Paul Reading Posted November 27, 2012 Share #1 Posted November 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I want to digitise a lot of negative mostly 35mm and some 120mm I was considering an Epson V700 or V600. Having looked at the other thread here there are some comments that a dedicated film scanner will smash the quality of a flatbed scanner. I am not planning to scan images to sell to a photo agency or anything of that sort so I don't need 19mb scans. So my question is how are the dedicated film scanners better is it higher resolution or is it focus or colour depth? I was looking on eBay and can se that a NikonCool Scan 5000ed is over £1500 but you can buy a much more modern Plustek brand her f0r around £300. I would really like some guidance here, are the flat bed scanners really that bad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Hi Paul Reading, Take a look here Film Scanners V Flatbed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted November 27, 2012 Share #2 Posted November 27, 2012 The Epson V700 is an excellent scanner, just not as good as a dedicated scanner for 35mm. With larger formats like 6x6 and upwards it is very very good. If you are going to digitise a lot of negatives I think you need two scanners to do it efficiently. You need a flatbed for digital contact sheets, and larger format high resolution scans, and a 35mm scanner like a Plustek for high resolution 35mm scans. Doing a digital contact sheet quickly and efficiently is far better than scanning all your individual negatives at high resolution, and you can use it exactly as you would a normal contact sheet to pick the best pictures for a high res scan. You also get to practice scanning if you do all your contact sheets first, and any mistakes in scanner settings where you aren't getting the utmost from it don't matter so much. Disasters come when you set about high resolution scanning straight off, ploughing through vast numbers of pictures, you think you finished the job, but then discover you should have turned something off or something on in the software to get the best scan quality. There are two equipment conundrum's as I see it at the moment. Nikon made very good scanners, but they are not servicable any more, so if you spend $1500 it could still be working in six years, or it could be junk next week. The second is the prospect of the Plustek 120 scanner, able to do 35mm and medium format. It isn't out yet but should be a good scanner, but it will be manual feed, so doing digital contact sheets will be a chore, which is why I think you need an Epson V700 no matter what other scanner you get. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 27, 2012 Share #3 Posted November 27, 2012 ?....are the flat bed scanners really that bad? In the range you are considering, flatbed scanners produce mediocre scans with medium and large format film and poor scans with 35mm film. The main problem with flatbeds is poor Dmax (the ability to resolve shadow detail in particular), focus and low resolution. As for buying a flatbed purely for making contact sheets, it's an expensive method of creating something you don't really need if you have a light box, a loupe and a little experience. Introducing yet another time-consuming (and utterly boring) stage into a hybrid workflow is pretty pointless, IMO. You don't need it. Your choices in current dedicated film scanners are shrinking, but the Plustek range seems like a good option and the new 120 scanner looks as though it will be an excellent solution for film scanning 35mm up to 6x12. It would be my preference over a discontinued used Nikon, Canon or Minolta. If the Plustek is going to be priced at around £2k, then you are approaching the cost of a used entry level early model Imacon which will still be supported by Hasselblad, but may only have scssi connectivity, so beware! You need to decide how valuable your film archive is to you and what your intentions are for scanning it. You won't be submitting to libraries, and most would reject scans anyway, so ultimate scan quality is not your primary consideration. However, if you are going to invest in a scanner and some considerable time in using it, then it would seem to be a pointless exercise if your output is mediocre or poor quality due to the limitations of a consumer level flatbed. The £1500 you are looking to spend on a discontinued second hand Nikon with no warranty would be better spent on a Plustek 120 and your output will be measurably better than from an Epson flatbed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 27, 2012 Share #4 Posted November 27, 2012 There are some film scans on my Flickr site of medium format and large format 4x5 negatives scanned with the Epson V700, and they are exceptionally sharp even as web pictures at their largest size, better still as prints. I say this as a workman who praises his tools...... ......but I would be interested to see the mediocre scans of which you speak, perhaps I can help with the settings and suggest a better workflow. