honcho Posted November 30, 2012 Share #21 Posted November 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) But all of this is going to depend on the user's own needs and expectations. For the OP's needs and desires, the Epson will be fine. Again, there's no 'one size fits all' sort of thing. And just about anything will look pretty good viewed on a monitor screen (or printed small.) The real proof will be in large prints. Agreed. Since the OP has gone on to make his requirements clear, a V700 would probably suit his needs, as would a lower-end dedicated film scanner, but assertions (made earlier above by a V700 owner with an obvious brittle disposition) that scans from a flatbed can compare with those from a reasonable quality dedicated film scanner outside of web display is nonsense, especially with 35mm originals. The test I linked to is quite revealing of the resolution capabilities of consumer flat bed scanners in general. Many manufacturers make claims of up to 4000ppi and Dmax performance that should be taken with a pinch of salt (Epson included). This is wildly misleading hype, imo, and the proof is in the printing. My point, and I stand by it, is that if a film archive has any value then I would not want to leave the digitisation of it to a flatbed scanner. When all is said and done, scanning is a time-consuming chore (I've been doing it since Dainippon, Hell and Crosfield took the reprographics industry apart in the late 70's/early 80's). I would not wish to invest a significant effort into creating a flawed digital archive for the sake of convenience. I accept this not what the OP is really interested in His requirements and mine are clearly poles apart. Equally, I hope 250swb, despite his bitter disappointment, can pick up the pieces of his life and move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Hi honcho, Take a look here Film Scanners V Flatbed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted November 30, 2012 Share #22 Posted November 30, 2012 We should all be using drum scanners of course, they're much better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 30, 2012 Share #23 Posted November 30, 2012 That article clearly explains what are also my issues with the Epson consumer flatbeds. It hardly makes things clear. It is written by reading the manual, and crunching some numbers. Nothing else. Pretty much like describing a Leica M3 as a metal container for moving 35mm film from left to right, and then back again. What is inexcusable about it is the lack of regard for making the best scans possible from the V700, and even somebody with an Imacon would need to know how to use it in its 'best' mode. So not mentioning that simple adjustments need to be made to the height of the film holders to optimise the focus invalidates any comments regarding image quality. It appears they didn't even know. Further improvements can be made in using the BetterScanning film holders which make even finer adjustments possible. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 30, 2012 Share #24 Posted November 30, 2012 Equally, I hope 250swb, despite his bitter disappointment, can pick up the pieces of his life and move on. The world is not a perfect fit, It's not always bright and sunny Disagreement in discourse a part of it But if shit wur wit you'd be funny. 'On getting a fine for a library book' - Philip Larkin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 30, 2012 Share #25 Posted November 30, 2012 My point, and I stand by it, is that if a film archive has any value then I would not want to leave the digitisation of it to a flatbed scanner. As an aside, some of the best 6x6 transparency scans I have ever seen were scanned in the late 1990s on a Scitex flatbed scanner. Scanned by repro people who really knew what they were doing (people who have probably lost their jobs in the intervening years). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 30, 2012 Share #26 Posted November 30, 2012 As an aside, some of the best 6x6 transparency scans I have ever seen were scanned in the late 1990s on a Scitex flatbed scanner. Scanned by repro people who really knew what they were doing (people who have probably lost their jobs in the intervening years). Indeed, but the points I make concern consumer level flatbeds. Apologies if that was not obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 30, 2012 Share #27 Posted November 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Indeed, but the points I make concern consumer level flatbeds. Apologies if that was not obvious. It was to me but it wouldn't have been obvious to everybody reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted November 30, 2012 Share #28 Posted November 30, 2012 ...... Scanned by repro people who really knew what they were doing (people who have probably lost their jobs in the intervening years). Scitex were quite a revolutionary company during that period. The last Repro house I worked at before turning to full time professional photography (I wasn't going to become a victim of progress!) had their entire workflow based on Scitex. Sad to see an entire layer of highly skilled people stripped away and their jobs given to college kids and graphic designers in some ways, but that is a form of progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted November 30, 2012 Share #29 Posted November 30, 2012 ...Further improvements can be made in using the BetterScanning film holders which make even finer adjustments possible. Those adjustable height film holders appear to be only for medium format film. The only thing they sell for 35mm are anti newton glass inserts. However, THIS LINK from the betterscanning site (the photo on the left), although not my photography, shows exactly the type of results that I'm getting that with razor sharp negatives using the scanner that I have, a consumer Epson flatbed, the V500. The files look as though they need to be grain focussed. I haven't tried to shim my holder, but may give that a try. It seems like it would be a pain in the backside to maintain on a consistent basis, the shimming. I still have a Nikon LS2000 on it's own dedicated, semi-retired, PC for scanning 35mm. That flatbed really shouldn't be used for anything other than printed documents, and my all in one fax/copier/printer already does that better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 30, 2012 Share #30 Posted November 30, 2012 I still have a Nikon LS2000 on it's own dedicated, semi-retired, PC for scanning 35mm. That flatbed really shouldn't be used for anything other than printed documents, and my all in one fax/copier/printer already does that better. Let us not forget I never did recommend a flatbed scanner for 35mm, so a dedicated film scanner is the way to go. For improvements in larger formats than 35mm I'm not familiar with the V500, so can't say how much difference getting the image into focus makes compared to any intrinsic softness of the scanner. But comparing same image scans from the V700 and my Minolta Multi Pro with a 6x6 B&W negative I prefer the Epson V700. The Minolta while being incredibly sharp did have a tendency to scan a layer of grain rather than the depth of grain, if you see what I mean. The result is an image where the grain is pin sharp, but the subject is swamped by it. As we know, grain in film has different characteristics, large, small, soft, hard, and these differences are not brought out with the Multi Pro but are brought out the V700 scans, even though pixel peeping grain sharpness isn't as good. