Plustek has died

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

New Plustek 8100 can still be found. Recommended and probably cheaper than an Epson

Pete

[too old to care]

I have been weighing buying a 8100.  Found one new for $309 new.  Problem is, as much as I would like to get it, I am disappointed that they have ignored my request for information on what could be wrong with mine.  Customer service is important to me.  Right now I am playing with my Canon scanner to see if I can get by with it.  Thanks for the suggestion.  

 

Wayne

[Advertisement]

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

[too old to care]

Maybe I have not given my Canon scanner enough credit.  This is a scan from it.  The next photo will show from the Plustek.  

 

 

 

 

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!

[too old to care]

And from the Plustek.  More grain present, and a bit sharper.

 

 

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!

[too old to care]

And a blow-up of cropped portions.  Plustek on left, Canon scan on right.  I like the grain, but the Canon looks ok too, since I use it mostly to post images, not print them.  Guess I will hold off on buying a new Plustek, but I must admit I like the grain.  

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!

Edited June 27, 2016 by too old to care

[Doc Henry]

Wayne the both crops seem good for me , with better definition and nicer grain at left

Canon is also fine. Thanks for the demonstration

Best

Henry

[too old to care]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you really look at them, I do not see a $309 difference.  Think I will just keep the Canon.  

 

Time to end this thread.  

 

Thanks everyone for the advice.  

 

Wayne

[Doc Henry]

When you really look at them, I do not see a $309 difference.  Think I will just keep the Canon.  

 

Time to end this thread.  

 

Thanks everyone for the advice.  

 

Wayne

Wayne you'll see the difference when you print a crop of both pictures in A3 or A4

You scan with both scanners and print.

But you can keep the Canon , it seems a good compromise , but keep in mind for the future

and next scanner if you need it one day !

Best

Henry

[too old to care]

Thanks Henry.  I have a very understanding wife who knows how much I miss my Plustek.  She informed me that I did not buy myself a present for Father's Day.  I will probably get a new one after I get over the disappointment of being ignored by Plustek. I really would like one that can do medium format too, but with mine failing, and Plustek ignoring my emails, I cannot justify it right now.  That is the reason I considered an Epson.  

 

Wayne

 

edit, I have printed 8x10s of the same negative from the Canon, the Plustek, and wet using Ilford pearl rc paper.   

The Plustek is much closer to the wet print. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by too old to care

[Jeff S]

So spite wins over IQ.  

 

Wouldn't be my choice....not that it matters

 

Jeff

(never too old to care)

[too old to care]

Hi Jeff,

 

I would be be interested in what your choice would be.  I am not totally sold on another Plustek.  My main interest is being able to see the grain in film scans.  The Canon does not do that well, the Plustek does it to extreme with some films like Tri-X.  I could reduce grain by using a milder developer like D76, but I like Rodinal. 

 

I seldom print larger than 8x10 from 35mm, and most of the time they are wet prints. I do print larger from medium format using an inkjet printer, and find the Canon's resolution ok for that. Still, one scanner that can do both formats well would be perfered. 

 

Any recommendations would be appreciated.  

 

Thanks 

 

Wayne

[Jeff S]

No scanner recommendation from me, as I don't scan.   After giving up my darkrooms (35 years), it's been all digital except for having a friend scan some negs for me on an older customized Minolta (I think).

 

My post was based solely on your comments that suggested that the Plustek delivered best results, but that you were turned off to them for other reasons.  I might have misread your comments.  If not, and In your position,, I merely meant that I would opt for quality despite the other issues, as long as those can be worked through.

 

For me, it's either wet print or inkjet.....and I'm done with the former having sold off my darkrooms.  If I'm not going to make silver prints, then I prefer the PP flexibility of an all-digital workflow.  But I wasn't recommending that choice for you or anyone else....just me.

 

Jeff

[too old to care]

Sorry Jeff, I though you had a recommendation on scanner.  I only scan 35mm for email, internet, all my 35mm prints are wet. However, I do scan medium format if I want to go bigger than 11x14 and print them via inkjet, I use a Canon Pro 9000 II printer.  I have not been too happy with the scans from my Canon scanner on medium format, but cannot afford the price Plustek wants for a scanner that can do both.  Thus, that is why I was hoping there was something else out there that would do a better job on both formats.  

 

A bit more information on the Plustek.  On some of my scans with 35mm Tri-X, developed in Rodinal, I find too much grain.  I have to tone it down a bit in Power Point, even to post or email.  The wet prints look better, so there are times too much resolution is not a good thing.  Example below.  This was shot using Tri-X, developed in Rodinal 50:1, scanned with the Plustek about 4,800 dpi.  To me this is too much grain, and the wet print is not so bad, so the Plustek is too harsh for my tastes.  

