let's talk scanners

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

So I have had a strong momentum shift back from digital to film. Still have the M8 but the romance of film has me under her spell.

 

As a consequence of the M8 I have a rather nice printer - Epson 3700 (or something like that.) Like many I'm frustrated with commercial developing and printing.

 

I'm going to get some lessons re: developing when I get back home from the business trip I'm on. I just don't have the space and time for wet printing. I was then thinking I could scan the negatives and use a digital workflow.

 

So, which scanner do folks recommend? I want one that will do justice to the Leica glass. I want to be able to get professional quality images, better than the standard commercial digital negatives I could otherwise get, and be able to control the printing process. Typically I shoot black and white, again I don't know if that is a consideration. I run Apple, if that matters. Generally don't print bigger than A3. Medium format capability would be a nice to have.

 

Which model do you recommend? Where is a good place to buy one (New Zealand runs 240 volts if that is a consideration)? Is second hand/ebay etc a good approach?

 

Thanks

 

Murray

[Don'tknowmuch]

Hi Murray.

I only speak for myself here and am not aware of what the received wisdom is, but I've spent a lot of time on this, and have personally decided that a flatbed is the way to go. For you, like me, you have an interest in medium format work, and that either means a few thousand whatevers on a seriously expensive dedicated scanner, or a few hundred on an Epson flatbed. In the past the use of a flatbed meant a drop in quality compared to a dedicated film scanner, but now the modern flatbeds are very good to my eye. I currently have an old Epson 2450 Photo that has a max res of 2400ppi and is slow, but the output works for me and I print 35mm negs to 10" x *" with complete confidence. Now the flatbeds scan with a resolution twice what mine works to, they're quick to use, relatively cheap, scan at a resoultion comparible with Coolscans and are available (unlike new Coolscans) - but there is eBay.

I think that, given an adequate resolution, once you actually print something off any differences you see in a final print are as likely to be due to choices you've made in the scanning process as to any inherent potential of the scanning means.

The definitive decider will be, I suspect, the medium format issue - but I wouldn't worry about 35mm on a flatbed any more. I do worry a bit about 35mm at A3+ but no more than I would about a wet-darkroom enlargement of that size.

I wouldn't hesitate if it was me.

Now - you may be considering spending a lot more than I am thinking. In which case why not buy a flatbed, try it, and then either use it for all films if it's fine, or keep it for the medium format work (for which it will be fine) and then know that you need a posh dedicated film scanner for 35mm?

Jim.

[Advertisement]

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

[alw]

Yes, I´m going to get a flatbed too, Canon 8800F which got excellent reviews regarding film scanning and yes, it takes 120-sizes too (180€). What I´m not going to start doing again is inkjet printing my images. No sir, I´ll take my negs to a lab and have them printed on a real photographic paper.

[atufte]

Just bought a used Minolta 5400, and the results with at least B&W scanning is nothing short of amazing, don't mind it's age, this scanner still are among the best, even better than the Nikon 5000 (for B&W scanning)

[greg s.]

I wouldn't choose a flatbed, if you want to do justice to Leica glass.

 

I'm using a Minolta DES 5400 (1st version) and a Nikon Coolscan 9000 since years; they're doing a pretty good job.

 

If money doesn't matter, have a look at Imacon Flextight scanners.

 

Best,

Greg (and congrats for your preferring film)

[greg s.]

P. S. I've heard somewhere that the Coolscan 9000 is better for scanning b/w than the Nikon 4000/5000 series. And it processes MF too, in stunning quality.

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howdy

 

Jim, thanks for your response. I am probably tending towards a dedicated film scanner. I already have a flat bed and results are less than what I think is possible. There i go again, The user blaming the tools.

 

Greg

 

The Minolta sounds interesting are they still available or is ebay the best option? I would consider the 9000 at a pinch, but it seems to be pretty hard to find as well. You seem to be suggesting the Minolta over the 5000 at least. Do you see any material differences between the 9000 and Minolts when scanning 35mm negs?

 

Cheers

 

Murray

[Yuth]

Hi,

 

Like many of you, I'd like to integrate film to my printing work flow at home. At the moment I'm using Epson 3800, and really like it. M8 file print up to A2 size without problem. For film, I'm thinking about this Epson V700/V750. I haven't had any direct experience with it yet, but in case anyone would be interested to find out more:

 

EPSON V700 review

 

Cheers,

[jkphoto]

I just purchased a Microtek M1 and while it is too early to make definite statements, initial impressions are very good on 4x5 scans.

[tgray]

If you can afford the Nikon 9000 and shoot medium format, I'd get that. If you can't, or just shoot 35mm, go for the Nikon 5000 or the V. Personally, I went for the V and saved myself $500-600. The 5000 is really recommended if you do a lot of batch scanning, but then you have to buy either the roll film adapter or the slide adapter. I don't know about you, but I rarely have 36 frames I actually want off of a roll, so the V is fine for me.

 

I'd love to get a 9000 though - I'd actually shoot medium format then. Or play around with panoramic 35mm like the xpan, or scan the edges of your film, etc. But its a lot more money.

 

The most bang for you $1000 would probably be a Nikon V and an Epson V700 (or a similar class flat bed)..

[ndjambrose]

Murray, you're in the same place I was about 8 months ago.

 

Like you, I wanted a serious film + digital workflow with the best quality I could get within a reasonably broad budget. I looked at at a Flextight X1 but found that a Coolscan 9000 gave me 95% of the Flextight, but at only 15% of the cost. Seemed like the better deal.

 

In my opinion there's not much comparison between a flat-bed scanner and the Coolscan. I've had flat bed scanners of one form or another since they first came out, but have recently started rescanning my medium format archive because the quality from the Coolscan is much better than I got from my Epson.

