Picking a film scanner... What a pickle

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

My apologies.  No disrespect was intended.

 

For myself I couldn't care less Jeff, I know what a Hasselblad scanner can do and know what the rest can do and knew to treat your off the cuff comment with the incredulity it deserves. But I think I'm a practical sort of person and it was a pragmatic discussion to encourage the OP to have a go, only for the nugget of information to be dropped in that any scans would be crappy and a waste of time unless a Hasselblad scanner was purchased. Again with my practical and pragmatic hat on it may only be the case that a drum scanner can produce something better than a (good) cheaper scanner a small percentage of the time, a darkroom beats your scanner, and a fundamentally good photograph can be processed and printed with the very cheapest service at Wal-Mart without becoming a less powerful image, so beating both scanning and the darkroom.

 

If the OP ends up buying just a 35mm Plustek it doesn't disenfranchise them from creative photography, good photography, or enjoying themselves. If they have the money and commitment to ultimate quality an X1 is the thing to buy as a backup, after they've bought a darkroom.

 

 

Steve

[ColColt]

I found this discussion about scanners interesting in that I just bought an Epson V600 at the proding of several others and have only had it about a week. I didn't care for the built in soft ware(ArcSoft) so bought the Professional version of VueScan and while it takes a while with the learing curve I'm slowly coming around.

 

It does a pretty decent job with 6x7 negatives and transpariencies but not so well for the most part, with 35mm. So, I'm looking into a dedicated 35mm scanner and the Plustex OptiFilm 8200i SE seems a viable option. I kow you'll be paying for the SilverFast software but, I guess there's no getting around that. I'd prefer the VueScan instead. Would this be a good scanner for 35mm, if anyone has this model, that is?

 

As you can see the V600 doesn't do too bad with MF negatives.

 

KathyB013b by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

35mm negatives aren't too bad either if your purpose is putting them on flickr.

 

scan0006a by David Fincher, on Flickr

Edited June 30, 2015 by ColColt

[Advertisement]

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

[Ozoyo]

Thanks to all for the replies.

 

I still haven't managed to take a decision, but I will shortly and will keep you informed. Jager summed it up well saying there is little offer in the "prosumer" scanner range. As a consequence I am still "puzzled".

 

As I have said before, I managed to get amazing large prints from my V500 with MF. But ColColt 35mm V600 sample illustrates that scanning even for a web usage with older Epsons is impossible : too crummy. I incriminate film holders before all on the V500, they are rubbish : 35mm films are never flat.

 

My question is : is the V800/850 with better film holders and better resolution is significantly better?

Or is the answer keeping the V500 for MF scans and proofing 35mm than go with a dedicated 35mm scanner for the shots I have picked?

 

This is stil a puzzle for me but if the V800 is good enough, I'd definitely go for the all in one.

[MT710]

Let me chime in, maybe of help

 

For 35mm I have a Nikon Coolscan (LS-50) as the main scanner and a Reflecta 7200 (now I'd but the 10T) as a back-up. I felt spending that money on lenses I would not want to compromise too much on the scanner and I read about everything I could find on the scanner tests, started with www.filmscanner.info/en) and it appeared a dedicated 35 was the way to go. Flat film is probably the main factor, the Hasselblads were way out of what I wanted to spend.

 

I have had my Nikon for two years, they seem to not go down in price, but could fail, that's a risk with 10 year old gear. Subjectively, the Reflecta is somewhat inferior, I read good things about the 10T. The Nikon scans look coarse in LR, but then the prints are not bad: I run both on Vuescan and the results are good enough for me for 20x30 cm prints, and 30x45 should also work, mind 4000dpi, so this is not far away from a 18MP file and the rendering/tonal range of a Silvermax or FP or TX I like. 

In terms of process - the Coolscan processes strips of 6, I do that in parallel to other stuff, takes an hour per film. The Reflecta requires frame by frame advance, also one hour but more involved. I run to about 100 films/year, it is not the fun part of the analogue experience.  For a lot of money you get the full film holder for the Nikon, there is also a very old "Pakon" or so scanner, but this requires old HW. 

 

If you want to avoid the failure risk and you can accomodate for the process, get a 10T, if you don't like it, resell it, limited damage done. You could also ask some labs to scan the same strip to see what comes back before you decide. 

My 2 cent. 

 

Regards

 

Michael

[chris_livsey]

Thanks to all for the replies.

 

My question is : is the V800/850 with better film holders and better resolution is significantly better?

 

 

That depends on how large you want to go in prints or indeed web posting. What holds up well on Flickr may/will not print 20x16 with a tip of the nose quality, but then 35mm pushed to that size has always been a challenge if you have regard for grain etc. At recent HCB exhibitions some of his famous work is printed 6 x 2 feet,  (approx guess) they are soft and grainy but magnificent.

Again, and this is not self promotion, visit my Flickr, link below, all recent work in B/W is V850 scanned and tagged as such, that gives you web size data and I tend to upload pretty large files as an archive so click for full size or download original file size.  If I wanted a large print I would send it out for wet printing or drum scanning and not try to push my scanner to perform beyond its design envelope.

