Imacon Flextight 1

[autillo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm lately thinking about doing some of my work on film again, I also have some 35mm slides (3-4 thousand) enough good to scan.

In the past I scanned with a nikon coolscan 5000 but the results didn't convince me at all, besides, I'd like start shooting with a 6x7 plus a leica film camera.

 

I see lots of people using epson scanners, but what I've heard is that Imacon scanners are far better than Eson flatbed scanners for 35mm and medium format.

 

If I start using film again I need to achieve a professional result in order to make prints, weddings, or sell photos to agencies or magazines..

 

I'm specially concern about the quality you can obtain with 35mm slides (provia 100-400) or film (tri-x, NPH-400, etc,..) and imacon

 

is it good enough for professional use??

 

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions.

 

 

daniel belenguer

[nhabedi]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/118844-epson-v700-vs-nikon-coolscan-v.html

[Morten Grathe]

Yes it is good enough for professional use. It is also very expensive. Here en DK it costs more than 10.000 euros.

[Guido]

The Flextight X1 is clearly superior to the Epson V750 in terms of resolution, dynamic range, convenience and handling (I own both scanners).

 

However, even so the resolution of 35mm film scanned with the Imacon will not approach state-of-the-art digital DSLRs (dynamic range of film is still vastly superior to digital though). To really beat the **** out of 35mm digital in all aspects, medium format is required (I use Hasselblad and Mamiya 7). Here, the Imacon will live up to its full potential and produce files with incredible detail (and size!) which clearly go beyond what you can see in digital 35mm captures of the same scene.

 

The workflow is an entirely different story. If you wish to do weddings professionally, I doubt that a film-based process can compete with the price structure and rapid turnaround of digital photography. In short, I'd stick with digital for anything 35mm, and consider film for medium format only, in situations where time is not important (stock photography, landscapes etc.) And even then, with prices for medium-format digital gear falling rapidly, it might be better to put money in a digital MF back to start with.

[autillo]

The workflow is an entirely different story. If you wish to do weddings professionally, I doubt that a film-based process can compete with the price structure and rapid turnaround of digital photography. In short, I'd stick with digital for anything 35mm, and consider film for medium format only, in situations where time is not important (stock photography, landscapes etc.) And even then, with prices for medium-format digital gear falling rapidly, it might be better to put money in a digital MF back to start with.

 

Many thanks for share your experience. I've been shootting weddings professionally for some years, I started with film but last 5 years only digital, and in general terms I agree with you.

However there are some professionals photographers who still shoot 35mm film professionally, for instance Alex Webb or Ian Teh (agence VU) , may be resolution and dynamic range are far better in digital but it seems to me that looks of both mediums are completely different, I rather prefer color of film or grain of b/w.

 

regards

daniel belenguer

[Riccis]

"The workflow is an entirely different story. If you wish to do weddings professionally, I doubt that a film-based process can compete with the price structure and rapid turnaround of digital photography. In short, I'd stick with digital for anything 35mm, and consider film for medium format only, in situations where time is not important (stock photography, landscapes etc.) And even then, with prices for medium-format digital gear falling rapidly, it might be better to put money in a digital MF back to start with."

 

I'll respectfully disagree with you. I am a film wedding photographer and a lot of my clients seek me out because they know I shoot film (this also applies to a lot of the top film shooters in our industry such as Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, Elizabeth Messina, Yvette Roman and many others).

 

Also, if there is one advice I can give you is to not compete on pricing or fast turnaround and instead try to build your brand around a style that is your own and one which prospective clients can identify with...

 

Cheers,

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have only recently started printing my digi (APS) stuff from Nikon dslrs.

 

I sware they are the equal of what I used to get with a 2 1/4. The full frame digis like my D700 are even better. This is where it is at today for pro use. Customers expect it.

 

Kodak Portras and Ektar 100 are much improved modern films and are all I would recommend for pro use in 35 mm.

 

I do some black and white in Leicas for my own use. I still like the process.

[wattsy]

The Flextights are very good but, for 35mm film, don't expect a night and day difference between scans from a Flextight and a decent prosumer scanner like one of the discontinued Nikons.

