Which scanner would you recommend?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stephen,

 

I think it is fairly simple - as in all things in life, you pretty much get what you pay for. I needed a new flat bed anyway and also wanted a scanner that could scan in old family 1/4 plate glass slides, so I went for an Epson V700. In the light of poor previous experience with flatbed scanners on slides (Canon 1250UF and Canon LIDE 600F), I am very pleasantly surprised by the adequacy of the results from the Epson. Like yours, all my slides are in mounts and the focus seems fine.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[SJP]

Wilson, many thanks for giving me the required paddle.

 

That does look interesting esp. resolution & color/B&W depth. Can you indicate how long it takes to scan a full bed of (16?) slides? Do you need any accessories or is it pretty much complete in box?

 

Anyway, it could also be useful to scan a whole collection of albums a.o. with pictures from China, Hong Kong, Singapore & Tasmania where Ellen's grandfather used to build harbors and similar civil engineering stuff. There are some unique pictures in that pile/set of albums. I assume it is fine for B&W scanning of pictures and slides as well.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson, many thanks for giving me the required paddle.

 

That does look interesting esp. resolution & color/B&W depth. Can you indicate how long it takes to scan a full bed of (16?) slides? Do you need any accessories or is it pretty much complete in box?

 

Anyway, it could also be useful to scan a whole collection of albums a.o. with pictures from China, Hong Kong, Singapore & Tasmania where Ellen's grandfather used to build harbors and similar civil engineering stuff. There are some unique pictures in that pile/set of albums. I assume it is fine for B&W scanning of pictures and slides as well.

 

Stephen,

 

it all comes complete in the box. You also get a cheapo version of Silverfast. Even the full price version IMHO is poor; the cheapo version is useless. Never mind, the standard Epson software works well. You can then tidy up in PS. Vuescan which I have is supposed to work well for batch scanning but I have never quite managed it (probably my fault). To do 16 slides including tidying up in PS would take me about 30-45 minutes. The only issue I have had is the PSU which failed. Others have had this issue. Unplug the transformer when not in use is the recommendation.

 

Wilson

[SJP]

Wilson

 

Great! Is that about 15 minutes to scan and 15 to postprocess? Or phrased differently how much time does it take to scan a full bed and get a set of digital files for further tweaking?

 

Usually I process digital DNG images per set of similar light/exposure conditions. Not (initially) on a file-by-file basis, so I guess that could be quite fast once the settings are OK.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson

 

Great! Is that about 15 minutes to scan and 15 to postprocess? Or phrased differently how much time does it take to scan a full bed and get a set of digital files for further tweaking?

 

Usually I process digital DNG images per set of similar light/exposure conditions. Not (initially) on a file-by-file basis, so I guess that could be quite fast once the settings are OK.

 

Stephen,

 

Wholly depends how many passes you do. I normally do 2 passes, which takes around 10 minutes to scan 16 from memory. Then a few minutes to sort out the files and around 20 to 25 minutes to tidy up.

 

Wilson

[chrism]

The Coolscan9000 gives results - when properly operated - that are just a hair off what you can get from a Flextight.

 

Agreed. Both are way ahead of the K-M 5400, which really brings out grain, probably because of the lightsource used. With MacOS 10.7 I have to use Vuescan for the Nikon and the K-M, and it is more awkward to do batch scans with Vuescan rather than their own software, and this means that neither of them is faster in use than using FlexColor with the Flextight. So this means that I generally go straight to the Flextight. I haven't got a Plustek, but I do have a couple of low-end Pacific Image scanners, which do perfectly well for web images.

 

Chris

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson

 

Great! Is that about 15 minutes to scan and 15 to postprocess? Or phrased differently how much time does it take to scan a full bed and get a set of digital files for further tweaking?

 

.

 

First thing, an Epson V700 is going to be the most versatile scanner for your needs. As regards the scan time you have a dilema. Most people would scan a film as a digital contact sheet of lower resolution images and then choose the ones they want to make full resolution scans from. For a web image even the low resolution scans from your 'contact sheet' will be OK and doing a whole film only takes a couple of minutes when you are in the groove.

