Keith (M) Posted August 22, 2015 Share #41 Posted August 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many beautiful pictures. Chris is right. Why, thank you kind Sir And again to Chris. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here Picking a film scanner... What a pickle. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
2wk Posted August 22, 2015 Share #42 Posted August 22, 2015 I use a Epson V-750 and find it quite satisfactory. I mostly scan MF but I find it quite good for 35 if I follow certain protocols. I batch scan 12 frames at once as a quick contact sheet and if there is a keeper, I wet mount the frame and do a high dpi pass. Getting the right distance from the glass is imperative and the wet mount keeps the negative perfectly flat. Cheap 99% alcohol is my mounting fluid with a piece of .003 duralar. I use the latest Silverfast software and have no problems with that. I find the retro interface quite quaint to use and much prefer it to the superflous new OSX fluff. Oh, and do your self a favour and try the Ilford Antistatium cloth if you are having any problems with dust. Works a charm! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted August 22, 2015 Share #43 Posted August 22, 2015 I use a Epson V-750 and find it quite satisfactory. I mostly scan MF but I find it quite good for 35 if I follow certain protocols. I batch scan 12 frames at once as a quick contact sheet and if there is a keeper, I wet mount the frame and do a high dpi pass. Getting the right distance from the glass is imperative and the wet mount keeps the negative perfectly flat. Cheap 99% alcohol is my mounting fluid with a piece of .003 duralar. I use the latest Silverfast software and have no problems with that. I find the retro interface quite quaint to use and much prefer it to the superflous new OSX fluff. Oh, and do your self a favour and try the Ilford Antistatium cloth if you are having any problems with dust. Works a charm! Could you expand on "Wet mount". How does this work and how do you do it. As much detail as you are willing to provide would be very useful. I assume the idea is to get the negative perfectly flat, and precisely in the plane of focus for the scanner. But I would like to know just how you do that. Thanks in advance. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 23, 2015 Share #44 Posted August 23, 2015 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/196599-wet-scanning-who-has-done-this/ Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted August 23, 2015 Share #45 Posted August 23, 2015 Could you expand on "Wet mount". How does this work and how do you do it. As much detail as you are willing to provide would be very useful. I assume the idea is to get the negative perfectly flat, and precisely in the plane of focus for the scanner. But I would like to know just how you do that. Thanks in advance. My example, which may need work to optimise focus, was using the wet mount accessory and a piece of museum glass ( special glass sold under that name) to hold the strip flat as an alternative to true wet mounting. This technique was used in the Luminous Landscape review article of the V850. The wet mount is used and not just laying flat on the scanner plate as the higher quality lens is triggered by the film holder/wet mount being present I understand. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted August 26, 2015 Share #46 Posted August 26, 2015 No one has mentioned the Pakon F135, which scans very quickly and is good for prints up to 8x10" in my experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted August 26, 2015 Share #47 Posted August 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sure. The V750 came with the Wet mounting kit as opposed to the V700 which does not. It is basically just a tray with a glass bottom that sits in a storage holder which has grid lines on it for easy mounting. Dust check and then I add a few drops of the 99% alcohol to the wet mount glass plate. I put the negative on the drops, I then add a few more drops on top of the negative and finally add the piece of thin duralar on top of it all. So basically starting from the bottom we have glass/fluid/negative/fluid/duralar. A small roller would come in handy at his point but I just use a clean microfiber and smooth out all the air bubbles. You then pull the tray out of the holder and put it onto the scanner. The fluid works great on scratched or dirty negatives by filling in any scratches etc and of course the neg is now perfectly flat. Best scans I have ever acheived personally. After I scan, I pull off the duralar, and pick up the negative from the corner with treezers since the emulsion has become soft again from the fluid. I let it dry on a clean surface and it is back to normal and ready to be archived. 99% alcohol evaporates very quickly so be careful not to leave the top of the bottle open! Could you expand on "Wet mount". How does this work and how do you do it. As much detail as you are willing to provide would be very useful. I assume the idea is to get the negative perfectly flat, and precisely in the plane of focus for the scanner. But I would like to know just how you do that. Thanks in advance. