What is the best home film scanning workflow if you shoot 4x5, Medium Format, & 135?

[Certain Exposures]

Which of these three options is the "best" way to home scan your work to maintain an online portfolio and distribute to clients (in your opinion), assuming you shoot all three formats?

1. Use an Epson V850 to scan film.

2. Use a DSLR and macro lens to scan film.

3. Scan silver gelatin or RA-4 prints with a photo document scanner.

Why don't you recommend the other two options? What do you do to scan your work for your online portfolio?

My answers:

I've been DSLR scanning my negatives until now. I rarely look forward to doing it :). I don't use negative carriers because a tripod and ANR glass work well enough. I don't bother stitching. The lack of automation is miserable, but I work around this by only scanning the few frames I want to use.

I don't use an Epson V850 because I'd rather wait until it falls into the $300 - $500 range (if ever). I can't see myself buying a scanner that doesn't do 135, 120, and 4x5 with some form of automation. I'm reluctant to own an expensive, older scanner with legacy software.

Scanning prints - although ideal in theory - is impractical (to me) because it takes hours to make a competent print, and it's challenging to match the two. However, I'm experimenting with this approach again.

Note: I didn't see a recent thread dedicated to this. Let me know if there was one.

[Alan Klein]

I don't understand the point of your questions. You've written off dedicated scanners and scanning prints. So you're left with what you do now and use a DSLR.

[bmikiten]

That's easy. Research the 1000 posts on this and choose #1. Seriously, it is all based on the final product. DSLR scanning isn't that much cheaper than #1 in the end.

[jnantz]

Which of these three options is the "best" way to home scan your work to maintain an online portfolio and distribute to clients (in your opinion), assuming you shoot all three formats?

1. Use an Epson V850 to scan film.

2. Use a DSLR and macro lens to scan film.

3. Scan silver gelatin or RA-4 prints with a photo document scanner.

Why don't you recommend the other two options? What do you do to scan your work for your online portfolio?

My answers:

I've been DSLR scanning my negatives until now. I rarely look forward to doing it :). I don't use negative carriers because a tripod and ANR glass work well enough. I don't bother stitching. The lack of automation is miserable, but I work around this by only scanning the few frames I want to use.

I don't use an Epson V850 because I'd rather wait until it falls into the $300 - $500 range (if ever). I can't see myself buying a scanner that doesn't do 135, 120, and 4x5 with some form of automation. I'm reluctant to own an expensive, older scanner with legacy software.

Scanning prints - although ideal in theory - is impractical (to me) because it takes hours to make a competent print, and it's challenging to match the two. However, I'm experimenting with this approach again.

Note: I didn't see a recent thread dedicated to this. Let me know if there was one.


I use a "vintage" (? 15+ year old ) epson 4870 ( down to 110 and 8mm movie stills and up to bigger than 11x14 glass, metal plates, paper images &c ) and I use an iPhone sometimes as well. Stuff has been printed to 6x8 foot panels or down to 3x4inch prints. I think a lot of people spend too much time sweating the small stuff instead of making photographs.

[Alan9940]

Any scanner that could handle your max format would suffice for online publishing. "Distribute to clients" is a wide open topic. If you're talking professional work, then you obviously need a professional solution. If you're talking making prints to sell, you'll need a higher end film scanner or a solid DSLR scanning setup. Regarding the latter, many folks think you can simply toss a digicam on a tripod, point it at film sitting on an iPad and get good results. This setup will certainly provide a "result", but to reach more professional level camera scanning requires some fairly sophisticated hardware and a somewhat steep learning curve.

[Peter De Smidt]

Before getting to scanning methods, what's your reason for scanning? Are the scans for social media, printmaking, book.....?

"I don't use negative carriers because a tripod and ANR glass work well enough"

If you're doing one-shot 'scans', what's the problem? It should be fast and easy, although optimal results would likely be achieved with a better setup than a tripod....

[Peter Mounier]

Which of these three options is the "best" way to home scan your work to maintain an online portfolio and distribute to clients (in your opinion), assuming you shoot all three formats?

1. Use an Epson V850 to scan film.

2. Use a DSLR and macro lens to scan film.

3. Scan silver gelatin or RA-4 prints with a photo document scanner.

Why don't you recommend the other two options? What do you do to scan your work for your online portfolio?

My answers:

I've been DSLR scanning my negatives until now. I rarely look forward to doing it :). I don't use negative carriers because a tripod and ANR glass work well enough. I don't bother stitching. The lack of automation is miserable, but I work around this by only scanning the few frames I want to use.

I don't use an Epson V850 because I'd rather wait until it falls into the $300 - $500 range (if ever). I can't see myself buying a scanner that doesn't do 135, 120, and 4x5 with some form of automation. I'm reluctant to own an expensive, older scanner with legacy software.

Scanning prints - although ideal in theory - is impractical (to me) because it takes hours to make a competent print, and it's challenging to match the two. However, I'm experimenting with this approach again.

Note: I didn't see a recent thread dedicated to this. Let me know if there was one.

[Doremus Scudder]

You left an option off your list:

Copy-photographing a finished print. Copying artwork for reproduction has been done this way for years with superb results.

Scanning film (with or without DSLR) is so you can post-process it with software. That's really part of a larger workflow with a final manipulated digital file as your outcome.