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 30, 2012 Share #31 Posted November 30, 2012 It hardly makes things clear. It is written by reading the manual, and crunching some numbers. Nothing else. Pretty much like describing a Leica M3 as a metal container for moving 35mm film from left to right, and then back again. What is inexcusable about it is the lack of regard for making the best scans possible from the V700, and even somebody with an Imacon would need to know how to use it in its 'best' mode. So not mentioning that simple adjustments need to be made to the height of the film holders to optimise the focus invalidates any comments regarding image quality. It appears they didn't even know. Further improvements can be made in using the BetterScanning film holders which make even finer adjustments possible. Steve Just for the record, what I said was that the article clearly explains my issues are with the Epson flatbeds. "That article clearly explains what are also my issues with the Epson consumer flatbeds." And those issues are Dmax and the actual resolution (not the manufacturer's advertised resolution.) Those may not be your issues, but they are my issues. Proper focusing (film holder height) and film flatness can be dealt with, but that's another issue in itself (and an unfortunate weakness of most consumer scanners.) But the Dmax and the actual resolution (plus the lens quality) is very real. Huge files with no usable information is a waste of space and time, imho. The actual resolution is just not good enough when it comes to the small area from a 35mm piece of film for printing. Web use and very small prints are fine depending on subject matter (e.g., detailed shadow area can get easily lost with an Epson flatbed.) It's not about workflow or getting the best out of the scanner. It's about actual hardware limitations. People argue over and over again which Leica lens is best, etc.. It's all the same sort of thing. People just need to pick their poison and use what works for them. The Epson doesn't work for me for my purposes. And clearly there's no reason to be drum scanning unless the requirement is there. Again, we just need to use the tools that work given our own situations. btw, Cachet made (not sure if they still offer it) a reasonable wet mount system for the Coolscan 9000 that works pretty well (using the same mylar, tape, and fluid used in drum scanning.) It resolved the issue of film flatness with thin 120 roll film, especially in 6x7 and 6x9 frame sizes. And of course the Epson V750 does have wet mount capabilities which does help with 35 and especially with 120. 4x5 with its thicker base tends to be less of an issue. In an ideal world we'd all have an Aztek Premier drum scanner and an Océ Lightjet printer in our personal photo lab in the east wing of our estate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 1, 2012 Share #32 Posted December 1, 2012 In an ideal world we'd all have an Aztek Premier drum scanner and an Océ Lightjet printer in our personal photo lab in the east wing of our estate. I'd be up for that. And I agree with you that people need to pick their poison, and use whatever works best for them, but best can involve more considerations than resolution and Dmax. For instance actively using film and a scanner and you can tailor your film processing to scan well, even on a scanner with low Dmax. You can use a lower speed film to gain back some of the qualities lost with a lower resolution scanner. It is a more sophisticated discussion than simply promoting biggest is best. If outright resolution was so important nobody would be scanning 35mm film anyway (other than an archive), so at least there is some compromise implied. But even the digital camera community can generally come to the conclusion that it is horses for courses when it comes to a lower resolution camera being more useful under the circumstances than a higher resolution camera. And this is all this scanner business is, like buying a camera that loses a stop of ISO and has a less good lens for the other things it can do, and allow you to do. You will always get somebody coming along to a discussion about a P&S and pointing out that the pictures can't possibly be as good than those from this D800, but the naughty analogy is true, its not what you've got, its how you use it that counts. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted December 1, 2012 Share #33 Posted December 1, 2012 How much is "a lot" of negatives? And what do you intend to use the scans for? You have a third option as well - digitizing using a DSLR. It can be set up to work very fast, but the main drawback is the lack of Digital ICE for dust/scratch removal. Then again, depending on how you'll use the files this may not be an issue, for instance if you just want to create digital backups. Cheers Fully concur on DSLR or forthcoming M(240). Time to stock up on macro bellows & slide copiers. As a small demo an old slide digitised with D700 + PB6 (bellows) + Micro Nikkor 55mm f.2.8 AiS + PS6 (slide copier). 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! http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8479/8234101469_32f2a7b76a_c.jpg' alt='8234101469_32f2a7b76a_c.jpg'> Rachael, circa 2000 by mmradman, on Flickr[/img] Prints beautifully 10x8. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8479/8234101469_32f2a7b76a_c.jpg' alt='8234101469_32f2a7b76a_c.jpg'> Rachael, circa 2000 by mmradman, on Flickr[/img] Prints beautifully 10x8. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/193043-film-scanners-v-flatbed/?do=findComment&comment=2179268'>More sharing options...
