Which scanner would you recommend?

[lphong]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm, managed to try a 7400.. the result is a little but strange actually. The colour and brightness seem to be quite different from the real thing. It's a Kodachrome taken in June 2010.

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!

[250swb]

You do need to make sure all the settings are correct for your slide or negative, and depending on the software used it is either easier or harder. But scans rarely come out 'finished' just by setting things on 'Auto'. For a really good scan you should ideally aim for a relatively flat image that can be adjusted to 'finished' in Photoshop or Lightroom. That way all the tones possible will be present without any clipping.

 

Steve

[honcho]

Hmmm, managed to try a 7400.. the result is a little but strange actually. The colour and brightness seem to be quite different from the real thing. It's a Kodachrome taken in June 2010.

 

The frame you have chosen isn't an ideal starting point, there are serious contrast issues with the original that are beyond the dynamic range and resolving capability of entry level scanners such as Plusteks and flatbeds (most of those, such as Epsons, are really only useful for creating quick contact sheets if scanning from 35 mm originals). Choose an original that is going to give you a better chance of a useable scan, ie flat tones with normal contrast and experiment with your settings as a starting point.

One step at a time.......

[roguewave]

I have used several of the scanners discussed here. All have their + & - . One thing to think about is how much control you want to have over the final image. I always make a first scan with an eye to getting every detail I can & then to selectively build the image in Photoshop. The Nikon is a very strong "quick & dirty" scanner, as it has very high contrast & sharpness, but blows way too much of the subtle graduations that I find important.

 

The Epson V700 is my preferred scanner with 35mm & medium formats. With VueScan, I can control very element of the scan to secure the details and then be free to construct the image I imagine, in my mind's eye. With my Hasselblads, both 6x6 & 6x4.5 formats allow one to dig deep into the details & to process them with complete control. I often make several scans at various levels of contrast & then use each in a series of layers to get what I imagine.

 

The quick & efficient way is not always the best the road to follow. Try experimenting with a few of your negs & you may discover that there's a lot more in the emulsion than you might expect.

[erl]

Ben, that's an interesting observation. I have two Nikon scanners (5000 & 8000) and the V700, which I bought recently, simply to make contact sheets of my Blad negs and Leica negs.

 

I have never used the V700 for 'proper' film scanning, simply because it is a flatbed! Your comments have alerted me that I may be missing something. So far, I have been very happy with the Nikons, using VueScan. At the end of the month (busy at present) I will experiment to see if I can find what you say about the V700.

[plasticman]

The Nikon is a very strong "quick & dirty" scanner, as it has very high contrast & sharpness, but blows way too much of the subtle graduations that I find important.

 

I find this extremely difficult to understand.

 

When I make a 48bit linear raw scan of a negative, and ensure both that there is absolutely no clipping at either end of the image scale and also that every aspect of software post-processing is disabled in software (by which I mean, even any noise-reduction algorithms or 'corrections' that Vuescan or Silverfast might think the user might want to apply), then the resultant file is so rich in color and detail that it often takes my breath away (even if my composition or chosen subject matter might not have the same effect). I can see information in the darkest areas, and even the brightest spots contain nuance and are never blown out.

 

There's also an enormous number of online reviews and tests of the Nikon scanners over the years, where the results rival the very best scanners available.

 

I know it's in the nature of the internet that people simply wave away volumes of hard evidence because 'their own experience' outweighs what everyone else has documented to be the case, but right now I can't swallow this 'quick-and-dirty' designation for a scanner that in my experience, gives results that can outshine even pro lab scans.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Nikon is a very strong "quick & dirty" scanner, as it has very high contrast & sharpness, but blows way too much of the subtle graduations that I find important.

 

That's sounds odd to me and contrary to the majority of users of Nikon Coolscan CCD film scanners. You might want to re-visit your technique using your software, particularly if you feel it has "very high contrast" and "blows away too much of the subtle graduations."

 

As plasticman points out, try turning off noise reduction, etc. and scan flat (more like 10 and 240, e.g.)