 

But as soon as you want really good quality scans worthy of post processing the speed drops considerably. Even for B&W about fives minutes per actual scan (not including loading the film, dusting it off etc) and a 75mb file (saved as a TIFF) is normal. A colour image may be a considerably bigger file and if you need scratch and dust removal (use carefully) the scan times increase considerably. That is why people do contact sheets. But if you know you want every single image scanned to high resolution that is your only path. Scanning at lower resolution does speed things up, but there is a crossover point, ask yourself is it worth it, because you don't want to scan all those slides all over again in the future. So my advice would be to cherry pick the full res scans to do from a contact sheet, not plan to do all of them.

 

So the Epson is good for your prints and definitely good for digital contact sheets. And while the 35mm quality is OK, if you really want the best quality a dedicated film scanner does significantly better imo. A Plustek scanner would give you superb scans and I would buy both scanners, the Epson for the hard work of cataloging, the Plustek for the final top quality film scans. Or at least hold off on the Plustek until you have fully tested to see if the high res scans are going to be good enough from the Epson.

 

But whatever you do, don't embark straight away into scanning all those items until you are fully up to speed with scanning and its pitfalls. There is nothing worse than getting to the end of a long job and somebody chimes in with 'it would have been better and easier if.......'. It is a big learning curve despite seemingly simple software.

 

Steve

[SJP]

Steve, many thanks for your detailed comments,

[philipus]

As regards the scan time you have a dilema.

 

Steve has described it very well - it is a dilemma.

 

I've found Vuescan's "Print" quality setting to be sufficient both for "contact sheet" and for most of my post-processing needs. I say "contact sheet" because I have a Coolscan V and what I mean is that with the Print setting I get good-enough (actually really good) scans quickly with smallish files that handle fast on my computer.

 

The Print setting means the scanner goes through a roll of 36 colour negs in about 40 minutes (+/-). Slides take a bit longer because it is not possible to lock exposure (afaik) so it makes a preview before the scan. B/w is significantly faster, usually <30mins.

 

While a 6-strip is being scanned I can post-process the previous strip, which for me means developing negs/touching up slides in Color Perfect, or doing rudimentary levels adjustments on b/w images.

 

I have thought of getting a flat bed to simplify the contact sheet creation but I find the above is quick enough and good enough for my needs.

 

Whenever I want more detail I do a full 4000dpi scan, naturally.

[CalArts 99]

Just another suggestion, but if you're proofing fresh processed film (not an existing collection of processed film) and you do the processing at a lab (C41) then just have the lab do low res scans for you as your contact sheet. You can compile a .pdf file of all the images as a proof sheet of each roll if you want. It's not much extra cost at the time of processing (and a lot cheaper than analog contacts sheets from the old days.) This will save a lot of time and also wear and tear on your film scanner (most of them are no longer being produced or serviced.) The low res scans are usually very good (and perfect for cataloging.)

 

If you process your own B+W film, you could make an analog contact sheet and then scan that on a cheap flatbed. When I lived in rural Mexico I used to proof a sheet of B+W negatives in a closet on an ironing board with a small light bulb. I had another red bulb as a safety light and processed the RC paper in small plastic trays using water from a jug. Later I would scan the sheets into the computer using a really cheap and very small flatbed. It made for a good cataloging system of my B+W negatives that I had processed using the kitchen sink.

[AlanG]

The quickest way to go from film to digital is to use a digital camera to copy the film - just as we used to copy slides. You can shoot a raw image of each frame very quickly and then gang process the similar images to either small or large tif or jpeg files. This is much quicker than pre-scanning - adjusting - then scanning each image as once you shoot all of the images the raw conversion processing can occur after you have adjusted the files. You can rapidly build a large digital archive this way and later adjust and work on the important images.

 

The methodolgy can be anything from a dedicated copying system such as a Bowens Illumitron, laying the film on a light box and using a macro lens, or various inexpensive slide/film strip copying attachments that are available. I bet there are all kinds of slide duplicators sitting around ready to be purchased for small amounts.

 

If there is anything really special and your digital camera copy method is not high enough quality, you may need to use a good film scanner for those frames.

 

When I scan 120 film I am lucky to do 10 images or so per hour with color adjustment, cleanup etc. In my experience, with 35mm slides, I get a tiny bit more detail using my Polaroid Sprintscan 120T film scanner at 4000 dpi then I get using a 5DII with an Illumitron and Schneider slide copy lens. But I haven't done many scientific comparisons. Of course for larger film, the scanner will have higher resolution.