sblitz Posted December 1, 2012 Share #34 Posted December 1, 2012 Why do you all think digitizing is the way to archive when in fact the best archive is a negative or bw print. We have no idea how long disks can hold memory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted December 1, 2012 Share #35 Posted December 1, 2012 Fully concur on DSLR or forthcoming M(240).Time to stock up on macro bellows & slide copiers. What setup (lens, bellows etc) would one need to use the new M to digitize? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted December 2, 2012 Share #36 Posted December 2, 2012 What setup (lens, bellows etc) would one need to use the new M to digitize? Good question. For slide or negative scanning my setup is Nikon D700 with bellows PB-6 and slide copier PS-6, slide copier can work with either film strip or framed slide. Suitable lenses Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 AiS/Ai or f3.5 Ai/Pre Ai or 60mm f2.8 AFD. It is possible to get 1:1 magnification or higher. Mentioned lenses are good and cheap. Suitable diffused light source also - slide light box or light panel. To utilise SLR bellows setup with new M(240) all is needed is body adapter like Novoflex Nikon F to Leica M. Use liveview for framing and focusing. There are number of legacy SLR systems with bellows & slide copiers, also decent macro lenses and can be bought on the cheap for now. I also have Leica R bellows 16860 with Elmar 100mm but not aware of any matching slide copier. Not familiar with Visoflex designed bellows & accessories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted December 2, 2012 Share #37 Posted December 2, 2012 35 year old Trix 400 35mm neg developed at a time when my processing skills lacked finesse (agitation akin to using sink plunger to unblock a drain ) Scanned on a secondhand Epson 4990 claimed Dmax of 4.0 - scan processed using standard Epson software and PSCS4. The lighting was grim, a mix of tungsten and fluorescent light that softens and flattens the scene, exposure was a wide aperture and a slow shutter speed hand held. Over the years I have grown to like the prints I made using a diffuser enlarger and this dear machine does a fine job of replicating the look - a friend of mine who was a gallery curator (and a digital sceptic) was most impressed with a 10x8 toned print I made from a similar file using bog standard Epson Matt Heavyweight inkjet paper and printed on an Epson 285, 6 ink printer (it has very fine printing head droplets) This is my experience. Osscat This is a 72 dpi srgb facsimile. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/193043-film-scanners-v-flatbed/?do=findComment&comment=2179648'>More sharing options...
BenD Posted December 2, 2012 Share #38 Posted December 2, 2012 Why do you all think digitizing is the way to archive when in fact the best archive is a negative or bw print. We have no idea how long disks can hold memory. From experience I wouldn't count on any user-writable digital storage medium lasting longer than 10 years (or 5 years for writable CDs or DVDs, 3 years for SSDs). However, as long as your backup strategy is sound (multiple geographically-dispersed copies plus at least one online backup), and you transfer all your old data each time you upgrade your computer, you can keep digital archives indefinitely with no degradation. I have 25 years' worth of documents on my computer, and everything is as readable as the day it was written. (Emphasis on the backup strategy: data cannot be relied upon to exist unless it is stored on at least three devices in at least two separate locations.) I'd keep negatives for anything I wanted to outlive me, but for medium-term archival purposes the space-efficiency, searchability and ease of duplication digital provides is hard to beat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted December 2, 2012 Share #39 Posted December 2, 2012 . . . . I'd keep negatives for anything I wanted to outlive me, but for medium-term archival purposes the space-efficiency, searchability and ease of duplication digital provides is hard to beat. Ahh, but can you guarantee the negs will not deteriorate due to fungus, chemical breakdown (bad fix or exhausted chemicals) (contemporary issue) flooding, fire, spillage etc., etc., Some early colour film dyes fade too - we can't all ensure archival conditions for our negs unless we have the space and finance to store them adequately. The issue with digital storage is a worry I agree but with the affects of climate change being - as some claim - a massive decline in the human population over the next two centuries only the most egotistic among us will endeavour to secure our work for the sake of posterity. Osscat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.