 

My experience is the exact opposite with the Epson V750 and the Coolscan 9000. The flatbed is okay for 4x5 and contact sheets, but the Coolscan produces better quality with 35mm and 2 1/4" x X film sizes.

[wlaidlaw]

Another vote for the Epson V700. Only issue is the power supply which is unreliable. You should unplug it when not in use. My PSU died and Epson had run out of replacements, which says something. I had to wait 2 weeks for a new one. The Epson lady was the one who recommended unplugging it!

 

I have thought of a Plustek as well but until the Mac/Lion/64 bit/Vuescan issue is fullysorted, I am not going down that route.

 

Wilson

[lphong]

Thanks everybody for the comments!!! I should find a few more with the suitable software to try before making the final decision.

[Fgcm]

Sounds like it's either a Plustek 7400/7600 or V500 for me. The only worry for the Plustek is that I am a mac user and a fellow user has mentioned that it potentially has a problem.

 

Does anybody have the same problem as the one encountered by fgcm?

 

Dear lphong, it seems to be a problem of my OS, not a problem of the scanner.

 

I'm probing my Mac

 

As soon as I understand the problem I post how to fix it.

 

Fgcm

[lphong]

Cheers!

[cfx]

I have the Plustek 7400 since two days.

 

For 35mm black and white I think the machine is ok.

Far away from 7200 dpi, but with 3600 dpi I get some nice 20x30 inkjet prints.

Sure, never compare the files in 100% with a M8/M9, but photography is in my opinion on paper, not on displays.

 

I also was interested in the Epson V500.

For 35mm I think the 7400 is better, if you need 6x6 or lager too I would go for a Epson 500/700.

 

 

btw: I use the 7400 on a MBP mid 2010 with snow leo. Works fine. No real problems with Silverfast 8, sometime it is a little bit buggy. Vuescan I tried too. Don't know which one is better at the moment.

 

 

One of my first scans:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/7000472057_701c1d96d2_b.jpg

 

 

regards

chris

[roguewave]

"plasticman

 

I find this extremely difficult to understand.

 

When I make a 48bit linear raw scan of a negative, and ensure both that there is absolutely no clipping at either end of the image scale and also that every aspect of software post-processing is disabled in software (by which I mean, even any noise-reduction algorithms or 'corrections' that Vuescan or Silverfast might think the user might want to apply), then the resultant file is so rich in color and detail that it often takes my breath away (even if my composition or chosen subject matter might not have the same effect). I can see information in the darkest areas, and even the brightest spots contain nuance and are never blown out.

 

There's also an enormous number of online reviews and tests of the Nikon scanners over the years, where the results rival the very best scanners available.

 

I know it's in the nature of the internet that people simply wave away volumes of hard evidence because 'their own experience' outweighs what everyone else has documented to be the case, but right now I can't swallow this 'quick-and-dirty' designation for a scanner that in my experience, gives results that can outshine even pro lab scans.

 

 

CalArts 99

 

That's sounds odd to me and contrary to the majority of users of Nikon Coolscan CCD film scanners. You might want to re-visit your technique using your software, particularly if you feel it has "very high contrast" and "blows away too much of the subtle graduations."

 

As plasticman points out, try turning off noise reduction, etc. and scan flat (more like 10 and 240, e.g.)

 

My experience is the exact opposite with the Epson V750 and the Coolscan 9000. The flatbed is okay for 4x5 and contact sheets, but the Coolscan produces better quality with 35mm and 2 1/4" x X film sizes. "

 

I hope that I'm not being misunderstood. I'm not in any way disparaging of the other scanners. For me, it's matter of control & the ability to build the image the way I want it to be. Most people would consider the Nikon scans to be just fine. I have used them for certain clients, when they want a particular look. It's a matter of individual taste. My own experiments with other image makers led me down a different road.

 

I like to make most of the decisions, not the software. The Epson V700/750 is a very reliable tool, particularly when synched with VueScan. VueScan allows total control, so I can scan for the details & to construct the image I have in my imagination, not just the image as presented. Most people don't want to bother exploring many of the possibilities and potential revelations in the negatives. They already "know" what they like & they are hell bound to get there & get there quickly. That's fine & dandy. No problem man!