 

Peter Krogh writes about it in his DAM book and it seems he gets comparable detail using a 1DsIII as with a Coolscan 8000. He's an acquaintance of mine and I think when I last spoke to him about my results he said he was using a Nikon macro lens so I might try it again with one to see if it works better than the Schneider.

 

http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

[philipus]

I get a tiny bit more detail using my Polaroid Sprintscan 120T film scanner at 4000 dpi then I get using a 5DII with an Illumitron and Schneider slide copy lens. But I haven't done many scientific comparisons.

 

I came to the opposite conclusion using my 5D2 and 100L macro and compared with 4000dpi scans of my Coolscan V (posted about in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/210808-printing-advice-please-2.html#post1901022)

 

I find the dust clean-up the worst of the digitizing process, though. Using Vuescan set to Print quality a full roll takes me between 30mins (b/w)-60mins(colour/slide), including rudimentary post-processing, which is why I haven't looked further into digitizing.

 

Edit: Thanks for posting that pdf, Alan. Interesting read. I notice that they consider colour correction of negative film. Since I began using the ColorPerfect plugin with Photoshop I have not had any problems. It's a real breeze (and works with slides too).

[SJP]

So now I am the happy(ish) owner of a Epson V700. I got the various software & drivers installed & am now tinkering with all the various bells & whistles.

 

OCR text scanning at least now works after a few initial failures. Any tips on slide scan workflow? Is that what the Silverfast software is for? The bundle also has Photoshop Elements...... mmmm, now what to do with that?

 

High time to read some manuals.

[250swb]

 

High time to read some manuals.

 

And how.

 

I know you will want to try for a full res scan, so from 35mm set the scanner to 3200 dpi, press the button and wait. Key tips are, turn off any sharpening in the scanner for your full res scan (do it in Photoshop etc), and don't aim for a final image, aim for a fairly flat tone scan that simply has all the tones from shadow detail to highlight detail included. Then use Photoshop to re-adjust these tones to whatever you want. Remember, if it is isn't recorded in the scan it can never be added later.

 

Steve

[Tina Manley]

A Nikon LS5000 with Silverfast software can't be beat. I've scanned almost 50,000 with 500,000 or more to go. If I'm going to scan all of these, I only want to do it one time. Silverfast lets you do two scans - one for shadows and one for highlights - and renders them as one raw file to get all of the information possible out of the scan. A dedicated film scanner will give you much better results than a flatbed and Silverfast will give you the most information from your slide or negative. The Kodachrome target slide from Silverfast is outstanding if you have KC slides to scan.

 

Tina

[wlaidlaw]

So now I am the happy(ish) owner of a Epson V700. I got the various software & drivers installed & am now tinkering with all the various bells & whistles.

 

OCR text scanning at least now works after a few initial failures. Any tips on slide scan workflow? Is that what the Silverfast software is for? The bundle also has Photoshop Elements...... mmmm, now what to do with that?

 

High time to read some manuals.

 

IMHO, the Silverfast software CD makes a good coaster for your coffee cup but little else. The Epson software works well on its own for slide scanning along with PS for a final tidy up. The supplied Epson photo file management software also is a bit clunky - maybe written in the mid 1990's and not updated since.

 

Wilson

[SJP]

Thanks for all the comments. One thing I do not understand is that if I put a transparency/slide in the scanner according to the instruction on the slide holder I end up with the emulsion side facing the lamp. Naively or otherwise I was expecting the right method would be to have the emulsion on the scan head side, thereby avoiding to have to scan through the film base.

[erl]

Whichever way you you put the transparency in, you MUST scan through the base. It is not scanned reflectively, but transmissively.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Whichever way you you put the transparency in, you MUST scan through the base. It is not scanned reflectively, but transmissively.

 

The light has to go through the base but the lens should face the emulsion.

[erl]

The light has to go through the base but the lens should face the emulsion.

 

Alan, I was primarily addressing the query by SJP, who seemed to think he could 'avoid' scanning through the film base.

 

Facing the emulsion to the lens is how I would normally do it of course, but theoretically thinking, what is the real difference, ignoring the 'reversal of image' aspect? Are you thinking of possible lamp reflection from the base, or refraction through the base?