Jump to content

Picking a film scanner... What a pickle


Ozoyo

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have recently acquired a film M.

I have to say I am quite reluctant shooting with it at the moment (which is a shame) as scanning the films with my Epson V500 does not cut it.

 

Before my analog M I used to shoot excusively Medium Format and my scans were good enough (even for large prints).

You can check out some photos here: http://an-analog-blog.tumblr.com/

 

Of course I can get my films developped and scanned by a lab but I like developping my B&W, the wait is a hassle and the price is a turn off.

 

So... New sanner needed for 35mm and the choice is tough :

 

1. From what I read flatbed scanners are not the right solution for 35mm scanning. Yet I am wondering if upgrading from Epson V500 to Epson V800 would make a difference. The strong point is that you can preview and scan 12 shots at a time.

 

2. Dedicated film scanners : The Plustek 8200 looks like a good pick, no MF but decent results on 35mm. Apparently slow scanning and no batch (have to scan one by one!!!)... So potentally better results but a bit of a pain to use. Maybe use the V500 for preview and scan a selection with the Plustek. Some Reflectas can scan entire rolls but I am not sure I understand the process and it looks messy. 

 

3. Then there are the MF / 35 mm film scanners from Plustek and Reflecta but they are expensive and the reviews are not great.

 

4. The old Nikons but they are extremely expensive and not supported anymore.

 

I have to say I am a bit confused about the choice to make here, all help and advice would be welcome :-)

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a PrimeFilm XA, which is for 35mm, has autofocus and batch scanning. It is not Leica quality construction, but produces scans up to 10,000 dpi, at least so it says on the box. I have only used the 5,000 dpi setting, which produces giant files anyway. Colour negatives scan well in batch mode. BW needs a bit of nursing in batch mode. It has a one at a time slide scan facility as well, useful for the box of Kodachromes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Canon 8800f, which I like very much. I have had 12 x 18 prints (far from the maximum) made by Ilford onto Silver paper, and I am very satisfied (I think my standards are very high). Canon gets no notice here, and generally flatbed scanners get poor reviews - but my experience is the opposite. And my Canon will scan 12 negatives in strips of 6, and four slides on mounts.

 

I wonder sometimes if these conversations are driven by the folk who assert that nothing but a Summicrom Apo 50mm will produce a decent image. All other lenses are by definition rubbish.

 

Plusteck has had positive comments in this forum, and one person did a comparison test between a Plustek and a Canon a little while back. The Plustek won by a tiny margin - the differences could only be discerned by a side-by-side comparison, and either scanner would have produced a file that would yield an outstanding print (after appropriate "fine print" work on the file using Silver Efex Pro). I speculate that the current Epsons would perform well - the 750 was rated very highly, and I imagine that newer ones have improved. 

Edited by Michael Hiles
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you should think about what you want to use the scans for - you will see the differences in large prints, but not so much when posting things here. By the time you output a file 800 pixels on the long side and Flickr has over-sharpened it for you (without asking) they will all be essentially the same.

 

I've got a bit of a collection of scanners, from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Pacific Image (brand varies by market) scanners are surprisingly good for their price. I started with an 1800u and went to a 3850u. They now claim ridiculous pixel depths that only add file size, emphasise grain and don't extract anything more from the negative. They are a bit slow and mine certainly does one frame at a time. From there I went to a KM5400 and found it a considerable step up, plus you can batch scan 6 frames at a time. That was only on the market a few months before being replaced by the 5400 II, which is plastic rather than metal, but much faster. No longer made of course, but a working model is a worthwhile buy. The Nikon 9000 is large but good. It doesn't do a whole roll of film the way it's predecessors did, but it gives my big scanner a run for its money. I have sold my Imacon 848, but replaced it with an X1. It's a joy to use, but huge, heavy and expensive. It goes from 35mm to 4x5 with no problems. My flatbed is a 4870, and photo-wise I only use it for 10x8 paper negatives and even 10x8 film negatives, which will scan tolerably with the reflective pad in place (the top light is too narrow for transmission-scanning a 10x8 negative). It will have to be replaced one day with a newer Epson that is made to cope with 10x8 film. I don't have any Plustek film scanners, and I see very mixed reviews about them. However, they can be bought new and can be repaired.

 

But do think about how you want to use your scans as this should make your choice easier.

 

Chris

Edited by chrism
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to say I am a bit confused about the choice to make here, all help and advice would be welcome :-)

 

Some of your observations are correct, some aren't.

 

The main consideration should be that Epson flatbed's are no good for 35mm quality scans, even the V850. They are however terrific for MF and larger formats. The Plustek 8000 series are proper high resolution scanners and they can be quick, and can be slow, it depends on how many things are turned on, such as ICE, etc., but this hold true for all scanners, give them more to do and they take longer to do it. The good thing is you can't use features such as dust removal with B&W anyway, so your scans should be fast.