 

My biggest frustrations with flat-beds have been the difficulty with keeping the film plane flat and not having adjustable focus - plastic height extenders for the film holder don't really convince me. The Coolscan has heavy-duty film holders, motorised precision loading, accurate refocusing and up to 16x multi-pass scanning, plus I'm not always fighting dust on the glass.

 

But a flat-bed will scan prints which is the reason I've kept mine, although it doesn't see film anymore.

[gesper]

Went with the 9000 and am glad I did.

[doubledan]

I too have been shooting more film again, partly in reaction against blasted highlights and a culture that seems to value digital geekery over basic esthetics. In short, I don't want "consistent output" followed by virtuosic post-processing. I just want really nice, 3D-looking pictures, the way they used to be in the heyday of Kodachrome, maybe once in four or five tries. So in experimenting with scannning and printing at home, I was determned to keep things as simple and undistracting as possible.

The key has been my scanner: a humble Epson 500 flatbed. After some initial disappointment, I found that by taking greater care and experimenting with settings -- for now, I've settled on "home" mode at 600 dpi -- I can easily get twice the resolution of the "free" cd's from my corner photolab, and much better color fidelity.

As for printing, I have only a two-cartridge H-P loaded with the special cartridge 99 or 100 and pearl-finish inkjet paper. For most purposes -- sending prints to older relatives who don't have computers, eg., -- this is more than adequate -- and again, light years ahead of the machine-made prints from today's labs. When I want a better, more archival print for whatever reason, I will either rent better equipment or turn it over to a pro.

One of the more satisfying effects of this approach has been the full resurrection of my rangefinder outfit. Three excellent Zeiss zm lenses and a Zeiss Ikon body, and also some older Leica pieces, had practically been in cold storage, awaiting that glorious day when a decent full-frame digital rf at a reasonable price might come along. Now, the more I shoot b/w film, and especially color chromes, I find that I actually prefer the look of older gear, incluidng a charming Elmar C 90 I bought at Adorama for $239, and a Canon

50 1.4 picked up at a good price on eBay. Compare the nifty little Canon 50 to the monstrous Leica-Panasonic 1.4 that I almost bought for my Olympus digital camera, and it's obvious how much carrying-around weight I'm saving as well.

Digital footnote: To the extent that my chromes need any post-processing after scanning, it can usually be done in the simplest thing on my computer: the Picasa auto-color button.

[Michael Hiles]

Yes, I´m going to get a flatbed too, Canon 8800F which got excellent reviews regarding film scanning and yes, it takes 120-sizes too (180€). What I´m not going to start doing again is inkjet printing my images. No sir, I´ll take my negs to a lab and have them printed on a real photographic paper.

 

I do pretty much the same with a Canon 8400F. It is absolutely fine. I have nothing to say about the dedicated machines - I do not have one. But the flatbeds get a bad press, which does not square at all with my experience. The latest Epsons have great specs, and if I were buying again, that would be my route.

 

And for prints to mount and frame - fibre based double weight silver gelatine paper. The prints have a presence that is the real deal. Fred Picker used to say "Different is not the same"

[Don'tknowmuch]

Slight diversion - could you, Michael , please just give me a pointer to the silver gelatin paper, please?

Thanks,

Jim.

[Michael Hiles]

Hi Jim,

 

Silver gelatine paper is the $10 effete snob way of saying regular old fashioned B&W paper that you use in your wet darkroom. It comes from the fact that the light sensitive silver bromide (or silver chloride) is put on paper suspended in a gelatine mixture.

 

This stuff interests me because I still make my prints for the wall in a darkroom on Ilford multigrade paper. Not all that many because I have limits on available wall space.

 

Cheers,

[Guest Posto 6]

Just bought a used Minolta 5400, and the results with at least B&W scanning is nothing short of amazing, don't mind it's age, this scanner still are among the best, even better than the Nikon 5000 (for B&W scanning)

 

Could not agree more-wonderful machine (even for Kodachrome), compatible with Vista, excellent prices on eBay!

[Vieri]

Nikon Coolscan 5000 or 9000, depending on wether you'd like to have MF capability or not. The MInolta, while being a good scanner, is not up there IMHO and - which is more important - isn't supported anymore: you get it, if it breaks that's it, no service (more than that, no Minolta anymore, no Konica-MInolta either...), so you'd end up with what is just a large paperweight (unless you can find a repairman in your area who is willing to mess with it, and who has spare parts from other defunct scanners...). The Nikon is great, and is - still - supported by Nikon; the M1 receives good critics but I never tried one; the V700 is very good, I have one and am happy with it but after getting the 9000 there is simply no comparison and the V700 is on its way out now.

[NZDavid]

Murray, I posted this question a while ago and top recommendations were for a Nikon film scanner. I haven't pulled the trigger yet, as I have had good results from a lab (Kens Digital - Future Fresh Solutions) and haven't needed to do too much scanning recently-- however I would go for the Nikon rather than the flatbed.

 

Best from snowy Christchurch,

 

David

 

David Killick, Freelance Journalist and Photographer, New Zealand

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Don'tknowmuch]

One thing I forgot to mention is that I only work with B+W and so my comments about the elderly Epson and general personal satisfaction with the flatbed concept refer solely to B+W. I've not tried the flatbed with colour and it occurs to me that if I did I might then be more aware of it shortcomings...

And, Michael, thanks for silver gelatin-response. I thought you were saying you had a pet inkjet paper that satisfied your wet-darkroom criteria, but it looks as if you have to get wet in order to cover your wall.

Jim.