Scanning, you're the weakest link. Off you go!

[sfage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry I started this thread with a goofy reference to a TV show.

 

I am ready to take the next step... to the next level. I've "hummed and hawed", dithered and fiddled around about a new digital camera. I am -or was- considering a 5dMK2 or D700. At the same time, every time I make an image with a digital camera, I am disappointed on one level or another.

 

So, this isn't taking me to a place I want to be.

 

To the point:

 

Pacific imaging has a new machine. It's 1900 bucks (after rebate and shipping)

 

Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Multi-Format CCD PRIMEFILM 120 B&H

 

I am patiently waiting for that new machine from plustek but they're running out of time (Mark? hint, hint

 

Has anyone heard news -good or bad- about the Pacific image machine? I want to do 35 and 6X6 / 6X4.5

[Advertisement]

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

[erl]

I don't know that particular machine but going for a dedicated film scanner is correct.

 

Good imaging is like a chain. Composed of links. Scanning is but one of them. Mastering it is it's own mini-world. Choosing 'correct' software, and learning to use it, is rather like choosing a life partner. Some times you get it wrong and have to start all over again. Don't be discouraged, survive the difficulties and enjoy the victories.

 

I will assume you have 'mastered' film shooting and processing so now you have to 'master' scanning. Probably the scanner will come with some proprietary software, but I recommend VueScan as it is compatable with any scanner and is excellent software without being pricy. Of course it has a learning curve, but so does life.

 

Enjoy your new scanner and seek help (and contradiction) when you need it. I am just re-discovering the joys of film and all its foibles after a break of nearly 12 years. It still holds magic that digital never will.

[sfage]

Yeah, thanks Erl.

 

Put quite simply, I have a V700 (basically useless for 35mm) and a Plustek. Time to move up. It was great for a time but now that I only shoot film, I need to upgrade my image processor. It's as simple as that.

 

Anyway, 3200 dpi from the Pacific image. According to them it's a "real" 3200.

 

The v700 and Ptek will only give you about 2400... "really".

[Guest Holy Moly]

in Germany it's the Reflecta 5000 MF

 

https://reflecta.de/de/products/detail/~id.425/reflecta-MittelformatScanner-MF5000--ab-Juni-2011-erhaeltlich.html

[Ronan]

If you are disappointed with your D7000/5DMKII then you are doing something wrong...

 

Now if they claim its the real dpi... you better have it on black/white signed.

 

SOOOOOOOOO many companies BS that part in the specs and hold true to their lies.

[Doc Henry]

I will tell you that I scanned a lot of b&w white film for a few days

Well, I think the Epson V700/750 surpassed the Nikonscan , really !

 

in addition I have the "removing dust"function on the Epson with the Epsonsoftware

it confirms what I said in this thread (post n°12) :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/160651-epson-v700-750-very-good-our.html

and only at "3200" dpi and 16 "bits grey" : the picture is nice

and in pixels (dpi) I get as far as on my M9 !

Henry

[myshkine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will stick to my Plustek 7600 for the time being. The Pacific Image (or Reflecta) looks great on paper, but at four times Plustek's price, it must really be a huge leap forward to justify the expense. It is true that it is a multiformat but still... And BTW I really like Silverfast. With what software is the Pacific Image machine coming?

[maurometallo]

Well... I have a more old Pustek 7400, which nobody seems to talk about... However, I'm very happy with the results or, at least, it seems to give me what I want...

On the other hand, I shoot only B/W and I love the "grungy" look of my photos, so I'm, perhaps, easy pleasable...

Here is a recent 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!

[erl]

Curiously, the scanning software always raises its 'ugly' head in this kind of thread, and so it should. The software is a vital link in the scanning chain, just as the camera is in the capture link.

 

Now if I told you that camera 'A' was the best in the world, then someone would immediately say, no, camera 'B' is. fair comment. There is no best anything. The important thing is the one that suits your purpose best, and how well you can use it. Operator error does play a large part of scanning problems. There is no short cut. Just select a system wisely and learn to use it well. So far, we have Silverfast and VueScan mentioned. Both excellent IMO, but vastly differing in price and support.

 

A side by side trial of scanners would be the only reasonable test IMO and I would not trust the sales staff (generically speaking) as most, in my experience, can't even use the gear. They just know what their margin is on the sale. Your choice is a difficult one with so many variables.

[sfage]

If you are disappointed with your D7000/5DMKII then you are doing something wrong...

 

Now if they claim its the real dpi... you better have it on black/white signed.

 

SOOOOOOOOO many companies BS that part in the specs and hold true to their lies.

 

As I eluded to, I have not bought either.

[Ronan]

As I eluded to, I have not bought either.

 

Excellent DSLR's.

[NZDavid]

I agree and said much the same thing last year: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/154022-scanning-weakest-link.html

 

My previous lab was wiped out in the Christchurch earthquake, and pro scanning is pricey anyway. Despite using more digital I still like film. But any kind of scanner is getting rare these days.

[erl]

I run a Nikon 5000 (fast) and a Nikon 8000 (multi format).

 

Both are excellent, IMO. They give me the nearest I will ever get to an analog experience with digital output. AS long as I am not bulk scanning, I enjoy the process of creation with the scanner. It is a bit like enlarging in the darkroom in that the possible results are always varied and you have to know what you are doing and how to do it. The difference is, once you have your ideal scan, prints are also identical. Not so in the darkroom. Each print is a handmade 'one off.'

[russell]

I have a Nikon 9000 that I bought a few months ago. This works out well. I've mostly put 35mm slides through it up to now. But I have a huge body of negatives I'll want to scan. I'm looking forward to being able to do two cut strips at once. This saves time over the Nikon 5000 (if the film is already cut). Also I can use the 9000 to scan the few dozen medium format rolls I have. Also I understand the LEDs are more diffuse with the 9000 than with the 5000 with the light coming into the glass(plastic?) LED covering(?) from the side rather than head on.

