Jump to content

plustek


dchalfon

Recommended Posts

G'day dchalfon, I have an Plustek Optic Film 7200 I use to scan my E6 transparencies, and have posted here before that I am not sure if I am getting the best results I can. Not sure if it is me or the scanner or even the Silverfast software that comes with it. It has been suggested on the forum that there is better and simpler software to use so that will be my next step. I think the other software is called Vue Scan and can be downloaded off the net.

 

How do you find the Plustek?

Edited by colin_d
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse

I ordered the 7600i Ai from BH and it will be here in about one week

I currently own the Nikon Coolscan IV ED

I didn't want the Flatbed scanners - too much desk space

So we'll see - I'll keep you posted...

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had a look at plustek, but some of them don't scan the negative, but only take a digital photo of the negative and then enlarges it. i'm not sure if the model you are talking about does this. from what i've researched, results aren't as good when the neg isn't scanned, but photographed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7600 plustek is what the Shutterbug Magazine recommends as best available for a reasonable price.

 

Nikons were better, my original Minolta 5400 is and was the best in affordable scanners. All are discontinued.

 

Drum scanners and the Imacon are the best if you have really big money and space.

 

I just wrote something on scanning technique.ink below. pertains to all scanners.

 

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/123909-my-first-steps-leica-m-m3.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse
anyone using plustek scanners? any thoughts?

 

I got my M6TTL and Plustek 7600 Ai today

Took some quick picks with a Fuji200 and developed them at a local Grocery Store

Scanned them with the Plustek (no idea what I was doing - but now have read some online manuals) and the Nikon Coolscan IV ED

So far the Plustec is not superior - the image of the Schrub was straight from the software Silverfast - no CS4 adjustments Michael Sossenheimer | Color Film

 

 

So far the images are not any better than those of the M9, but we'll see - I am learning.

 

The Plustek is "beautiful", small footprint, comes with a sweet carrying bag, great for storage - smaller than the Nikon. There are tons of options for adjustment so I am certain that I will get better scans in the future.

 

I am a little nervous that the MP and M6TTL won't "outperform" the M9 after all ... but the M6TTL is gorgeous. A beautiful cam..

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of epson users around. i am one of them.

 

Thanks for the tip. They look good. I think I'd go down this road if returning to film.

Steve Huff's site gives some tips on scanning B and W here:

Scanning your film with the Epson V700 Photo Scanner | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

and a good review with colour scanning tips here

EPSON V700 review

 

 

Both have silver fast tips.

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little nervous that the MP and M6TTL won't "outperform" the M9 after all ... but the M6TTL is gorgeous. A beautiful cam..

Cheers

 

you can't compare an m9 digital file to a scanned film file. they are two different things. like comparing oranges to apple pies. you can compare 5x7.5 prints of each, but not scanned film file and a m9 digital file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse
anyone using plustek scanners? any thoughts?

 

Ok

I promised an update

I took a few shots with my M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Fuji 200, developed locally

Then I scanned them with the NiKon Coolscan IV ED and Nikon software, Silverfast software and my new Plustek 7600 with Silverfast Software - the 7600 seems slightly superior....

Judge for yourselves.

Michael Sossenheimer | Scanner Test

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't compare an m9 digital file to a scanned film file. they are two different things. like comparing oranges to apple pies. you can compare 5x7.5 prints of each, but not scanned film file and a m9 digital file.

 

True and still true

It's like comparing a ekta on a light table and a print on paper or ... compare a mustang with a donkey :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse
True and still true

It's like comparing a ekta on a light table and a print on paper or ... compare a mustang with a donkey :eek:

 

Thanks for the insight - as said I am still learning and experimenting with all photographic media..

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't compare an m9 digital file to a scanned film file. they are two different things. like comparing oranges to apple pies. you can compare 5x7.5 prints of each, but not scanned film file and a m9 digital file.

 

Actually, you can compare them, surely! I would love to see the differences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight - as said I am still learning and experimenting with all photographic media..

 

Compare scanner is very interesting. This requires a precise and rigorous method must be to research the quality of all the elements to consider. Also add a comparison with a file from a digital camera will give even more traps.

 

A quality print (20 x 30 cm) must be the goal for each subject studied (scanner and digital camera). Then, you scan each print the same way and put them in your comparison chart.

 

It is a starting point, and that's just my opinion

Cordially

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse
Actually, you can compare them, surely! I would love to see the differences.

Ok - so here is my question and please forgive my ignorance

 

Should I expect my B+W photos to be as razor sharp as my M9s?

Is it film to be not as sharp or do I need to send my brand new "old stock" M6TTL in for RF adjustments?

 

Michael Sossenheimer | B+W

Michael Sossenheimer | B+W

 

The photos look great but are nor as detailed as those with the M9 - this could be merely a function of film vs the scanner (I don't own the Nikon 9000) and if so then that's ok.

If I should expect the same details as with the M9 then I should mail the cam in for TLC.

 

Again - forgive my ignorance - but I am still new to Leicas altogether.

 

Thanks for your input - Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only look at detail/resolution and sharpness you will be disappointed with any scan of 35mm film compared to M9 or even M8.

 

Scanned 35mm comes close to my 6 MP Epson R-D1.

Scanned MF film shot with my Hasselblad comes close to my M8.

 

BUT i prefer A4 size B&W prints from scanned 35mm film (M6TTL) to A4 prints from digital files (M8) because .... they simply look better (more depth and nicer tonalities).

 

If your sole goal is maximum detail, sharpness and resolution stop investing in 35mm film leicas and scanners .... stick to the M9 or switch to Medium Format! Just my 2 cents of course. The only {very valid) reason to shoot 35mm film is the LOOK of film (even if scanned) compaed to digital, not resolution, sharpness & detail.

Edited by j. borger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ccmsosse
If you only look at detail/resolution and sharpness you will be disappointed with any scan of 35mm film compared to M9 or even M8.

 

Scanned 35mm comes close to my 6 MP Epson R-D1.

Scanned MF film shot with my Hasselblad comes close to my M8.

 

BUT i prefer A4 size B&W prints from scanned 35mm film (M6TTL) to A4 prints from digital files (M8) because .... they simply look better (more depth and nicer tonalities).

 

If your sole goal is maximum detail, sharpness and resolution stop investing in 35mm film leicas and scanners .... stick to the M9 or switch to Medium Format! Just my 2 cents of course. The only {very valid) reason to shoot 35mm film is the LOOK of film (even if scanned) compaed to digital, not resolution, sharpness & detail.

 

Great answer - thanks for the prompt reply - just what I wanted to know.

I want both - M9 and in addition also the look of film. Thanks for the clarification... this way I don't need to assume that the RF on the M6 is not up to par.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you expected, but digi will produce a cleaner file givin the same size sensor/film. Portra 160 or Ektar are films made to be scanned and will preoduce file visably superior to Fiji consumer films. The good Fuji was the discontinued 160S.

 

I have seen some three dimensional "look" to scanned Leica film I never saw with digi.

 

I looked at the second batch of pics, and the color does not match when you have the same scene. One seems cyan and the other red, see 8&9 . I find all sorts of problems when I let the camera do WB or allow the scanner to decide. Best if if you put the camera on sun light and then manually control color to match when scanning. You then save those settings and apply to the next scan. The color on the first batch was more consistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...