seems like a lot for scans; my lab here in Montréal does 3200x2100px scans with a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier for $5 Canadian, which is about $3.50 US. Those are high-res enough for online sharing purposes; they can do higher-res for a higher price but I've never needed it.
The Valoi Easy 120 (https://www.valoi.co/easy120) is probably what you want; it does 35mm and 120 and attaches to a macro lens, and you can scan a roll of film easily and quickly (in less than 5 minutes). But it's about $520 for the kit; if you don't already have a macro lens you'll have to pay extra for that. At your current rate of $9/roll it would pay for itself after about 58 rolls.
I have the ValoiEasy35 and love it. But I can't justify the price for the 120 version. However, here's something very similar and it comes with 35mm and two 120 masks. It's cheaper than the Valoi 120 and it's one stop shop for both 35 and 120.
Is an Epson V600 a bad option? You can scan prints and film. I'm looking into one. I have mountains of old film to scan. I also have a D780 (or D850) which if you get a cheap amazing light and the Nikon ES-2 and a macro lens you can do positives or negatives and the camera does all the work of reversing negatives for you.
jwolfe wrote:
Is an Epson V600 a bad option? You can scan prints and film. I'm looking into one. I have mountains of old film to scan. I also have a D780 (or D850) which if you get a cheap amazing light and the Nikon ES-2 and a macro lens you can do positives or negatives and the camera does all the work of reversing negatives for you.
The flatbed scanners tend to be a lot better for 120 than for 35mm, but the Epson V850 does a good job on both (for a much higher price). The V850 can also do 4x5 film, and you can do wet-mount scanning.
My approach is to use cheap lab scans as essentially contact prints (and for online sharing); if I ever want a really good scan for printing there are some facilities in my city with drum scanners that produce amazing results. But if I ever get back to developing my own film, I'll likely get a camera scanning setup. I don't have any desk space for a flatbed scanner.
Anyone who can't get a decent scan from a scanner like the V850 hasn't got it set up right. Obviously a dedicated 35mm film scanner will be better.....but I use both and there isn't a massive difference. I get sharp A3 prints from 35mm negs....equally sharp A2 prints from MF negs.
I would point out I actually use a V700; which is essentially the same machine as the V850 but a lot cheaper. Several comparisons have been done on line between the two; all come to the same conclusion.
One obvious point to make is it is hard to get a decent scan from a poor negative; and some films do scan better than others. Scanning technique is all important, that includes post scan editing. But lots of decent Youtube tutorials on all of this....
Lab scans suck. Almost always. Especially at $9 a roll. You'll get an overly sharpened 8 bit jpg which leaves very little room for editing. It won't even make for a pleasant desktop background image.
If you do digital macro photography, you most likely already have the expensive gear to do your own scans, so I would start with that.
If you are doing a lot of C-41 in 120, I would eventually consider taking a serious look at a refurbished V850 or similar as they have digital ICE which simplifies dust removal. I got mine for $700 so it has already paid for itself. As mentioned, these scanners are lousy/imperfect for 35 mm, but you still get the advantage of digital ICE.
Before you try the $9 scans and the $1000 on an Epson and the this and that, send a roll or two of your favourite films to one of the most expensive labs you'll find. FINDLab or whatever, others can tell you what's in the US. Pay for the most expensive scans they'll get you (so maybe $20-30/roll).
Then you will have a reference point of what that price point gets you. You can then compare to the $9 scans and the $5 scans and the home scans and the digiscans.
It is important though to have a view of what a very good lab can get you, before you go down the rabbit hole of home scanning (whether it is simple or not is irrelevant). You need to know what you're aiming for when you're spending your evenings home scanning.
I used to thinnk I had it all sussed out and good with my Epson and a Minolta DS4, then 10+ years ago I sent a bunch of rolls to the Canadian Film Lab and it was like looking at someone else's photos (a much better someone else).
panos.v wrote:
I used to thinnk I had it all sussed out and good with my Epson and a Minolta DS4, then 10+ years ago I sent a bunch of rolls to the Canadian Film Lab and it was like looking at someone else's photos (a much better someone else).
