dgc Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share #21 Posted February 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Was that scanned with the Plustek !? Now I have to google D23 ... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Hi dgc, Take a look here DSLR v Plustek: Compare and contrast. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_livsey Posted February 6, 2014 Share #22 Posted February 6, 2014 This one is Divided/Modified D23 a two bath variant see: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.htmlI Film was Acros 100, and to answer the question all scans on the Plustek 8100 with Silverfast as bundled no other post processing used. I'm afraid D23 is another not commercially available formula but they are really easy to find and mix. (Except the Metaborate (Kodalk) which is becoming hard to source but in extremis can be home made.) 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted February 6, 2014 The foliage in the foreground in your first image is very sharp. I would like to see what a drum scanner can offer in terms of bettering the quality. Whether any difference can be noticeable on flickr/ here when posting images, I do not know. As Pete says the Plustek is the 'bargain of the 35mm world'. The link gave me an error message. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 6, 2014 Share #24 Posted February 6, 2014 Divided D-23 developer Interestingly that was taken on a Barnack IIIc converted to IIIf with a LTM Canon lens 35mm f2. The old stuff still works! Try that link don't no why the other fails I will check this when posted. Edit, that works, a good site to look around. I have never sent off for a drum scan, perhaps I should, then again I may be spoilt. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted February 7, 2014 Share #25 Posted February 7, 2014 Interesting stuff... I use my D800 for quick evaluations of negatives, hardly scan anymore because darkroom based prints leaves either in the dust. I could see Nikon coming out with some cool "scanning" attachment and software for a camera like the D800 or higher res because it is starting to get close to what my 9000ED can do already. But scanning black and white for output, man, it is soooo different compared to a darkroom print I can't believe it sometimes... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share #26 Posted February 7, 2014 Interesting stuff...But scanning black and white for output, man, it is soooo different compared to a darkroom print I can't believe it sometimes... In a good, bad or different way ? I think software such as SEfex provide an acceptable image and allow something different, which may not have always been possible or at least very time consuming in the darkroon. But, yes, I agree I do not think you can beat a darkroom print. I looked for several attachments for the Canon but could not find any that I considered a reasonable price - even on ebay. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted February 7, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Basically, scanning or DSLR scanning takes some of the tonal relationships and makes them look, well...odd, less natural, more expanded or more compressed or flat out gets rid of some of them. It's one thing if that is what you are after but it's another if you want to start from a neutral position upon initial inspection and then create something more personal. So when I want to show a black and white image on the web which is rare, I take a photo of the final print, after all, that is the photograph. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluknght Posted December 23, 2015 Share #28 Posted December 23, 2015 Thanks for creating this topic. I'm going to pick up my M6 again and start a Roll A Week project and develop/scan my own photos in 2016. I did a similar project in 2011, but had the lab do the processing and scanning. I recently took pictures of the negatives with a Canon G9 in macro mode for a quick and dirty compare to their scans and noticed a big difference. Their scans left out a lot and blew out the highlights. Now, I am considering rescanning the 2011 rolls too. I am debating a Plustek 8100 or purchasing a macro lens for my D610. DGC, Are you using the Plustek exclusively now? If not, do you find the macro lens option cumbersome? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulJohn Posted January 2, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 2, 2016 I bought an Epson V550 with the intention of buying a Plustek for use on the frames worthy of better quality. I have been so pleased with the V550 quality that I never bothered buying the Plustek. The speed is pretty impressive and it scans 12 negs in one pass. The only bane is the flimsy neg holder that is a fiddle to use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share #30 Posted January 21, 2016 bluknght, sorry for the delay, I have been away from the forum for a while. I use the plustek 8100 for 35mm and the epson v700 for medium format. I long ago gave up using the DSLR/ macro lens method. The plustek was about £80 and for ease of use was worth, especially for portability. All my images on flickr have used either the Plustek or Epson. PaulJohn I was considering the Plustek120 for medium format but felt I had invested enough money for what I do and the detail I wish to extract during the scanning process. I tend to print images I like, scanning is purely for uploading to my computer and sharing. David 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcellosaurus Posted May 29, 2020 Share #31 Posted May 29, 2020 I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned that DSLR’s create .RAW files, whereas any scanner will create .TIF files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 29, 2020 Share #32 Posted May 29, 2020 No matter, TIFF files can be regarded as raw files as they ar (normally) lossless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 30, 2020 Share #33 Posted May 30, 2020 I think the problem with the Plustek machines is quality control, as a sharp image is wholly dependent upon an accurate film to scanning lens/sensor register. Unlike better quality film scanners of old, from Nikon, Canon, Artix and Hasselblad-Imacon (the latter still available at vast cost), there is no auto or manual focus on the Plustek. You might be lucky and get a really good Plustek or you might get one like mine, where the output is hopelessly soft, whatever software I use, Silverfast, Vuescan, Photoshop or EpsonScan. I much prefer using my SL601 either on a Leitz BEEON for cut film, using a Schneider-Kreuznach Componon S 50mm/f2.8 Green Stripe reprographics lens or for mounted slides, I use a Leica 16880/BR-2 R mount bellows (with an R to L adapter), a Novoflex Noflexar 60mm/f2,8 reprographics lens and a Novoflex Castel-Cop-Digi slide holder, which can cope with slide sizes from 35mm up to 1/4 plate glass slides, of which I have quite a lot. My son-ln-law's father is a professional art and architecture photographer in the USA https://bakerartist.org/portfolios/robert-creamer. He does a lot of his imaging using an A3 flat bed Epson scanner model 10000XL, which can focus automatically or manually and the aperture of the scanning lens can also be altered to change DOF. He has a supply of these obsolete scanners tucked away but is finding it increasingly difficult to source them in good working order. The modern version of the A3 flat bed scanner has no changeable focus or aperture. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted May 31, 2020 Share #34 Posted May 31, 2020 On 5/30/2020 at 2:34 AM, Marcellosaurus said: I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned that DSLR’s create .RAW files, whereas any scanner will create .TIF files. some scanners also output a Raw DNG negative image, with zero corrections, on plustek that option scans very fast Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom R Posted June 1, 2020 Share #35 Posted June 1, 2020 Re: D23. As I recall, sodium sulphate (anhydrous) 100g, and about 2g of Metol (it's been quite a while). I suspect that this was more effective with larger format negatives, but I have used it in the past with the now discontinued Plus X in the 135 format with pleasing results. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted June 14, 2020 Share #36 Posted June 14, 2020 Vuescan can save the scans as DNG files. But it makes no visible difference at all in terms of the final result if the scan is saved as TIFF or DNG. Even the 3F files of my Flextight are effectively just normal uncompressed TIFF files. Change the file type to .tif and they open and behave just as TIFFs do, jam-packed with image information. On 5/29/2020 at 7:34 PM, Marcellosaurus said: I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned that DSLR’s create .RAW files, whereas any scanner will create .TIF files. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.