[Guido]

I'll respectfully disagree with you. I am a film wedding photographer and a lot of my clients seek me out because they know I shoot film (this also applies to a lot of the top film shooters in our industry such as Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, Elizabeth Messina, Yvette Roman and many others).

You people know who you are. I have only been a guest to many weddings (and I have shot one digitally as a co-shooter glad not to be in the driver's seat), but the image I came away with is one of photographers running around in sweat-soaked shirts and shooting machine-gun style with their Nikon D3's, as well as brides posting first images from the portfolio on Facebook already the day after. Hell, by then my film would not even have been developed, let alone dried, scanned, and post-processed! So those who can pull off weddings on film at today's pace and client expectations of near-instant delivery have my highest regards, but I guess it's no longer for the faint of heart, and probably also requires a certain kind of client who specifically seek a different approach...

[nhabedi]

You people know who you are. I have only been a guest to many weddings (and I have shot one digitally as a co-shooter glad not to be in the driver's seat), but the image I came away with is one of photographers running around in sweat-soaked shirts and shooting machine-gun style with their Nikon D3's, as well as brides posting first images from the portfolio on Facebook already the day after. Hell, by then my film would not even have been developed, let alone dried, scanned, and post-processed! So those who can pull off weddings on film at today's pace and client expectations of near-instant delivery have my highest regards, but I guess it's no longer for the faint of heart, and probably also requires a certain kind of client who specifically seek a different approach...

 

Look at his portfolio. I bet I couldn't afford him (and I am already married anyway), but I'm sure he's worth every penny. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that clients expect to have their wedding pictures the next day when in theory they can look at them for the rest of their life?

[redbaron]

What are they doing looking at photos the day after their wedding? Good grief!

[Julian Thompson]

@nightfire

 

I would be greatly endebted to you if you could post an example of the V750 vs the X1 ?

 

I have just bought a V750 for doing contact sheets with a view to purchasing an X1 but feel the need to be convinced.

 

Thanks in advance. Sorry to be a nuisance.

[autillo]

The Flextights are very good but, for 35mm film, don't expect a night and day difference between scans from a Flextight and a decent prosumer scanner like one of the discontinued Nikons.

 

Ian, in your opinion the imacon would be as good as a drum scanner, for a 35mm slide or film?

 

many thanks

daniel

[autillo]

I'll respectfully disagree with you. I am a film wedding photographer and a lot of my clients seek me out because they know I shoot film (this also applies to a lot of the top film shooters in our industry such as Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, Elizabeth Messina, Yvette Roman and many others).

 

Also, if there is one advice I can give you is to not compete on pricing or fast turnaround and instead try to build your brand around a style that is your own and one which prospective clients can identify with...

 

Cheers,

 

Riccis I know your work from your webpage and also Jose Villa and Elizabeth Messina, the thing is that I found you and others photographers and I thought your work was very different, very original, and personal...later I realized that all of you stay with film, I didn't know before check your work!!,

 

for instance: Jose Villa colors, I haven't found this look on digital, this smooth and tones...I don't like computer stuff too much, and prefer doping most of the work when I'm shooting.

 

Another question is the market for this kind of work, but nowadays, if you check 20-30 wedding photographers here, all of them are doing the same!!!, there are minor differences but the perfect, clean, irreal look from digital is there..often the price is the only difference.

 

I'm not against digital, I'm only asking myself if I can do things differently, first of all if it's possible and after that how can I do it.

 

Thanks for your advice Riccis,

daniel

[Guido]

I would be greatly endebted to you if you could post an example of the V750 vs the X1 ?

Julian,

 

I am usually not a friend of scanner comparisons on the Internet. Too many variables involved - type of film, film speed, developer, exposure, mounting of negative in the scanner, software used and its settings, sharpening, etc.... - any single one of which has significant impact on the outcome. Usually, this inevitably results in flame wars and personal insults going back and forth in the forums, as can be seen in countless scanner threads on photo.net and similar.