 

These on a Plustek 8100

 

[/url]Full frame for lens test HP5+ TD-201 Nikon S3 50mm Nikkor Olympic by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

 

[/url]Look for the pigeon eyes, film is dead? HP5+ TD-201 Nikon S3 50mm Nikkor Olympic rather large crop by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

 

 

This a boring shot to test a lens at infinity focus, V850:

 

[/url]Full frame at infinity (wind turbine) by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

 

Look closely the turbine is really small on the full frame, it is centre, all these hand held.

 

[/url]Massive crop of full frame centre. by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

Edited July 1, 2015 by chris_livsey

[250swb]

 

This is stil a puzzle for me but if the V800 is good enough, I'd definitely go for the all in one.

 

Read the Luminous Landscape review of the V800 and you will see it is not any better to a significant degree for 35mm than the V700, except it may have better film holders, or at least the scanner not better enough to upgrade from a V700. Given the price of a V700 now that the V800 is released it makes far more sense to buy the two scanners, and Plustek for 35mm and the V700 for MF and larger. Either way, let me say it again, the V800 is a waste of time (considering the price of a Plustek) to buy as a scanner for 35mm. It is not a universal scanner.

 

Steve

[Ozoyo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow Chris... I have been browsing through your flickr and I find your V850 scans quite impressive. It makes a strong point in favour of the V800.

 

Re. film scanners, the Plustek 8200 is out of the race, from what I read scanning is very slow and that is a turnoff.

 

Reflecta 10M looks great, nice DR + batch scanning for the exact same price as the V800. However, from what I read here (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html), it is crippled without Silverfast which adds 200€ for a SE plus version of the software. Whereas you can upgrade the V800 with silverfast AI for around 90€.

 

It looks more and more like I am going to go for a new Epson. My only problem is that I'll have a perfectly working V500 on my hands.

[chris_livsey]

Wow Chris... I have been browsing through your flickr and I find your V850 scans quite impressive. It makes a strong point in favour of the V800.

 

Re. film scanners, the Plustek 8200 is out of the race, from what I read scanning is very slow and that is a turnoff.

 

First thanks, then just to clarify, I bought the V850 because you get a free wet scanning pack (you need to request it it is not part of the package box (within UK) ) and I have a stash of large format I would like to play with. 

I just use the Epson scan software as bundled and I am sure a highly skilled scanner person with the specialised programs would pull even better results. I understand that flatbed for 35mm is dished, forcibly, but for my web posting purposes it is more than adequate. That it does MF, even better quality, and larger formats in the same unit make it well worthwhile.

For speed it comfortably beats my 8100 which I would recommend for footprint/price advantages and if you are not running a large volume it offers great value for money. The speed and convenience of auto scanning is why I switched to routinely using the V850 for 35mm, as I said earlier I wouldn't scan using it for large or exhibition prints. It is a bit like cameras, people always want one model that will do everything to state of the art quality when specific tools are needed for niche applications to perform that well. Yes an Imacon/Hasselblad would be nice but I can't justify the outlay for my output requirements, especially when there are so many great lenses out there I haven't shot yet, but never say never.

[chrism]

And to round it all off, some will be delighted to hear that the bulb has gone in my X1!

 

This is why I keep the others around!

 

Chris

[indergaard]

The V800/V850 film holders are next to impossible to work with.
Epson cheaped out and used acrylic plastic in the film holders to keep the film flat. This acrylic is not removable.

Acrylic is one of the most statically charged materials in existence. Thus getting a dust free scan from the V800/V850 is next to impossible, and requires a LOT of work. I quickly gave up and returned the scanner, and purchased a Plustek Opticfilm 120 instead. Yes it is expensive, but the scanner is fantastic to work with, and the results are superb - both for 35mm and 120mm.

[fotohuis]

I will give you another advice: Keep your V500 and make a nice darkroom setup with a good stable enlarger: Leitz V35, Dunco II 67, Durst M670, M805, Kienzle or something like that with any good enlarger lens, Rodenstock, Schneider-Kreuznach and make 18x24cm prints and scan them with your V500.

 

For the rest of the money for any top scanner you can easily buy an automatic Split Grade unit from Heiland.

 

The end results in this wet print setup can compete with even an Imacon Hasselblad scanner, apart from the very expensive printer you will need to get it on paper.

 

Just another point of view ........

[Keith (M)]

When it come to scanning software, over the years on both an Epson Perfection 3900 and my current V700 I have found various versions of Silverfast SE to be an absolute pain.  Just cannot get on with it.  Had no choice but to use Vuescan when I upgraded from XP to Vista and yes it worked. However, since I bought my V700 a few years ago I have settled on the Epson Scan software.  I can load four strips of six negatives, select .tiff files @ 3200dpi, turn off 'unsharp mask' etc and leave the software to get on with a batch scan.  Import into LR5.7 then adjust contrast etc to suit.  Job done.  The b&w examples here are a mixture of 35mm & 6x6cm, all developed at the kitchen sink.

[chris_livsey]

  The b&w examples here are a mixture of 35mm & 6x6cm, all developed at the kitchen sink.