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted September 1, 2015 Share #48 Posted September 1, 2015 I'm using the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000, it only scans 135 film but it scans a whole roll at once or strips of 6 (or less). I wrote about scanning here: http://jipvankuijk.nl/scanning-film-nikon-coolscan-4000/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted September 1, 2015 Share #49 Posted September 1, 2015 but I just use a clean microfiber and smooth out all the air bubbles. I use this too and it works very well. It's a neat little trick that is often not mentioned so it's good that you explained it. Very often on wet mounting sites they say one absolutely must use Mylar which costs an arm and a leg but that's not necessary. Duralar is considerably cheaper (approx 1/3 of the price in the EU) but I've found that simple (fully) transparent film (0.2 thickness or such I think it is) will work very well. It's very inexpensive and readily available in hobby shops. Using a good fluid is much more important. I use Kami, bought from Herr Kaminski himself who offers great and quick service. Kami evaporates within seconds and leaves no residue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted September 18, 2015 Share #50 Posted September 18, 2015 I have been using a Plustek 8100 for 35mm with excellent results - a very reasonably priced scanner. Moving into medium format has not been an option due to the incredible price of MF neg scanners (never been happy with external scanning) but have just picked up a Reflecta MF5000 so I'll give it a go and report back. James Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 22, 2015 Share #51 Posted September 22, 2015 Newbie here - thinking of buying a scanner of some kind. I have been doing alot of reading (probably not enough) and it seems to me that the same issues apply to scanner that do to cameras, i.e.: 1. Focus is key for sharpness 2. good lens is key to good picture Sensor (i.e. scan resolution) is somewhat of a tertiary issue and irrelevant if 1 and 2 are a problem. I have seen folk saying that the best quality they get to digitize 35mm negatives is to use a construct with bellows and a D810 with a top macro lens. I have no doubt this is true but its also an expensive setup, probably just as good with an aps-c camera and a macro lens and kind of takes away from the film experience if you have to go back to a digital camera. In my investigation of new flat beds, it seems that the lighting and lenses are good and the main issue is focus. The half-way house here is simply to use adjustable negative holders to try and manually achieve the best focus. Which is why I am tilting towards the V800, simply as its design allows for adjustable negative holders. To get better that this you need full autofocus (e.g. Hassy X1 or DSLR/CSC type solutions), to get cheaper you go to the non-adjustable scanners like the Canon 9900f ii or the Epson V550 or V600 which are pretty good. So I am basically torn between the 9000f ii and the V800. I did consider a Plustek 8200SE however I used a 8100 in the past, and the experience of having to manually advance each negative is painfully slow and excessively time consuming. I don't really care how long the scanner takes, but if it is doing a batch of 6 or more, as the flatbeds can, at least I can leave it running whilst I get on with something else. Perhaps I could buy a 8200SE as well in the future just for particular photos I wanted better quality from. The question is, how much better is a 8200 (or equivalent) then a V800 ? Just my 2 cents .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 22, 2015 Share #52 Posted September 22, 2015 The Plustek Opticfilm 120 will give you the ability to batch scan 12 frames (2x6 strips) for 35mm negs at 5300dpi. It's as close as you can get to a drum scan in regards to quality. I would never go back to an Epson flatbed again, especially not the V800/V850 due to their holders, which acts as complete dust magnets due to the acrylic "glass" inserts that are non-removable. Acrylic is one of the most statically charged materials you can get... And it doesn't make any sense at all to use this material in a film scanner! The OF120 is quite expensive though, and is quite excessive if you're not gonna scan medium format of some kind (6x6, 6x4.5, 6x7, etc). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 22, 2015 Share #53 Posted September 22, 2015 The Plustek Opticfilm 120 will give you the ability to batch scan 12 frames (2x6 strips) for 35mm negs at 5300dpi. It's as close as you can get to a drum scan in regards to quality. I would never go back to an Epson flatbed again, especially not the V800/V850 due to their holders, which acts as complete dust magnets due to the acrylic "glass" inserts that are non-removable. Acrylic is one of the most statically charged materials you can get... And it doesn't make any sense at all to use this material in a film scanner! The OF120 is quite expensive though, and is quite excessive if you're not gonna scan medium format of some kind (6x6, 6x4.5, 6x7, etc). thanks for that just looked at the 120, its well outside my range at the moment Was hoping to spend under £500 ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted September 22, 2015 Share #54 Posted September 22, 2015 Hi Harold, Choosing a scanner all depends on budget and needs. It is possible for £500 to get very good results, but it will likely be through the digitizing route unless you're lucky to score a used filmscanner. The two flatbeds you mention work ok for 6x6 and larger (again all depending on needs/what one is happy with) but for 35mm they are simply not good enough for higher quality, or larger, scans. These resolution charts, done by filmscanner.info, may be useful to have a look at. V800 with Silverfast Canon 9000f II 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! The