 

So realistically the Epson V700 or V850 and the Plustek are the main contenders but both have their weaknesses, one can't do 35mm very well, the other isn't automated. So buy one of each. Use the Epson for your digital contact sheets and MF, use the Plustek for your automated scans, buy Vuescan software so you can use the same software for making final scans with both scanners (for 35mm digital contact sheets using EpsonScan is best.). A word about Plustek model numbers, in the main they only differentiate the latest Silverfast software that is bundled in the box, the scanners are all the same, so buying an NOS 7600 version is much cheaper than an 8000 if you aren't going to need the latest Silverfast software. Silverfast is a nightmare by the way and best avoided, but you would need a version of it to get the scanner up and running.

 

Then there is the best scanner of the lot, the Plustek 120. In the first batch the negative holders were made from the wrong grade plastic and wouldn't hold the negative in focus, this was soon cured yet the rumble on the internet still persists, otherwise it is as close to drum scanner quality as is possible. Automation for the 120 is unfortunately a job for Silverfast which I won't use, so I do my digital contact sheets with my Epson V700, and final scans on the Plustek 120 using Vuescan. It is expensive though, but for MF the quality is better than an Epson, for 35mm there isn't much in it between the 120 and a Plustek 35mm scanner.

 

So if your main aim is B&W my recommendation may seem extravagant but look for a new superseded model Plustek, say a 7600, and a new Epson V700, and a $90 license for a lifetime use of Vuescan. It is by far the most versatile combination for the money and you are covered for both 35mm and MF or large format, and of course you get a flatbed scanner for any other work.

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Use the Epson for your digital contact sheets and MF, use the Plustek for your automated scans,

 

CORRECTION

 

 

Sorry, I should have said use the Plustek for you final scans after using the Epson for your contact sheets.

 

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

......use the Plustek for you final scans after using the Epson for your contact sheets.

 

This.

 

 

And try to think of life before digital.  How did you quickly "batch" print all your negatives?  You didn't.  You made a full contact sheet and then carefully edited which frames were worth the effort to individually enlarge and print (sometimes using an 8x10 enlarger to get bigger 35mm frames on your contact sheet.)  It's the same process with using a flatbed for your contact sheets (and as an easy digital record keeping of all your film exposures.) Then you make a single scan of a single frame to make a print.  (The flatbed also allows for bigger 35mm frame sizes just like using an 8x10 enlarger.)  Slow? Maybe.  But 'slow' is always relative :)

 

We survived quite well in the film age long before digital.  No, it's clearly not as fast and immediate as a digital capture workflow, but then again speed isn't the point of using film in the first place.  I suggest that a film user should always be thinking 'slow' yet carefully selecting any digital tools (e.g., scanners) that might help facilitate their own personal production needs.  And again, we survived fine in the past....

 

Also you have the option of using a commercial scanning business for any exhibition/large prints. You can have drum scans made for a Durst Lambda or Océ Lightjet and print onto conventional RA-4 paper.  Or just go full analog and have wet prints made with a standard enlarger.  

 

p.s., as an aside here's a way to make a quick proof of a film negative using an iPhone.  Put a negative on a light table (or backlit window) and take a pic with the iPhone.  Go to settings on the phone and to 'general.' Then under 'accessibility' turn on 'invert colors.'  You'll get a negative inverted screen.  If you do a quick triple click, it will flip back and forth between normal and inverted.  The pic you took of the negative will be a positive for you to proof. :D

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest that the opinions here are very subjective and personal.

For an in depth review of the current options I would direct you to this:

 

"Reviewing how one scanner handles all this is a fulsome task in itself. Doing it comparatively with several other scanners of interest to many  (e.g. Epson V750, Plustek OF120, Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000, Imacon, Minolta 5400) considerably multiplied the task. Nonetheless I thought it timely to approach the review this way, and to try to answer as many of the questions that I’ve seen about how these scanners compare. Therefore this is a lengthy article that tries to put the V850 Pro in a useful comparative context. The article is accessible as a PDF download here."

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/

 

The .pdf runs to 89 pages, that's what I call in depth!!

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-New-Epson-V850-Pro-Scanner-Final.pdf

 

Disclaimer: I run an Epson 8200 and V850 scans from which are on the Flickr link in Sig.

Edited by chris_livsey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest that the opinions here are very subjective and personal.

