Canon 8800F Film Scanner with 120 Film

Canon 8800F scannerI developed my first roll with Fuji Pro 400H from Foto Express in San Jose and I tried for the first time scanning the 120 negatives using the Canon scanning software. On my first trial, I have to admit various unknowns as I am not yet familiar with the process. I managed to get the scanner to perform all the auto cropping and I set "Medium" for handling on dust and scratches. I used 4800 dpi in the beginning and I later turned into smaller dpi with 2400 dpi. The size for the 4800dpi goes about 18Mg whereas the size of the 2400dpi scan goes about 3 to 5 Mg.

In 2400 dpi
Pentax 645N, canon 8800F, fuji pro 400H test shot
In 4800 dpi
Pentax 645N, canon 8800F, fuji pro 400H test shot

In 4800 dpi
Pentax 645N, canon 8800F, fuji pro 400H test shot
In 2400 dpi
Pentax 645N, canon 8800F, fuji pro 400H test shot
in 4800 dpi
Pentax 645N, canon 8800F, fuji pro 400H test shot
All photos shot with Pentax 645N and
Pentax 645 FA 45mm f/2.8

Impressions & Notes

  • I am somewhat doubtful on my path into Pentax 645N as I contemplate the idea of exploring film with just a simple 35mm camera such as my Ricoh xr-p or Pentax MX
  • I have not tried the Canon 8800F on 35mm, I will report later on. I have high hope on its film scanning with b&w and color films that I did with the Ricoh xr-p. Slides will be the next endeavor when I manage well with film.
  • The 4800 dpi scan takes quite long as in 8 to 12 minutes for a single picture whereas the 2400 dpi takes about 4 minute in my old Dell system that is 5 year old.
  • The dust and scratch removal seems to work to a certain degree on the Canon 8800F flatbed scanner. But when I look at the original picture in the scan, I still see quite a number of dust spots and small scratches easily
  • I have not used all the controls in the scanning
    • Auto Tone -- I turned that ON in initial trial. I later learn and try to turn Auto Tone to OFF and rely on post processing in Lightroom
    • Bright Light Correction -- always OFF
    • Dust/Scratch removal -- I used Medium. I have this ON for past proofing and it works quite well especially on color or C41 film such as Kodak BW400CN.
    • Unsharp Mask -- I turned that on in the trial. Later on, I have this OFF and rely on LightRoom instead
    • Grain Correction -- I turned that off
  • After my 1st roll, I like the performance and color in the Fuji pro 400H with landscape shots. My local lab with Foto Express in San Jose also recommends the film and it costs less than the other color film that I look up.
  • After scanning the 645N films, I also did several trials on 35mm black and white film with Kodak BW400CN on the Canon 8800F scanner, I find results are not as good and satisfactory. For one, the 8800F scanner don't have 'dust and scratch removal' on BW negatives. I scan in 16 bit gray scale in 1200 and 2400 dpi in color negative and results don't seem to appeal me so far.
  • Instead of the Canon ScanGear driver, I tried out the free version of VueScan but so far, I don't follow the logic in VueScan and I find the Canon ScanGear working more intuitive and faster than the VueScan. I know everyone praise about the VueScan and I am going to keep trying.
  • I have seen great results, most with MF cameras in using 8800F, I visit this Flickr Canon 8800F scanner group for inspiration



吉米言 said...

Nice Sharing, Thanks.

Hin Man said...

Thank you Jimmy for the visit. I tried again last night with black and white 35mm film scanning, the results are not as good. I will keep trying. I am thinking of trying out VueScan as an additional software. I also heard good things about SilverFast but it looks more complicated than VueScan.

Anonymous said...

Hi Hin,
I think you should try out some portraits with your 645, I'm sure you'll like the results. I agree that there's no point in the 4800 dpi, esp. with the time and file size!

Don't give it up!

Anonymous said...

I agreed on taking portraits with the 645, the bigger neg renders really beautiful images and from your 35 images the 120 will only show much better especially when printed to 16x20 and up.
btw nice job on those samples you showed.

Hin Man said...

Hi Somanna, thanks for the support. I will stick to my film plan and keep trying. Once I do some more scanning on 645N and that from 35mm film pictures, I see quite a positive difference than the smaller size with the 35mm. My Canon 8800F seems to work better with 645 bigger pictures. I hate to say it, though the hassles, I really admired at what other people can achieve with film. Films can be beautiful -- see this Flickr Group on Canon 8800F. Seeing the potential seems to direct my timid mind for more positive and creative visions into film endeavor.

Hin Man said...

Hi Peter, I will try on Fuji Acros 100 BW on portraits and street shooting next. I originally want to try out the Kodak BW400CN on 120 size but my favorite c-41 bw films seem to get discontinued on that size. It is a shame. The only two bw 120 films that I know is the Ilford xp-2 400 and Kodak BW400CN. I really like the fine grain and ease of use and development with Kodak. I know about the color cast but I can live with that as my lab seems to develop the Kodak with great consistence. I will try Ilford xp-2 400 next as it cost less and develop faster with c-41 films.

Unknown said...

I was able to find the details that I was searching for. I must thank you for the initiatives you have made in writing this article. I am expecting the similar best efforts from you in the future as well. 35mm slide scanning service

Post a Comment



Welcome to Hin's Photo Corner, this is my learning blog on photography, blogging and advertising. And I hope you enjoy your visit. For contact, please comment in blog post or email me directly hintheman at


B&H Best Deals