Nikon V ED sometimes shows up used for around your budget. It's a truly excellent scanner (I have one since 10+ years that rivals my Coolscan 9000 for 35mm). It does strips of 6 out of the box. Here's the filmscanner.info review and just for comparison this is the resolution chart. A predecessor to the V ED is the LS-40/IV that is also a very good scanner. Ffordes has two in stock for about half your budget. Incidentally, the sister organisation of filmscanner.info - called scandig - sells used scanners for shockingly high prices. Ffordes is one of a few dealers who keep reasonable prices, particularly on used Coolscans. They also service them prior to sale if necessary (including old Coolscans, contrary to popular internet myth that it is impossible to get service for any older Coolscans). As for digitizing, there are several alternatives. A used Canon EOS 5D mark 1 and (absolutely excellent) 100mm 2.8 non-L macro can be had for about your budget (check Ffordes again). It's 12MP so will not give the biggest "scans" but the quality will be very good. I used the 5D Mk 2 with that lens and was very impressed. There are also other options by way of Nikon and other brands too, including Leica; depending on what digital Leica stuff you have this may be an option. Shooting the negatives on a simple light-table (can be had for 30€ - check the Huion ones at Amazon), iPad or such will give good results with even illumination. True, this won't allow batch scanning but each frame will be super quick (you can shoot tethered easily) so you'll go through a roll in no time. The drawback is that you may have to deal with dust in post-processing. If you shoot mainly b&w you would have had to do that anyway because scanners' digital ICE only works with C41 and chromes. In my testing of digitizing this turned out to be less of a problem than I had imagined. And, because it is easy to "re-scan" a dirty frame after cleaning the neg, it won't take much time to get a less dusty scan. Of course, all of this depends on how comfortable you are to spend money on old tech, but in my experience the Coolscans are reliable machines. If you don't feel comfortable to do so then feel free to ignore my suggestions. Just my two cents. Happy to answer any questions you may have. br Philip 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The Nikon V ED sometimes shows up used for around your budget. It's a truly excellent scanner (I have one since 10+ years that rivals my Coolscan 9000 for 35mm). It does strips of 6 out of the box. Here's the filmscanner.info review and just for comparison this is the resolution chart. A predecessor to the V ED is the LS-40/IV that is also a very good scanner. Ffordes has two in stock for about half your budget. Incidentally, the sister organisation of filmscanner.info - called scandig - sells used scanners for shockingly high prices. Ffordes is one of a few dealers who keep reasonable prices, particularly on used Coolscans. They also service them prior to sale if necessary (including old Coolscans, contrary to popular internet myth that it is impossible to get service for any older Coolscans). As for digitizing, there are several alternatives. A used Canon EOS 5D mark 1 and (absolutely excellent) 100mm 2.8 non-L macro can be had for about your budget (check Ffordes again). It's 12MP so will not give the biggest "scans" but the quality will be very good. I used the 5D Mk 2 with that lens and was very impressed. There are also other options by way of Nikon and other brands too, including Leica; depending on what digital Leica stuff you have this may be an option. Shooting the negatives on a simple light-table (can be had for 30€ - check the Huion ones at Amazon), iPad or such will give good results with even illumination. True, this won't allow batch scanning but each frame will be super quick (you can shoot tethered easily) so you'll go through a roll in no time. The drawback is that you may have to deal with dust in post-processing. If you shoot mainly b&w you would have had to do that anyway because scanners' digital ICE only works with C41 and chromes. In my testing of digitizing this turned out to be less of a problem than I had imagined. And, because it is easy to "re-scan" a dirty frame after cleaning the neg, it won't take much time to get a less dusty scan. Of course, all of this depends on how comfortable you are to spend money on old tech, but in my experience the Coolscans are reliable machines. If you don't feel comfortable to do so then feel free to ignore my suggestions. Just my two cents. Happy to answer any questions you may have. br Philip ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246857-picking-a-film-scanner-what-a-pickle/?do=findComment&comment=2892253'>More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 22, 2015 Share #55 Posted September 22, 2015 Thanks so much for the input. I wonder if I could kill two birds with one stone. On a totally different topic, I was thinking of investing in a small zoom AF system, either the Fuji 18-55mm+X-T10 or Olympus 12-40mm+E-M5 ii I wonder if I could achieve pretty good quality with the Fuji 60mm f2.4 or 90mm f2 or the Olympus 60mm f2.8 ? I don't need absolutely the last word in quality, just pretty good The other thing that worries me is do the negatives lie flat or would I need to get a mount of some kind ? With the negative holders on the 8100 they slightly helped with the curling of the negatives from the sides thanks 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlinman Posted September 22, 2015 Share #56 Posted September 22, 2015 The Imacon X1 snd X5 are expensive. Has anyone experience with the older and cheaper Precision II ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted September 23, 2015 Share #57 Posted September 23, 2015 I'm afraid I know very little about digital cameras so other forum members could likely offer much better views on the results to be expected with the cameras and lenses you mention. In my own research regarding digitizing I have, however, come across a few sites, which you may already know of but if not here they are. The first one uses an Olympus camera I believe. http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/11/11/copying-slides-with-om-d-and-60mm-macro.