 

Anyway, it looks like i am back to the Plustek vs Epson.  I wish I had an Epson to play with to see what it can really do.    

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne 

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!

[Doc Henry]

Wayne , the crop at right is fine for me. The grain is nice.

Film has grain and that's the reason we shoot film.

Digital has "smoothing" aspect and it's not possible to obtain

grain, even corrected with software .

Grain also brings the "definition" for the face in your ex. 

When you enlarge the face above , you also see grain

and I like it in print . As I said , in film thread grain brings

the "artistic" side for my poppies pictures, digital cannot

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3068458

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3068460

for comparison with painting

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3069067

Rg

Henry

[gbealnz]

I'm biased, I have an older (8100) Plustek, and have not had the pleasure of trying a flatbed style.

 

In your shoes, I'd either buy a new Plustek, and use the warranty from the company that supplies it (so not having to deal with Plustek themselves). Or buy an older, cheaper used Plustek and take your chances again.

 

Mine was $150 used, so this to me was a gamble I was willing to take. Even buying the more sought after Nikons is fraught with problems, service issues if they fail, so the Plustek at least is cheaper, and "should" be repairable.

 

I must say though, your Plustek/Canon comparison was exceptional, and given you already have the Canon, this would be a viable option to me as well.

 

Gary

[too old to care]

Doc, I love your photos of the flowers.  They have that true artistic look, something I strive (and usually fail) for.  I also like the look of the grain, but sometimes it turns my photos more into newspaper print, than B&W photos.  Later I will post a photo I have been trying to fix for a couple of years.  It is of a field in New Mexico.  I will dig up the negative and scan it using the Canon flat bed, and post the image against the Plustek scan.  If it looks better, than I will just use the Canon from now on. If it doesn't, than I am going to order a new Plustek.  

 

Gary, thanks for your input too.  My Plustek worked perfectly, until a recent move to Florida.  During the first few months we were here I did not use the scanner, but I did upgrade my operating system (Mac).  When I did try it, it failed.  I am not sure that the scanner is at fault, but Silverfast 6, Silverfast 8, and Vuescan cannot find the scanner.  It also does not power up correctly, it just sits there and blinks.  That is why I contacted Plustek to see if maybe it was  related to the upgrade to my computer.  So far they have not responded, even though I have contacted them twice.  In the past they were very helpful.  

 

On the flatbed vs Plustek, one big disadvantage is the extra glass the scanner has to look through.  Not only is there glass above the negative that illuminates it, there is also the surface glass below.  This leads to much more issues with dust, I often have to clean the glass several times just to get rid of one piece of dust.  The Plustek does not have this problem.  

 

Thanks again,

 

Wayne 

[EoinC]

Hi, Wayne. In the Canon vs Plustek comparison above, I prefer the Plustek scan. A couple of thoughts:

1) If you are wet-printing, how do scans of the print compare with scans of the negative? This may be a better workflow.

2) What methods have you used to contact Plustek? I see they have a Tech Support No. in USA - 714-670-7713.

 

I hope you reach a solution that encourages you.

[too old to care]

Hi Eoin,

 

I've sent them two emails from their tech service section of their website, no response.  

 

When I wet print the results are in between the Plustek and Canon images.  The shots are sharp, but the grain is not so harsh, but more natural.  There seems to be more tone in the wet print too.  

 

I printed a snow scene both ways about a year ago, mounted them so you could not look at the back and see the type of paper, and sent them to a friend who shoots only digital.  He took both images to a studio that specializes in film shots, and they instantly recognized the wet print, saying it looked better.   My friend could not tell the difference though, to him they were just B&W shots.  He shoots my old Canon 5DMKII that I sold him.   

 

On another test, when I took this photo I thought it would be really special.  I have never been able to get a good scan, and I have not tried wet printing it.  Maybe it is the way I took it, Plus-X rated at 100, red filter, about F11, developed in Rodinal 50:1.  But, to me it just looks just awful.  

 

The first is the Plustek scan, the second is the Canon scan, and the comparison is the Plustek on the left.  

 

 

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!

[too old to care]

Canon scan. 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[too old to care]

Plustek on left, Canon on right.  I hope to go back there this year, and if I do I will shoot it with a medium format camera.  Maybe that will make the difference.  

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!

Edited June 28, 2016 by too old to care