Simple, inexpensive 120 "scanner"

[Sangoma]

Not a scanner at all, but we didn't want to spend the price of a 120 scanner, so I bought an LED light panel, mounted a G3 under a tripod and it works.

Not great photos, my daughter just used a spool yesterday so that we could process it and try it this morning.
Does show the results are good enough for what we need though.

Lubitel TLR, Ilford Delta 100, processed in Bellini FX6a Black & White Monobath

 

[trypdal]

It works in the sense that you get some images back, but are they worth your effort? They would not be to me.

Just get a v550. Brilliant relatively inexpensive machines and they can do incredible stuff with 120 if setup correctly. I bought mine in 2017 from Curry's - £179. What do they cost these days?

 

[Sangoma]

It works in the sense that you get some images back, but are they worth your effort? They would not be to me.

Just get a v550. Brilliant relatively inexpensive machines and they can do incredible stuff with 120 if setup correctly. I bought mine in 2017 from Curry's - £179. What do they cost these days?

Well yes, they are as they show the system will work. These images themselves, not, as indicated in my first post.

We will be able to get worthwhile images for the purpose they are needed. I tried a 35mm scanner last week and it was fine, very respectable prints up to A4, and even decent when cropped.

It would not be worthwhile buying a scanner, and even if it was, I don't know where we could put it

One thing is, I have just not even processed a film for the last 22 years, because I did not see how I could with the limited space we have.
Now everything fits in one plastic box, that doubles as a warming bath (with the aid of a fish tank heater and pump). (don't need it for just one film at a time)
My daughter has learnt how to use a film camera and use a light meter, load the film into the spiral and tank in a changing bag, learnt how to process film, and my son will be learning too which will be useful for his GCSE in a few years time.

The other thing is that processing the film then printing on a printer is something that any one can do with little outlay and in limited space.


How can it not be worth it?

If I wanted perfection, could win the lotto and buy a house where I could have a darkroom like I had between '73 and '85.

 

[auntiemaryscanary]

Not a scanner at all, but we didn't want to spend the price of a 120 scanner, so I bought an LED light panel, mounted a G3 under a tripod and it works.

Not great photos, my daughter just used a spool yesterday so that we could process it and try it this morning.
Does show the results are good enough for what we need though.

Lubitel TLR, Ilford Delta 100, processed in Bellini FX6a Black & White Monobath

View attachment 383672View attachment 383671

Good to see the results from my old Lubitel that you fixed. And that your daughter is getting images from it. I never ever managed to focus that camera with the pop up magnifier, in the end I just guesstimated distances.

 

[Sangoma]

Good to see the results from my old Lubitel that you fixed. And that your daughter is getting images from it. I never ever managed to focus that camera with the pop up magnifier, in the end I just guesstimated distances.

Thanks, it seems to be doing OK,
It is possible it was not calibrated when you used it, obviously is was out and had to be calibrated.
I must admit I find it very hard to see when it is in focus !
She has to get used to having to focus and set the shutter speed and aperture on every exposure

She has taken it out this afternoon again, last time she just used the film so that we could develop it, but it did show it could be in focus, and it could be exposed OK, and she has taken a faster film, more suited to the conditions.

 

[auntiemaryscanary]

Great stuff. Would recommend she tries Kentmere 400, nice film, even nicer price. Really pleased the camera is being used. I was getting close to chucking in the scrap metal bin at the tip!

 

[excalibur2]

The cheapest scanner is an old one from the bootie for peanuts. Mind you I haven't seen one (with neg holders) for quite a while since film has become more popular

 

[Sangoma]

Great stuff. Would recommend she tries Kentmere 400, nice film, even nicer price. Really pleased the camera is being used. I was getting close to chucking in the scrap metal bin at the tip!

That is what she has taken, I also bought 10 of their 35mm 400, seems to have very favourable reports, thanks for adding to that

 

[trypdal]

Well yes, they are as they show the system will work. These images themselves, not, as indicated in my first post.

We will be able to get worthwhile images for the purpose they are needed. I tried a 35mm scanner last week and it was fine, very respectable prints up to A4, and even decent when cropped.

It would not be worthwhile buying a scanner, and even if it was, I don't know where we could put it

One thing is, I have just not even processed a film for the last 22 years, because I did not see how I could with the limited space we have.
Now everything fits in one plastic box, that doubles as a warming bath (with the aid of a fish tank heater and pump). (don't need it for just one film at a time)
My daughter has learnt how to use a film camera and use a light meter, load the film into the spiral and tank in a changing bag, learnt how to process film, and my son will be learning too which will be useful for his GCSE in a few years time.