I have visited that link, the OP should listen to you.

Lovely work, I would be proud.

[Keith (M)]

 

That depends on how large you want to go in prints or indeed web posting. What holds up well on Flickr may/will not print 20x16 with a tip of the nose quality, but then 35mm pushed to that size has always been a challenge if you have regard for grain etc. At recent HCB exhibitions some of his famous work is printed 6 x 2 feet,  (approx guess) they are soft and grainy but magnificent.

Again, and this is not self promotion, visit my Flickr, link below, all recent work in B/W is V850 scanned and tagged as such, that gives you web size data and I tend to upload pretty large files as an archive so click for full size or download original file size.  If I wanted a large print I would send it out for wet printing or drum scanning and not try to push my scanner to perform beyond its design envelope.

 

This a boring shot to test a lens at infinity focus, V850:

 

/url]Full frame at infinity (wind turbine) by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

 

Look closely the turbine is really small on the full frame, it is centre, all these hand held.

 

[/url]Massive crop of full frame centre. by Chris Livsey, on Flickr

 

 

The V800/V850 film holders are next to impossible to work with.

Epson cheaped out and used acrylic plastic in the film holders to keep the film flat. This acrylic is not removable.

Acrylic is one of the most statically charged materials in existence. Thus getting a dust free scan from the V800/V850 is next to impossible, and requires a LOT of work. I quickly gave up and returned the scanner, and purchased a Plustek Opticfilm 120 instead. Yes it is expensive, but the scanner is fantastic to work with, and the results are superb - both for 35mm and 120mm.

 Impressive details in your V850 scans, Chris.  How do you cope with the dust problem as highlighted by Indergaard?  

Edited August 19, 2015 by Keith (M)

[NJH]

I spent what felt like forever trying to decide which scanner to buy then one day spotted a deal on a Minolta 5400 version 1 which was too good to let go bye. I am more than happy with the thing with the only criticism being it is very slow when scanning in colour with all the scratch hiding stuff turned on. 

[chris_livsey]

 Impressive details in your V850 scans, Chris.  How do you cope with the dust problem as highlighted by Indergaard?  

 

I nearly replied to that but didn't. I don't recognise the problem. Static and dust are so very individual depending a lot on environmental factors. temp. humidity etc. I would never question someone who has a problem, a bit like drying marks 

I have a large head, ?camel hair, brush, actually a make up brush for blusher (so I am told) and I brush the holders before loading and again on top and bottom after and the glass plate on the scanner. That could itself of course can induce static!!

My other "trick" is to always (nearly) scan straight after drying before putting in sleeves. A pro lab I use says this is the best way of reducing dust, they find a re-scan requested later at higher rez for example can be a problem and recommend the highest level scan you think you will need first ( I know that is commercially good as well but they do know what they are about).

The wet scan crowd, who tend to be fanatical, (not a criticism an observation) have many tactics for the dust enemy.

[250swb]

As you are talking about dust Chris, what about trying the Spot Healing Brush, or Content Aware Fill, or the Clone Tool, in Photoshop? The Content Aware fill would remove without trace that drying mark across the sky in the wind turbine picture, the Spot healing brush would deal with the residual dust in no time (although the more you 'spot' the more dust you spot). If you don't have Photoshop I'm sure Lightroom must have similar tools.

 

It is next to impossible to remove every bit of dust before scanning, although as has been noted the Epson is worse than other scanners, both for it's open design and the plastic used. You can get anti static brushes for the job, wide soft brushes that you can earth, but even using these can't get all the dust especially if it has stuck to the negative during drying. But I think the critical job over and above adjusting brightness and contrast is to enlarge the image to 100% and go over the sky spotting dust in the scanned image. Otherwise all a spotty image does is show how little the photographer cares for it, it's displaying a job half done. It is a chore, but not nearly as bad as spotting a darkroom print where you can't use a 'delete' button.

 

Steve

[chris_livsey]

Otherwise all a spotty image does is show how little the photographer cares for it, it's displaying a job half done. 

Steve

 

Indeed, when I produce an image worthy of that level of attention I will be all over it, with a spot healing tool. The vast majority of my output is for fun, my fun, sitting spotting, whether on a computer or a print, does not fit into my definition of fun. 

 

I suppose the difference is between posting a regular "blog" type upload to Flickr of "fun" images or posting a few final high quality shots when they are available. How many new images of quality was Ansel Adams happy if he made a year? Was it three or so? Robert Frank shot 767 rolls, 27,000 exposures for "America" I guess I'm posting the 27,000 as I go, I'll spot them for the book  

I do agree with your sentiment and pride in you output is important I'm not belittling it at all but I don't consider it a job half done, for the end point I set it is done, 

I'd be using an Imacon otherwise 

[Michael Hiles]

 The b&w examples here are a mixture of 35mm & 6x6cm, all developed at the kitchen sink.

 

Many beautiful pictures. Chris is right.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rpavich]

 

 

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.

While I wait for my Minolta Dimage Elite 5400II scanning to cross the ocean, this is the thought that keeps me sane.