Negative Scanner Recommendations

[enboe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

May I inquire to the group brain here what current models of 35mm negative scanners are best recommended as a companion to a film M?

 

Thanks.

 

Eric

[CalArts 99]

There's not much to choose from these days (we used to be able to choose from Minolta, Canon, Polaroid, Nikon, etc..) Today it's pretty much either a used Nikon Coolscan or a current Plustek. Or a very expensive drum scanner (or the quasi-drum scanner Hassleblad Flextight which is still going to be expensive.) The Coolscans are very good since they have auto focus and also a top quality lens. But the used prices are kind of outrageous now and there is no longer any support from Nikon (software is available but it's only third party like Vuescan or SilverFast.)

 

I'd personally recommend any of the current Plustek film scanners (not the flatbeds) as a decent consumer CCD scanner for 35mm film Plustek | B&H Photo Video

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tkmedia]

depending on your output and how much you need to scan and how much time you want to use creating those scanned files. Current models there is not much choice as scanners tend to be a transitional product. I dont know that much about traditional desktop scanners.

 

I prefer older decommissioned lab scanners, since i'm lazy. But they often require a dedicated computer / workstation for operation.

 

For an old flatbed, I like the Fujifilm Finescan XY type scanners, Creo, Kodak IQsmart, etc. They are very big and very heavy though.

 

I like old cheap Pakon's for basic scans, but I don't recommend them if their limitations bother you.

 

Fuji Frontier SP3000 scanners are good, but still very pricy new. For 1k + the are many Noritsu HS-1800 or older lab scanner that also work well. Many ones in the S series require proper software for stand alone operation.

[honcho]

May I inquire to the group brain here what current models of 35mm negative scanners are best recommended as a companion to a film M?

 

Thanks.

 

Eric

 

The simple answer is the very best scanner within your budget. There is little point in investing in expensive cameras, peerless lenses, film and processing if your final image output is ultimately doomed by the scanner. The Pluteks seem to be capable enough within their limitations. Nikon, Minolta, Canon etc are no longer OEM supported, which is why I personally would avoid them now unless a good Coolscan 9000 could be had for a price that might be written-off if it breaks, as it surely will eventually.

 

Depending on your budget, commitment to film photography, available space, peripheral hardware, willingness to dedicate time to the operational learning curve etc, some used desktop drum scanners such as the Howtek 4500 are worth considering and are a comparative bargain when they crop up on the usual sites. You'll get

better files than anything else, even a Flextite, can offer and often at less cost than some of the more popular higher-end enthusiast scanners already mentioned.

 

ETA: It will help you immeasurably from the outset if you adopt the view that scanning is your ultimate investment in the quality of your film photography/scanning workflow and output. If scanning is seen as nothing more than a chore, you will be wasting your time and money.

Edited August 6, 2014 by honcho
Experience.

[wattsy]

If you live near a major city, it is often possible to hire the use of a Flextight. Once you get up to speed with the operation, paying by the hour is an economical way of using a scanner of this quality.

[DigitalHeMan]

I personally use the Plustek Opticfilm 8200i and it works very well for my needs. Much lower desk footprint than a flatbed scanner, which was my other option in the price range.

[DigitalHeMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One addition - I saw a big improvement in scan results by buying Vuescan software - I couldn't get along so well with the Silverfast software that was delivered with the scanner.

[leicaphilia]

One addition - I saw a big improvement in scan results by buying Vuescan software - I couldn't get along so well with the Silverfast software that was delivered with the scanner.

 

Agreed. Vuescan, at least when used with the Plustek, is a huge advantage over the bundled Silverfast.

[erl]

As already stated, options are limited. To feed your high quality Leica films into anything of a poorer quality seems counter productive. I would suggest anything NOT dedicated to scanning 35mm films is going to be a compromise. If you can get your hands on a Nikon Coolscan 5000, it will be second hand, get it. Nikon are not supporting any of their scanners anymore, but gradually that is the fate of everything filmwise, eventually. Life is about risk. Take it it while you can.