The other thing is that processing the film then printing on a printer is something that any one can do with little outlay and in limited space.


How can it not be worth it?

If I wanted perfection, could win the lotto and buy a house where I could have a darkroom like I had between '73 and '85.

Don't get me wrong: I wasn't commenting at all on your photographic output. The first portrait in particular is stunning - it would look great as the cover for a record by the Smiths or Belle & Sebastien. Mine was not a comment on your photography. It's far more interesting than mine to be honest. My 'worth it' bit was about your suggested process.

I was trying to propose an alternative to your digitalisation setup. I know myself: if I had to setup a tripod and a digital camera with a bunch of gadgets to digitalise my negatives, I would get bored very soon and itch to spend that time going out there to take my boring pictures of things and buildings. A scanner on the other hand is self contained - it's just one thing. It's set up by a bunch of engineers to do one thing, and do it fairly reproducibly. The V550/V600 is actually pretty small. Mine used to sit in a corner of my desk, about the same real estate of a stack of 2/3 photo books. I personally wouldn't have the room for a permanent tripod installation to digitalise negatives, which I'm pretty sure would take far more room than a flatbed scanner. But that's just me. And if I had to store the repro stand+light pad+etc away and set it up every time I want to scan my negatives, I would stop doing this after a week.

Also this is not about 'perfection' An Epson scanner will not give you 'perfection' at all. A darkroom print will not give you 'perfection'. What is perfection? At the end of the day this is an artistic process. Carry on doing what you enjoy!

 

[Sangoma]

Don't get me wrong: I wasn't commenting at all on your photographic output. The first portrait in particular is stunning - it would look great as the cover for a record by the Smiths or Belle & Sebastien. Mine was not a comment on your photography. It's far more interesting than mine to be honest. My 'worth it' bit was about your suggested process.

I was trying to propose an alternative to your digitalisation setup. I know myself: if I had to setup a tripod and a digital camera with a bunch of gadgets to digitalise my negatives, I would get bored very soon and itch to spend that time going out there to take my boring pictures of things and buildings. A scanner on the other hand is self contained - it's just one thing. It's set up by a bunch of engineers to do one thing, and do it fairly reproducibly. The V550/V600 is actually pretty small. Mine used to sit in a corner of my desk, about the same real estate of a stack of 2/3 photo books. I personally wouldn't have the room for a permanent tripod installation to digitalise negatives, which I'm pretty sure would take far more room than a flatbed scanner. But that's just me. And if I had to store the repro stand+light pad+etc away and set it up every time I want to scan my negatives, I would stop doing this after a week.

Also this is not about 'perfection' An Epson scanner will not give you 'perfection' at all. A darkroom print will not give you 'perfection'. What is perfection? At the end of the day this is an artistic process. Carry on doing what you enjoy!

I didn't take anything negative about it

We have a couple of reasons for the current project, I am pleased to be able to develop anything again, never thought I would have chance. I am please my daughter and son ( the youngest two, the older two are in SA) are keen to learn, my sone as he will be doing GCSE photography, and my daughter as it expends her experience and knowledge (has a degree in fine arts and illustration), plus she has a project at present that needs "old looking" photos.

She exposed another film yesterday, not serious photography, just getting used to things. All twelve frames resulted in reasonable images. I don't think that is bad going for someone who has only used her 7D up to a couple of weeks ago


I think they are meeting her needs, grain is quite evident, and again no tripod (she had one with her, but her friends were in a hurry)
Took me well under 10 minutes to set the camera and tripod up and "scan" the 12 images.



My main interest is 35mm, and I have a cheap scanner for that, this was scanned from a negative taken in 1965 (lunch time on the road between Solwezi and Balovale just past Laloma)



And that prints OK to A4 looking as good as any wet print I have seen.


As you can see, our present use is not very demanding


I will make a note of the scanner you suggest though, in case it progresses to a stage where we need the better quality, though I suspect that with the prices that are coming, we will probably use more 35mm

 

[Nod]

grain is quite evident,

If the grain is "quite evident" in the scans, the scanner is producing sharp enough scans and the softness is coming from elsewhere. Scanner glass could do with a clean though!

 

[Sangoma]

If the grain is "quite evident" in the scans, the scanner is producing sharp enough scans and the softness is coming from elsewhere. Scanner glass could do with a clean though!

The "scanner" is a Panasonic G3 hung under the legs of a tripod, LED light panel, and a black card mask, so no glass

There are a couple likely reasons for the softness, out of focus (I redid the camera calibration this morning in case), motion blur (no tripod used) or limitations of the camera, a Lubitel.

However, for the current project, it is fine, we will see from there.