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 27, 2012 Share #5 Posted November 27, 2012 I suspect from what you have said that the Epson flatbed will be perfectly fine. I have one and can produce acceptable A3 prints from 35mm scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted November 27, 2012 Share #6 Posted November 27, 2012 I suspect from what you have said that the Epson flatbed will be perfectly fine. I have one and can produce acceptable A3 prints from 35mm scans. Agreed. I use a V700 with it's EpsonScan software on default b&w settings and here is an example from my latest roll of Acros 100. Perhaps for scanning lots of colour slides in high resolution a dedicated scanner would offer a better result than the V700 is capable of. Horses for courses and all that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 27, 2012 Share #7 Posted November 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) looks like a perfectly good scan to me, but it is scan to computer to internet to my computer screen. i have a microtek scanmaker i800 which was bought a few years back for other purposes and am just starting to rev it up (using vuescan) to see how it does for 35mm negatives (bw and color) and slides. for me the final test is the print after the scan (no i am not going back to darkroom wet printing ) looking forward to some independent reviews of new plustek 120, selling for $1999 at B&H and Adorama. If scanmaker is good enough, might save me $2000 for something else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 28, 2012 Share #8 Posted November 28, 2012 ...... suggest a better workflow. Very unlikely, but you are welcome to send some of your films and I'll scan them on my Imacon for you. You might even see the difference (equally unlikely). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted November 28, 2012 Share #9 Posted November 28, 2012 I did some tests once on the Epson V750 and Coolscan 5000ED which I have, Epson was certainly good, indistinguishable from the Nikon as far as I could see, but slow, typically more than 2 mins for a 4000dpi scan of a 35mm against the Nikon 40 secs. The Epson also has no specialist setting for Kodachrome and doesn't do a very good job of them, E6 is fine. I have also done some large format B&W on the Epson, again no problems with the quality. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted November 28, 2012 Share #10 Posted November 28, 2012 How much is "a lot" of negatives? And what do you intend to use the scans for? You have a third option as well - digitizing using a DSLR. It can be set up to work very fast, but the main drawback is the lack of Digital ICE for dust/scratch removal. Then again, depending on how you'll use the files this may not be an issue, for instance if you just want to create digital backups. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 28, 2012 Share #11 Posted November 28, 2012 You have a third option as well - digitizing using a DSLR. It can be set up to work very fast... pekkapotka - Journal - Copying slides with OM-D and 60mm Macro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 28, 2012 Share #12 Posted November 28, 2012 As for buying a flatbed purely for making contact sheets, it's an expensive method of creating something you don't really need if you have a light box, a loupe and a little experience. Introducing yet another time-consuming (and utterly boring) stage into a hybrid workflow is pretty pointless, IMO. You don't need it. That may be the case for you personally, but others might find using a robust DAM system to manage their film catalog is essential. e.g., a program like Phase One's Media Pro allows for immediate recall of any frame from a digitized contact sheet using your own keyword system which can be fine tuned to any degree you desire. For those who have large libraries of film negatives and positives it's really an indispensable way of maintaining your inventory in a compact visual form (with keywords, tags, etc.) and being able to retrieve it in its physical form quickly and efficiently (i.e, alpha numerically coding your digitized contact sheets with the corresponding physical negatives.) I personally find that the time spent to initially set up a functioning DAM system and making digitized contact sheets to be well worth it. If the Plustek is going to be priced at around £2k, then you are approaching the cost of a used entry level early model Imacon which will still be supported by Hasselblad, but may only have scssi connectivity, so beware! If a scuzzy interface is no objection (btw, there's only one 'S' in SCSI) then one might also consider a used drum scanner. Although Howteks are clearly no longer supported, you can often find them for less cost than a used Imacon and a new Plustek. There are several places that offer parts and software. And the Lippincott family (in Irvine CA) still offers support for the Howtek Resolve Howtek Professional Scanners, digital imaging and photography Anyway, it's just another option to also consider. But in the end, I think the bottom line is what people are comfortable using and what works for them personally and for their desired output. Some are looking to produce large exhibition prints and others simply want a reproduction to view on a monitor. So there's really no "one shoe" that will fit all. It does get subjective depending on one's own personal needs and one's own parameters on what might "look good" etc., etc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 28, 2012 Share #13 