 

Avoid flatbed scanning for 35mm film.

 

Whatever scanner you get, go straight to using VueScan software. Don't waste time with Nikonscan software or Silverfast, even if you get it for free!

[MarkP]

Does Silverfast on a current Mac support a Coolscan 5000 or does one now need a PC?

Nikon's Mac-compatible software hasn't been compatible with OS X since about 10.4.

[erl]

Mark, do you already have a Nikon 5000, or are you contemplating it?

 

If you already have one, forget Silverfast. VueScan will work on ANY scanner/computer combo, and is excellent. You won't need Nikon software to run on the Mac.

[Michael Hiles]

It surprises me that the Canoscan 9000 has not been mentioned, nor the Epson line. I have been using a Canoscan 8800f very happily. It is just fine, and produces scans that allow me to make beautiful prints (I send massaged files out to have silver prints made). I assume that the later model would be as good or better. The Epson 700 and 750 have good reputations, but seem to have dropped on the "recommended" lists. Unclear why, although the Epsons are not cheap. Both these brands can be bought new, and presumably are supported by their makers.

 

I also think that (within reason) the brand of scanner matters much less than the skill you develop in scanning and teasing out the best from your negatives. Same basic reasoning applies to pictures vs. cameras. Develop your eye and sensitivity - the camera and lens don't much matter.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Michael Hiles

[250swb]

The Epson 700 and 750 have good reputations, but seem to have dropped on the "recommended" lists. Unclear why, although the Epsons are not cheap.

 

It is nothing to do with price, the Epson is fantastic for medium format and large format or 35mm digital contact sheets, but the cheaper Plustek is far better for 35mm full resolution scans.

 

I use both alongside each other, and given the discounts possible you can get an Epson V700 and a Plustek for the same price as a 'full price' Epson. The Plustek's are pretty well all the same scanner apart from the version number of the Silverfast software, and as that isn't great go for a cheaper discounted model and use Vuescan.

 

Steve

[NJH]

I have been very impressed by the Minolta 5400 I bought from Ffordes. Was to good a deal to pass up but yes I know it is very real risk of impending bin foder. Haven't used it enough yet but the first negative I scanned came out so much better than the one done for me by my local lab on their Noritsu machine (now a Fuji SP-3000). Not so much resolution as I haven'd done an A/B test yet against their high res scans but the tonality and its smoothness combined with the incredible sharpness of the structures in the scan is something else. I kept thinking for example that I was tending to overexpose but it turns out my exposures are fine, the lab scans continually seem to compress the highlights way too much.

 

Hopefully I will get a bit quicker but yes some of you guys were right, getting a really great scan is very rewarding but some of it is a real nause. I am not talking about software here but the faff with making sure the negative is clean and is sitting nice and flat in the holder etc.

[CalArts 99]

 

Depending on your budget, commitment to film photography, available space, peripheral hardware, willingness to dedicate time to the operational learning curve etc, some used desktop drum scanners such as the Howtek 4500 are worth considering and are a comparative bargain when they crop up on the usual sites. You'll get

better files than anything else, even a Flextite, can offer and often at less cost than some of the more popular higher-end enthusiast scanners already mentioned.

 

 

fwiw, I operated an Aztek Premier (which is based on the Howtek HiResolve 8000) with Digital PhotoLab 7.8 software (Windows only) in a very high-end commercial environment and only towards the end of my tenure did I feel like I was getting close to being pretty good, and yet still not a 'master.' Drum scanning can be learned, but it takes a lot of effort and time to get the *full* benefits from it. And while I definitely agree that older Howteks look to be a great bargain these days (the Aztek is ~$50,000 USD), there is no support with either hardware or software (the Lippencott family who designed and sell the Aztek are not supporting the old Howteks or the old Trident software much these days other than some basic instructions and trouble shooting tips posted on their website.)