For an in depth review of the current options I would direct you to this:

 

 

We really need to remove the idea that just because somebody says it is a 'review' it is somehow or other an unbiased assessment. A 'review' doesn't make it science, it makes it somebody's opinion dressed in disguise.  :rolleyes:

 

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to remove the idea that just because somebody says it is a 'review' it is somehow or other an unbiased assessment. A 'review' doesn't make it science, it makes it somebody's opinion dressed in disguise.  :rolleyes:

 

 

Steve

 

In my opinion, opinions are not always worthless. And "science" is not the only way to know.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it will change with the renaissance of film over the last year or so.  But right now the 'prosumer' scanner middle ground is largely a desert.  

 

The good news is that even the 'high' low-end (e.g. Epson V850) does a pretty good job.  That said, I'm happy not to have to fiddle with flatbeds anymore.  The Nikon Coolscan 9000 I used for years produced great images.  But the film holders were fiddly and the scanner wasn't supported by Nikon.  Making it work on a modern computer was a challenge.  Unlike most, I'm not a particular fan of Vuescan.

 

Ultimately, I did what Chris (chrism) did... I bought a Hasselblad (nee Imacon) X1.  Scanning will never be fun.  But the X1/FlexColor certainly puts you in a whole different world with respect to ease of use (image quality at that price point is just assumed - and, indeed, is there).  

 

At least with the X1 there's no residual angst that all that expensive Leica gear is going to waste because images are emasculated as they are run through a cheap scanner.  But paying for it isn't for the faint of heart.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At least with the X1 there's no residual angst that all that expensive Leica gear is going to waste because images are emasculated as they are run through a cheap scanner.  

 

Everybody's Leica pictures are emasculated if they aren't scanned with a Hasselblad................. :rolleyes: ? I suppose if you put resolution above image quality (content) it may be true in a world of one-upmanship.

 

But how much cheaper, and worse, would an X1 be if it didn't say 'Hasselblad' on it? It really is the same question as how much cheaper would a Leica M240 be if it was built in China and came with a Fuji name? But would it be worse if it was cheaper?

 

I think you'd genuinely discover that cheaper doesn't mean worse if the marketing department and price structure of Hasselblad was taken out of the equation. So why should it also mean worse if another company sells it's products cheaper and without their noses in the air?

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the takeaways for me from the link I quoted was that indeed the Imacon/Hasselblad class are excellent machines but as so often the extra cost of going that much better, and it wasn't in another class altogether to my eyes against those other machines, is rather a large leap financially. It isn't a simple decision for me though no doubt worth it to some.

My comments re subjective opinion were, to expand, that bold statements of quality or lack of it are posted with no images to substantiate and if they are they are usually of different original material. I have no issues with opinions, we are all entitled to them, but to extend them to facts is a push too far.

 

The same applies to the software which seems to polarise more than the machines or Nikon v Canon. Silverfast is the work of the devil Vuescan the only true path usually. That we have a choice of software is good and is I find very personal. Some hate a complex program that can be finely configured to individual workflow and output others want a click and go solution that still produces quality output. I would never query a choice nor dish one program over another as they are too individual.

 

A review is a formal assessment, a critical appraisal, a retrospective survey or report, which I submit is what that linked article provides, that does not exclude subjective judgements and I did not present it as scientific but would still contend it is more objective and is written by a author with an impressive background in the subject and would carry more weight in an overview of available comparisons than many others.

Certainly if I was the OP reading that review it would bring together the assorted comments on the options and comments on them he has so far accumulated from his research and I hope, because that is why I troubled to post it, assist his decision.

Quite why posting a link with a comment that it is probably, in my opinion, worthwhile reading for the OP, raises so much angst is one of the mysteries of forums I will never understand. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much better is a 50 APO Summicron than the standard, run-of-the-mill 50 Summicron?  The answer, most would agree, is 'some.'  You pay a breathtaking premium for that 'some.'

 

Scanners are no different.  Getting to 80% of some class-leading benchmark can usually be achieved pretty inexpensively.  It's getting those last increments that one pays dearly for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use an old Minolta Dimage 5400 for my 35mm film scan with Vuescan software. Works a treat - much better than any flatbed. Very happy with my results.

 

Here's a couple of sample scans - The Alamo on Kodachrome and Giant's Causeway on Neopan 400

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting to 80% of some class-leading benchmark can usually be achieved pretty inexpensively.  It's getting those last increments that one pays dearly for.

 

Now we have a statistic, everybody without a Hasselblad are not only emasculated but their images are all 20% worse than yours. Some solid information there. So if I bought a Hasselblad scanner and an APO 50 and then something else very expensive that you haven't got you would be emasculated wouldn't you?

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well, that angst about one's images being emasculated was entirely my worry, about my images, Steve.  Not yours or anyone else's.  

 

In retrospect, probably a poor choice of terms, even when talking about oneself.  Kinda reeks of condescension, doesn't it?

 

My apologies.  No disrespect was intended.

  • Like 1
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...