Posted November 28, 2012 ....... I personally find that the time spent to initially set up a functioning DAM system and making digitized contact sheets to be well worth it. . If you are creating 'collections' of usable images that have been culled from an extensive archive, ie unwanted and sub-standard frames have been rejected and binned and contact sheets are created from usable files that pass the editing process, fine, but I personally would not use low quality scans as an integral part of the set up. I agree with the viability of a used Howtek and so does Tim Parkin (I believe). I searched Ebay a few weeks ago and one was available from a liquidated bureau for a very reasonable cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reading Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted November 28, 2012 You are all going over the top here. I have negatives going back to 1976 and I want to scan them and then have them printed into year books. No one looks at old boxes of prints but put your life into a book, well that it something different. It can also make great Christmas presents for family members after all what do you give people who have everything for Christmas? I have seen that sample scan from Keith and it looks excellent so I think the Epson is going to be ideal if a little slow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 28, 2012 Share #15 Posted November 28, 2012 You are all going over the top here. I have negatives going back to 1976 and I want to scan them and then have them printed into year books. No one looks at old boxes of prints but put your life into a book, well that it something different. It can also make great Christmas presents for family members after all what do you give people who have everything for Christmas? I have seen that sample scan from Keith and it looks excellent so I think the Epson is going to be ideal if a little slow. In small self-published book form, you'll be perfectly fine with the flatbed. And if any of the negatives don't scan so well at full page you can always be creative with your layout and do two or four on one page, etc.. In addition, the Epson flatbed will be versatile beyond just using the transparency mode for film. You can scan documents and 3-D objects, etc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 28, 2012 Share #16 Posted November 28, 2012 You are all going over the top here...... after all what do you give people who have everything for Christmas? Oh dear. And there was me thinking CalArts 99 had something worthwhile to say. Never mind. Have a word with Santa Claus. I'm sure you'll find him helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted November 29, 2012 Share #17 Posted November 29, 2012 You are all going over the top here. this forum has such an incredible wealth of knowledge is it amazing. I also think you'll be fine with the flatbed. Don't hesitate to post questions again if you need help with the scanning process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 29, 2012 Share #18 Posted November 29, 2012 You are all going over the top here......... Your pictures will be looked down upon if you haven't got an Imacon, Only those that do say they have a clue, but Investing all that money would be such a Carry On, So do as others do, ensure your pictures show the last laugh's not at you. Ode to Buying an Epson - attrib William Shakespeare Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 30, 2012 Share #19 Posted November 30, 2012 The OP might find this more useful: Test report flatbed-film-scanner Epson Perfection V700 Photo with transparency unit: experiences, image quality, scanning I'm sure the Epson is adequate in some cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #20 Posted November 30, 2012 The OP might find this more useful: Test report flatbed-film-scanner Epson Perfection V700 Photo with transparency unit: experiences, image quality, scanning I'm sure the Epson is adequate in some cases. That article clearly explains what are also my issues with the Epson consumer flatbeds. But all of this is going to depend on the user's own needs and expectations. For the OP's needs and desires, the Epson will be fine. Again, there's no 'one size fits all' sort of thing. And just about anything will look pretty good viewed on a monitor screen (or printed small.) The real proof will be in large prints. But then again very few people print anymore. And that's partly why photography is even more popular than ever. Printing takes work and although the rewards are there, the motivation might not be there since an image on a screen looks pretty good straight out of the box. But nonetheless, I think we all know that a Flextight or an Aztek/Howtek or a Tango (and also a Coolscan 9000/5000) are quality scanning hardware in their respective categories. There's definitely no arguing there. But we also know our own personal needs and expectations (and the costs that certain hardware might incur on our personal budgets.) One just needs to find the right fit that works for them. We tend to spend a big amount of time/effort/money deciding on what are the 'best' camera lenses (e.g., expensive Leica.) But even then certain compromises are often made due to personal circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.