 

I find scanning film to be an exploration and a great teacher. There's all kinds of data in the scans. It gives me reasons to create new & different ways to present the ideas I have in my head and express my experience of the world around & inside me. Peace.

[CalArts 99]

I like to make most of the decisions, not the software. The Epson V700/750 is a very reliable tool, particularly when synched with VueScan. VueScan allows total control, so I can scan for the details & to construct the image I have in my imagination, not just the image as presented. Most people don't want to bother exploring many of the possibilities and potential revelations in the negatives. They already "know" what they like & they are hell bound to get there & get there quickly. That's fine & dandy. No problem man!

 

 

I guess I just don't understand why you'd say "The Nikon is a very strong "quick & dirty" scanner, as it has very high contrast & sharpness, but blows way too much of the subtle graduations that I find important."

 

How is does it specifically 'blows way too much of the subtle graduations.' Any scanner can do that if you want it to. The same software (Vuescan and SF) supports both scanners. Adjust contrast and turn down (or off) the sharpening from the mfg's default settings. Scan flat. Make multiple scans. Mask in post. Etc., etc.. You have the same "total control."

 

I kind of doubt anybody is "hell bound" to get a quick scan. And I doubt anybody scans for a finished product within the scanner software itself, but instead scans for a scan that has full potential for post processing (and for a specific output; i.e., printing, pre-press, web, etc..) A scanner is a digital capture device and you make an image like you would in your camera with the proper exposure, etc..

 

But I sincerely don't understand that particular statement about the Nikon Coolscan film scanners. How is it a "quick and dirty" scanner unless you decide to make a scan that's quick and dirty.

[plasticman]

I hope that I'm not being misunderstood. I'm not in any way disparaging of the other scanners. For me, it's matter of control & the ability to build the image the way I want it to be. Most people would consider the Nikon scans to be just fine. I have used them for certain clients, when they want a particular look. It's a matter of individual taste. My own experiments with other image makers led me down a different road.

 

I like to make most of the decisions, not the software. The Epson V700/750 is a very reliable tool, particularly when synched with VueScan. VueScan allows total control, so I can scan for the details & to construct the image I have in my imagination, not just the image as presented. Most people don't want to bother exploring many of the possibilities and potential revelations in the negatives. They already "know" what they like & they are hell bound to get there & get there quickly. That's fine & dandy. No problem man!

 

I find scanning film to be an exploration and a great teacher. There's all kinds of data in the scans. It gives me reasons to create new & different ways to present the ideas I have in my head and express my experience of the world around & inside me. Peace.

 

I'm sorry but this sort of typical internet 'answer' - with its backhanded comments shrouded in buddy-politeness, the subtly repeated implication that others don't aspire to your elevated standards of artistic expression ("Most people would consider the Nikon scans to be just fine." etc), and the general patronizing tone, all wrapped in a sugar-coating of deniability (I guess your answer to this will be something like: "Hey - I didn't mean any of that stuff. You should chill, man. It's just a scanner bla bla... Peace." There you go - I saved you time writing it, you can just quote that part) - all that sort of stuff that doesn't in any way address the actual *facts* or evidence, but just uses rhetorical tropes to set-up straw man arguments and misrepresent what's been said, I'll cut all of that out of the answer.

 

What we're left with, is apparently the fact that you think that adjusting the image with Vuescan (or Silverfast, for that matter) before capturing the final scan (all these alterations are destructive of the data in the image incidentally) gives you a better result than turning off all pre-scan manipulation. The problem is, you're wrong.

 

If you capture the full, flat, linear, unaltered, raw, 48 or even 64bit, negative data that the scanner is capable of capturing, and import the full-toned unmediated 16bit file into Photoshop instead, you will find the application gives far more control, and has far more sophisticated tools, than the destructive manipulations being permanently and irrevocably inflicted on your original image by messing around with the controls in Vuescan.