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/160642-using-a-dslr-to-digitise-color-negs/ http://sculptingwithlight.blogspot.gr/2013/02/the-other-day-i-bought-leica-beoon.html http://dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_digitise.html As for mounting there are various methods. As is the case with scanners, they should be as flat as possible when digitizing. BestPhilip Thanks so much for the input. I wonder if I could kill two birds with one stone. On a totally different topic, I was thinking of investing in a small zoom AF system, either the Fuji 18-55mm+X-T10 or Olympus 12-40mm+E-M5 ii I wonder if I could achieve pretty good quality with the Fuji 60mm f2.4 or 90mm f2 or the Olympus 60mm f2.8 ? I don't need absolutely the last word in quality, just pretty good The other thing that worries me is do the negatives lie flat or would I need to get a mount of some kind ? With the negative holders on the 8100 they slightly helped with the curling of the negatives from the sides thanks 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkjod Posted September 25, 2015 Share #58 Posted September 25, 2015 Thanks so much for the input. I wonder if I could kill two birds with one stone. On a totally different topic, I was thinking of investing in a small zoom AF system, either the Fuji 18-55mm+X-T10 or Olympus 12-40mm+E-M5 ii I wonder if I could achieve pretty good quality with the Fuji 60mm f2.4 or 90mm f2 or the Olympus 60mm f2.8 ? I don't need absolutely the last word in quality, just pretty good The other thing that worries me is do the negatives lie flat or would I need to get a mount of some kind ? With the negative holders on the 8100 they slightly helped with the curling of the negatives from the sides thanks Yes its possible, but I would say that having a copy stand or permanent tripod in place would be a necessity if you will scan often. I compared my Plustek 7600 with an A7 and Micro Nikkor 55... https://jkjod.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/plustek-vs-micro-nikkor/ My conclusion...Its very close between the two methods. I still use a digital camera to "digitize" my 6x6 stuff still and I'm extremely pleased with how those turn out. I have a 6x6 negative holder for my enlarger that I use and it keeps everything nice and flat. I have noticed that using a white iPhone screen doesn't work out as using an actual light box or slide viewer. This improves the quality quite a bit (this is extremely noticeable in color negatives, not so much in B&W). If you are planning on getting a digital camera anyway and want to use it for your "scanner" I would be sure to invest in a copy stand and some negative carriers - if I already didn't own the Plustek I would of gone this route for sure. The copy stand, especially, will make your life much easier. Here is an example of using the iPhone screen vs the slide viewer (iPhone on top). If you zoom in on the Flickr page you can actually see where the row of LEDs are in the iPhone, not the case with the slide viewer. A diffuser might fix this problem though. DSC08721.jpg by jkjod, on Flickr DSC08741.jpg by jkjod, on Flickr 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 28, 2015 Share #59 Posted September 28, 2015 Better make via an enlarger a wet print. Then you have the quality like X1 or X5 Imacon scanners for the fraction of the price. At least when you can pick up a good enlarger (V35 for 35mm) equipped with Split Grade and LED cold light and use a good enlarger lens. The limitation is the size of the print in handling: 40x50cm or 50x60cm in a tray or better, in a paper drum. But you need some extra place, a darkroom which is in practice the biggest disadvantage. However in 2mx3,5m darkroom you can do a lot. BTW I am printing till 40x50cm up from 35mm till 6x7cm roll film format and with a compact Dunco II 67 120 pro enlarger. Apart from the fact for most jobs you are already working with a computer screen a lot of time. Better to do something else in the free time ..... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 2, 2015 Share #60 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I am looking at a variety of equipment given the above useful advice One more minor question, I can get the Plustek 8100 significantly cheaper then the 8200i SE. The main difference is something called the IR channel which is used by software (I think silverfast) to eliminate scratches. Is this worth it ? Ie I can eliminate scratches in Adobe products. Also I understand this doesn't work with B&W. The question is whether this is significantly enhanced over other scratch removal and is worth it. Also do you have to use silverfast to use this IR channel or can be fast scan software also use it. Silverfast seems a bit of a nightmare ...... Edited October 2, 2015 by colonel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.