 

That said, I'll post an example here to give you a general idea of the differences to expect. Please be aware that this is probably not the scene you are looking for - I shoot mainly B&W medium format film due to lack of color processing facilities, while you mentioned that you are mainly interested in 35mm color and slide film. Also, please note the following limitations of this comparison:

 

(a) this is a T-Max 100 negative with a limited latitude which doesn't really challenge the full dynamic range of either scanner;

 

( at some point, the negative's resolution is limited by grain; a comparison at ISO 50 would possibly reveal more detail, but I haven't shot such film yet. I'd starve to shoot some Velvia 50, but it's a nuisance to get it developed here;

 

© regardless of what you see in these 100% crops on screen, the final proof is in the print. I can tell you that if I print this negative at 16"x16" on my Epson 3800 with proper output sharpening, the visible difference between the V750 and the X1 is minor, and you really have to know what to look for;

 

(d) I have also included a capture from the Leica M9 for fun only. It is heavily biased against the Leica, since I have enlarged it to 300% to make the size similar (the scanned crops are 100%). Also, the scene was shot on a different day in different light, so it really can't be compared pixel by pixel. I have just added it to roughly point out the current difference in resolution between an 18MP digital camera and 6x6 film on a decent scanner. Needless to say, a 16"x20" print of the Leica image looks absolutely decent as well.

 

Why have I decided to buy the X1 then if I cannot see much difference compared to my V750 in small to medium prints? Although I do occasionally make true large format prints, where the added resolution of the X1 really shows, my main reason is convenience and handling. With lots of experimentation and tweaking of the scanning workflow & software (Vuescan vs. EpsonScan vs. Silverfast, playing around with the ColorNeg and ColorPos plugins, and so on...), I did reach a point where I am able to get consistent, decent results with the V750. But the X1 and the FlexColor software are just so much more convenient. What requires extensive contrast and level adjustments in Vuescan and Photoshop on the V750, usually just comes right out of the X1 without barely any need for further correction. And while the V750 copes ok with well-exposed negatives, the X1 with its better dynamic range still is able to wring something useful out of underexposed or overexposed film where the V750 would reach its limit. Finally, my self-developed negatives are often bent in all directions and rarely flat. Without any additional glass holder or other modifications, this shows as visible lack of edge-to-edge sharpness in the V750, while the curved scanning path of the X1 flattens any negative and guarantees near-perfect sharpness over the entire image plane without any additional glass between the scanner lens and the film (in addition, the X1 has a focus-calibration feature).

 

But again, I would like to stress that in the end, all of the above is whining on a high level, like comparing an Aston Martin to a Toyota, where both will perfectly well get you from A to B under normal conditions. After all, I still own the V750 because it has one major advantage over the X1: if I want a quick, decent batch scan of an entire 35mm roll, this is easy to do with the V750, but no fun with the X1.

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!

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks for the post, nightfire

[marcusperkins]

This is a very interesting comparison - primarily because it is being made by somebody (nightfire) who clearly understands what they are talking about - which is why I have another question:

 

How well does the X1 deal with scratches etc on Black and White film. I know the X5 has a condenser (X1 does not - but maybe the condenser is only used for flat copy which the X5 can also do).

[redbaron]

Nightfire, nice work. What sharpening settings do you prefer for scans from the Epson?

[Julian Thompson]

Thankyou very much nightfire for your excellent comparison and narrative.

 

Very helpful to me and I am sure to many others also. Fantastic!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[artisan]

How well does the X1 deal with scratches etc on Black and White film. I know the X5 has a condenser (X1 does not - but maybe the condenser is only used for flat copy which the X5 can also do).

FlexColor deals very well with its noise filter, and - in contrary to the usual ICE technology - it works with BW. FlexTouch will remove (or make unvisible) dust, but not large spots or scratches. In FlexColor you may adjust the percentage of using FlexTouch; mostly 40-50% should be sufficient. (Of course, cautious handling with the negatives, beginning with development, is necessary to avoid dust just before scanning.)

The X5 condenser lamp is used for negatives too.

 

Greetings, Heiko