 

The Coolscan9000 gives results - when properly operated - that are just a hair off what you can get from a Flextight. The simple answer is this - you think it's 'quick-and-dirty' cuz you're not doing it right.

 

Oh - and btw - Peace.

[lphong]

Right a friend of mine who used to be a M7 user has now switched to M9, so he has a Nikon super coolscan 4000, he is always busy so it would be a bit too much for me to ask him to send me some samples... I couldn't try it in person as he lives ca 800km away :/

 

So... has anybody here got the above scanner and please be so kind to share? :D Thank you in advance!!

 

P.

[mafoofan]

I've been extremely happy with my 5000ED. Of course, I'm no expert, so I'll let you all be the judge.

 

The first image has been downsized from the 21mp original RAW and converted to JPEG. The film is Portra 400 and it was scanned with Vuescan. I scanned it linear, without adjustments (no color balancing, no sharpening, etc.), then processed the resulting RAW file in Lightroom. I manually adjusted white balance using the histogram and adjusted the RGB curve to optimize contrast while maintaining the maximum tonal range. Minor sharpening was applied. All in all, about 30 seconds worth of adjustments.

 

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!

 

100% crop:

 

[plasticman]

[ATTACH]306417[/ATTACH]

 

There's something wrong with that 100% crop I think. The pixellation shouldn't be there in the curved areas - in the curve of the eyelid or the slightly jagged look to the lashes, for instance. Furthermore, a full scale raw scan of a 35mm should be around 120 megabytes of information from the 5000ED, rather than 20megs (scanning 4000dpi and 48bit).

 

The file looks great for web size, but if you want to get the absolute best from the file, and not need to rescan for future printing, then I recommend scanning with the settings on this page:

 

Perfect Slide & Negative Scans | VueScan Professional | Scanning | ColorPerfect

 

In addition, I'd recommend that you set 'RAW output with...' to 'Scan' rather than 'Save'. This means that Vuescan does no post-processing of the file whatsoever. Otherwise, Vuescan will do some 'cleaning-up' and will rotate the image to match your preview. As I said above, even though Vuescan is an excellent piece of software, it's undesirable to allow it to do any manipulation of the scan, as all changes are destructive of the original data.

[erl]

...... snipped

it's undesirable to allow it to do any manipulation of the scan, as all changes are destructive of the original data.

 

Yes but .....

I sort of agree, but if you are clear in your head how you want the file to look, what's wrong with setting that up in VS instead of PS? This assumes you are not doing extensive manips in PS anyway. I have always done it the way you described, but recently, with files that only need levels and maybe colour bal, what is wrong with VS. Changing those values in PS also dumps the unwanted data. Of course, if you are archiving for future different changes, I agree with you totally.

 

I'm still investigating and learning, perpetually.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[plasticman]

I'm still investigating and learning, perpetually.

 

Me too, Erl - I'm not laying down any rules here, incidentally.

 

As I see it, now that hard disk storage is so cheap, there's no reason whatsoever for not capturing and storing the optimum possible scan, and then using a copy of that scan as a working file.

 

The analogy is shooting RAW or jpeg with digital cameras - a recent interesting series of articles on theOnlinePhotographer covered that subject. Naturally, the jpeg output from better cameras can be tailored to explore "the possibilities and potential revelations in the [image]" but in doing so, you limit your future potential to explore alternative interpretations of that image, or even see the full range of tones and values the negative actually contains.

 

By all means, experiment with different sorts of capture, if that's what you want to do (I'm extremely tired of the increasingly prescriptive nature of the advice being dished out on the forum recently), but what I object to is someone giving a factually wrong opinion, and dressing it up in artistically condescending claptrap. To avoid confusion, and misleading people who come here for help (as I do myself), then I'd rather we stick with objectively measurable facts.

 

Incidentally, Photoshop CS6 defaults to non-destructive editing - this even includes cropping - so reversible manipulation will be even easier in the future. It's also rebuilt as a native 64bit application, so much faster than the current version.