 

In addition, the user has to be supplied with additional materials such as Mylar, tape, fluid, etc.. And when the drum gets crazed or needs replacing it's not easy to find new ones. And then there's the loading station, ancient software (and SCSI connections.) I don't think it's what the OP was really wanting to get into, especially if they are just now asking about 'what scanner' would be good with a film M.

 

And I also agree that a negative/positive from a camera with quality film and quality lenses like the Leica M, deserves the best one can get from it. But I think one has to be realistic given the circumstances. I think the OP would be fine with a current consumer CCD dedicated film scanner. If they decide on a used Nikon and are willing to take the risks (and pay the crazy prices), then that's fine, too. Or they can get a relatively inexpensive Plustek that is still produced and supported and see if home scanning is what they even want to be doing. One can still get good quality for monitor display and also printing (I think printing large is really more dictated by the film area itself; 35mm is pretty small.)

 

The other option is to have scans made at the time of processing (if one is using a lab.) Frontier and Noritsu scans can be also decent for monitor display or prints. And if you get to know the operator and they know what you prefer, you can form a good working relationship. Likewise, one can get an inexpensive flatbed and make contact prints and hire out for scans of the frames to be printed. Or get the inexpensive PlusTek for general use and hire out for drum scans for exhibition quality prints, etc.. Sometimes the money/time spent on home scanning might be better spent on high quality drum scans only when really needed.

 

I think the reality these days is that film scanning is pretty much the missing link in a hybrid workflow. We have to find what works for us given our own personal expectations, needs, and desires. And what is also really practical in respect to what's available. But I feel that there will always have to be a compromise of some kind (i.e., expensive/time/effort vs acceptable quality.)

[CalArts 99]

Does Silverfast on a current Mac support a Coolscan 5000 or does one now need a PC?

Nikon's Mac-compatible software hasn't been compatible with OS X since about 10.4.

 

Silverfast sells and supports software for the all of the Nikon Coolscans on the current Mac OS. But you have to buy a copy for each one of the scanners you might own. The license is model specific. Whereas a Vuescan license is not model specific, it works on any scanner that Vuescan supports.

[honcho]

.... I think the OP would be fine with a current consumer CCD dedicated film scanner. If they decide on a used Nikon and are willing to take the risks (and pay the crazy prices), then that's fine, too. Or they can get a relatively inexpensive Plustek that is still produced and supported and see if home scanning is what they even want to be doing......

 

'Scanning' is a vast playing field if we're comparing obsolete with obsolete.

 

You're right, of course.

[MarkP]

I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 put away for some years as I didn't realize it could be used with the latest Macs - at the moment I'm using the 2014 release Mac Pro.

 

I've been scanning recently with an Epson V700 using Silverfast but I'm not thrilled with the results - maybe it's me rather than the scanner.

 

I use the software to generate a fairly flat/neutral file from the negative much as I would a DNG file in a raw converter before processing it to my taste for printing.

Edited August 6, 2014 by MarkP

[erl]

Mark, you need to get that Coolscan 5000 out of mothballs! It it is soooo much better than the Epson V7000 (I have both). Like Steve, I use the 7000 for contact sheets, it's good for that, but the 5000 will blitz it for 35mm. Also, you must use VueScan. The alternatives will all give you agony, IMO.

 

You will need nto double check scanner compatability with your Mac. I am a PC man and know nothing of Macs. As long as the hardware connects, VueScan will run on anything, and better IMO.

Edited August 7, 2014 by erl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

Regarding cost and sensibility: Consider that equation in relation to your camera gear and decide if it is reasonable to apply to scanning as well. You (presumably) have a 'fortune' invested in camera gear, don't let it down by cheapscating on scanner gear. For 35mm, go for a dedicated film scanner like Nikon (2nd hand) and just pay what it takes, if you can.