Scanning large prints on a scanner is often impractical (although I paid to have a large number of a 11x14 prints scanned some years ago with very good results.

With a DSLR and a good copy set-up, you can make excellent copies of your finished fine prints, tweak them a bit in Photoshop or whatever and have a great finished product. This, of course, is assuming you have prints to copy.

If you have only negatives and your goal is to end up with a digital file, then that's another can of worms. Scan or copy the neg with your DSLR.

I'd choose the latter, after rigging up a good duplication set-up.

Best,

Doremus

[warpath]

I've done all of the above plus minilab scanners. For speed, a minilab scanner is best. For 120 - 4x5, I have an old kodak hr-5000 universal (these can do 35mm too). For 35mm I prefer to use either a pakon f135 plus or noritsu ls600. Those scanner scan quickly and get rid of dust on the fly, saving a ton of time. Scan an entire 36 frame roll in like 90 secs. But prices have gone through the roof on these. Still worth it if you do a lot of scanning though.

Next option if you already have a digital camera is to scan with that, a macro lens, and a copy stand/tripod. You'll just have to be careful with dust/take care of it in post. You can come up with a rig/process that will allow you to scan pretty quick. I think the bottleneck will be in post. Also, what I like to do is complete close off the area between the film and lens. I use a long bellows/compendium to do this. But a towel or dark cloth will probably work just as good. I do this to remove possible reflection/stray light etc...

Finally if you have prints or polaroids, I like the epson fastfoto. I use this to scan polaroids because it's also quick. I stack them side ways and the fastfoto does the rest.

As for a flat bed scanners. I think I'd only use this for 8x10s. I have an epson 4990 and used it to scan smaller format prior. Didn't take me long to ditch it in favor of other faster methods.

If I can only choose one, I'd probably go the with the camera, macro, copy stand method as it's more versatile and easier to replace components.

[djdister]

I use an Epson V750 for 120, 4x5 and 5x7 scanning and it works well for me.

[JLNims]

LED light pad, 30cm x 21cm, 5600K, with a Nikon D7200 mounted on a K&F cantilever tripod. All have spirit bubbles for parallax correction. Camera shots direct to Capture One. Works great.

[darr]

Here is how I do it: DIGITIZING FILM AT THE KITCHEN TABLE (https://photoscapes.com/digitizing-film-part-3/)
Although I am back in my studio since it was finished rebuilding end of January.

[warpath]

Here is how I do it: DIGITIZING FILM AT THE KITCHEN TABLE (https://photoscapes.com/digitizing-film-part-3/)
Although I am back in my studio since it was finished rebuilding end of January.

That's pretty cool, an entire kit to do 35mm - 4x5 for a reasonable price

[Bill Poole]

Software: VueScan for all formats
4x5 = Epson 700 w/ supplied holders
5x7 = Epson 700 with Better Scanning holder, usually wet scans.
120 = Nikon Coolscan 8000, usually with aftermarket glass holder.

I have done pixel-peep comparisons of 120 scanned on the Epson and the Nikon, and the Nikon wins for detail. That said, for online postings the Epson is fine.
And of course the Nikon is old and no longer available new. Luckily (fingers crossed) mine just keeps on ticking.

Hope this helps.

[otto.f]

I hardly scan my 120 and sheets. Why would I shoot film in the first place? For wet printing, what else? These formats are big enough to judge from a contact sheet. I use the Plustek for 35mm, it’s even cheaper than 300$ and it’s good enough to judge what I want to print wet.

[Tin Can]

Scanning is always a learning curve as tech and your expectation increases in quality

My best scanning setup fills a room

[Bill Poole]

I hardly scan my 120 and sheets. Why would I shoot film in the first place?

In answer to your question, some of us unfortunates are largely restricted to hybrid workflows, often because we no longer have space for a print-capable darkroom. Or perhaps we have family responsibilities that make it difficult to disappear for hours of wet printing. We continue to shoot film because:
+ we love the process of shooting film and often, as in my case, developing it.
+ we believe that the images we get from that process have a character that is unobtainable from pure digital workflows,
+ we find enjoyment printing digitally, even though the results might not be the same was wet printing.

I don't know the OP's situation, and I'm speaking only for myself as someone who came back to film because of the availability of hybrid work flows. I now print wet occasionally, but not often. And if you are going to work hybrid, you need the best scans you can get,

[otto.f]

In answer to your question, some of us unfortunates are largely restricted to hybrid workflows, often because we no longer have space for a print-capable darkroom. Or perhaps we have family responsibilities that make it difficult to disappear for hours of wet printing. We continue to shoot film because:
+ we love the process of shooting film and often, as in my case, developing it.
+ we believe that the images we get from that process have a character that is unobtainable from pure digital workflows,
+ we find enjoyment printing digitally, even though the results might not be the same was wet printing.

I don't know the OP's situation, and I'm speaking only for myself as someone who came back to film because of the availability of hybrid work flows. I now print wet occasionally, but not often. And if you are going to work hybrid, you need the best scans you can get,

For 35mm film I do not disagree with you.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Well, not sure the question, but I use an epson V850 up to 8x10 and I use a Howtek HiResolve 8000 for 4x5 up to 8x10. For 35mm I use Nikon Coolscan 4000.