 

However....

I almost sold my old Minolta 5400 after buying the Nikon 9000. Now I'm so glad I didn't. The experience so far leads me to believe that the 5400 is much better for dense negatives. It reaches into the shadows much better than the 9000. Also it's better for high speed films since the grain looks like grain rather than mush. I don't think the 4000 dpi of the 9000 is enough for high speed films. You have to noise reduce the grain later with software but that a small price to pay. If I want to print a dense or high speed negative I'd better use the 5400.

 

Feedback so far:

* ICE does more damage than good. Better do yourself in PS dust and scratches history brush

* multi-exposure doesn't do too much if at all

* multi-scan brings a little bit

* grain diffuser doesn't do all too much on the 5400 except slow it down

* mount slides in anti-newton glass for best scan

* 9000 can use glass holder to scan bowed 35mm negs; 5400 cannot

* the wet mount kit I bought was a royal PITA; didn't work at all on the 5400; glass is easier where available

* always scan in full dpi with full bits (RAW); don't let the scanner make any decisions.

* 5400 auto focus is poor

* 9000 auto focus is good

* 5400 is very slow so save it for the >A4 enlargements

* the biggest surprise was the 9000 not reaching as well into the shadows as the 5400

 

 

Depending on your use I'd recommend the 5400. They're cheap now compared to the Nikons. You can almost buy 2 of the Minoltas and keep one for a back up if you're worried about support. Or have two computers each driving a Minolta to speed things up.

[erl]

Russell, interesting to read your experince with the two scanners. I have none with the Minlota but have had the Nikon 8000 for 10 or more years. The only problem I ever had was holding 6x6cm film flat. the neg carrier is a joke. I have modified my own which is near to perfect now. I have used an old enlargers neg carrier masks so the film is as flat as the enlarger was. Image quality (focus) improved out of sight.

 

I have never had a problem extracting shadow detail as you refer to. I think a lot depends on the software and how you use it. I would venture to say I get as much shadow detail out of the 8000 (and the 5000) as I do out of my M9! Certainly more than I ever could in the darkroom.

[Guest srheker]

Pacific imaging has a new machine. It's 1900 bucks (after rebate and shipping)

 

Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Multi-Format CCD PRIMEFILM 120 B&H

 

 

Has anyone heard news -good or bad- about the Pacific image machine? I want to do 35 and 6X6 / 6X4.5

 

 

You find this thing under al lot of names an it is simply a toy, as it is unable to use a standard strips of three 6x6 negatives (6x18 cm). So you would have to (re)cut all your negative strips in a way that they become an pain in .... the darkroom...

 

Nobody who really ever used 6x6 would design a scanner like that!

 

I'd prefer an Epson V700!

[Val]

Well... I have a more old Pustek 7400, which nobody seems to talk about... However, I'm very happy with the results or, at least, it seems to give me what I want...

On the other hand, I shoot only B/W and I love the "grungy" look of my photos, so I'm, perhaps, easy pleasable...

Here is a recent scan...

 

Hello Mauro

I shoot around Kesington market almost daily with my M9. Yesterday I've got a m6. We should get together one day for a coffee and talk Leica

Chears

Val

[cosmonaut]

Personally I am looking at Sony they make Nikon sensors and their cameras are way less as with their glass. I was so impressed with the Nex and it's focus peaking, it with my Voigtlander 28mm is a great combo. I am looking at the a580. DXO marks puts It up there with the D7000.

But I also acquired an enlarger last week so I am also going to try my hand at wet prints.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mdruziak]

Curiously, the scanning software always raises its 'ugly' head in this kind of thread, and so it should. The software is a vital link in the scanning chain, just as the camera is in the capture link.

 

Now if I told you that camera 'A' was the best in the world, then someone would immediately say, no, camera 'B' is. fair comment. There is no best anything. The important thing is the one that suits your purpose best, and how well you can use it. Operator error does play a large part of scanning problems. There is no short cut. Just select a system wisely and learn to use it well. So far, we have Silverfast and VueScan mentioned. Both excellent IMO, but vastly differing in price and support.

 

A side by side trial of scanners would be the only reasonable test IMO and I would not trust the sales staff (generically speaking) as most, in my experience, can't even use the gear. They just know what their margin is on the sale. Your choice is a difficult one with so many variables.

 

Good thing I am Marketing and not Sales:D Because I actually do use a Plustek OpticFilm scanner, and before that a Minolta.

 

A couple other thoughts:

I admit that it takes some time to get used to the SilverFast software, but imaging film is a complicated task. If you spend the time to learn SilverFast it will serve you well. It really isn't that different than trying to use Photoshop for the first time. All of that said, I sometimes use VueScan. I try to select the correct tool for the job at hand.

 

There is some discussion if the Plustek really is a 7600 dpi scanner. I can assure you, the image sensor in the scanner produces a 7600 dpi image with no software interpolation. The big question is what tested resolution is and what is the correct method to test and measure film scanner resolution. There are no industry standard resolution tests that I know of for film scanners. I just had a pretty lengthy discussion with a fairly well known writer that was trying to tell me that you can't measure film scanner resolution using standard test targets. I'm not an optical engineer so I really can't say if that statement is correct.

[erl]

I think this scanning skill will always be at least partly a 'black art.' I have just ordered an Epson V700 scanner to add to my stable. It comes with Silverfast, so I can try my hand at that as well. The reason I need the V700 is that I have in excess of 200,000 films on file and I need an electronic version of contact sheets. I will scan direct through the neg bags, as I did in the darkroom. That way I can 'cherry pick' my best images for individual scanning. Yes, I know, a 'rest of life' project!